I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
GONZAGA LAW REVIEW<br />
[Vol. 44:3<br />
jo<strong>in</strong>t rules <strong>of</strong> the legislature require that amendments to exist<strong>in</strong>g law be set forth <strong>in</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fset format. If a bill-accidentally or deliberately-failed to use this format for<br />
amendatory changes, it is all but certa<strong>in</strong> that such an error would be discovered either<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g the pro<strong>of</strong><strong>in</strong>g process at the Code Reviser's Office or dur<strong>in</strong>g committee and<br />
floor scrut<strong>in</strong>y <strong>in</strong> both houses. 3 29 Due to the relatively few statutory strictures on the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiative draft<strong>in</strong>g, it is quite possible that an <strong>in</strong>itiative-aga<strong>in</strong>, accidentally<br />
or deliberately-could change exist<strong>in</strong>g law without clearly stat<strong>in</strong>g so. Although the<br />
statutory <strong>in</strong>itiative review process requires the sponsor to submit the <strong>in</strong>itiative for the<br />
Code Reviser's review, the statutes expressly declare that the sponsor may disregard<br />
the Code Reviser's recommendations, and they do not require that the f<strong>in</strong>al text filed<br />
be drafted us<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>of</strong>fset format. 330 Similarly, the statutes no not require that the<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiative text pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the petition use the <strong>of</strong>fset format. The statutory system<br />
merely requires that the text pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the Voters' Pamphlet use the <strong>of</strong>fset format, 331<br />
which means that at least <strong>in</strong> theory the text pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the Voters' Pamphlet could<br />
differ significantly from the text pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itiative petitions.<br />
Even though the ultimate outcome may promote the constitutional purposes <strong>of</strong><br />
avoid<strong>in</strong>g legislative and voter confusion and disclos<strong>in</strong>g legislation's effect on exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />
law, the difficulty with Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Citizens Action from a legislative drafter's<br />
perspective is that the court seemed unaware that it was overrul<strong>in</strong>g previously<br />
accepted, though unemployed, draft<strong>in</strong>g conventions and constitutionaliz<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
standard based on legislative convention.<br />
This new test demonstrates the difficulties with us<strong>in</strong>g the purposes <strong>of</strong> the<br />
constitution as a test unto themselves rather than as a basis for form<strong>in</strong>g a consistent,<br />
universal judicial test. Confus<strong>in</strong>gly, the court's op<strong>in</strong>ion seems to accept voter<br />
confusion as a constitutional standard unto itself, as seen <strong>in</strong> the court's simultaneous<br />
reliance on<br />
332<br />
and rejection <strong>of</strong> the Voters' Pamphlet. The text <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itiative was set<br />
the law.").<br />
329. Cf Talmadge, The Initiative Process, supra note 49, at 1019 (bills should receive public<br />
hear<strong>in</strong>gs and are publicly debated and amended carefully); Marlowe, supra note 47, at 1040-42<br />
(bicameral committee hear<strong>in</strong>g and amendment process promote perfection <strong>of</strong> bills through<br />
amendment process).<br />
330. Initiative sponsors must submit their proposal to the Code Reviser for review, but<br />
sponsors are not obligated to accept the Code Reviser's formatt<strong>in</strong>g recommendations. WASH. REV.<br />
CODE § 29A.72.020 (2008), The <strong>in</strong>itiative text circulated with the petition need only be a "full, true,<br />
and correct" copy <strong>of</strong> the document filed with the Secretary <strong>of</strong> State by the sponsor after the Code<br />
Reviser's review. WASH. REV. CODE §§ 29A.72.020, -.100 (2008). Theoretically, this latter document<br />
may be written on the back <strong>of</strong> a napk<strong>in</strong>. In other words, there is no statutory requirement that filed<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiatives or pr<strong>in</strong>ted petitions use the <strong>of</strong>fset format. For example, the text pr<strong>in</strong>ted with the petition<br />
might simply omit language stricken from the code, rather than show<strong>in</strong>g it enclosed <strong>in</strong> double<br />
parentheses with strikeout font as required by the <strong>of</strong>fset format and RCW 29A.32.080.<br />
331. WASH. REv. CODE § 29A.32.070 (10) (2008).<br />
332. Wash. Citizens Action <strong>of</strong> Wash. v. State, 171 P.3d 486, 492-93 (Wash. 2007) (many<br />
voters do not read Voters' Pamphlet); id. at 495-96 (text as pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Voters' Pamphlet misled voters).