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 />
courts reject their political will over perceived "technicalities." On the other hand,<br />
citizen drafters may seem <strong>in</strong>different to the constitution's procedural draft<strong>in</strong>g<br />
obligations 389 -- obligations that were imposed to protect the voters.<br />
A. Inspect<strong>in</strong>g the Spear. Pre-Ballot Review <strong>of</strong> lnitiatives<br />
A threshold question is whether an <strong>in</strong>itiative may appear on the ballot at all,<br />
because opponents <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiative measures may seek to block <strong>in</strong>itiatives from<br />
appear<strong>in</strong>g on the ballot. Two recent cases confirm that the grounds for pre-election<br />
review <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives are very narrow. 390 In general, courts refra<strong>in</strong> from <strong>in</strong>quir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to<br />
the validity <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>itiative qua statute before the <strong>in</strong>itiative has been enacted. 39 '<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the preem<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>of</strong> the citizens' constitutional right to the <strong>in</strong>itiative<br />
process, courts decl<strong>in</strong>e to enterta<strong>in</strong> pre-election substantive constitutional<br />
challenges. 392<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the grounds for pre-election review was at issue <strong>in</strong> Philadelphia 11 v.<br />
Gregoire, <strong>in</strong> which the court permitted a pre-election challenge to an <strong>in</strong>itiative based<br />
on the <strong>in</strong>itiative's subject matter. 393 If an <strong>in</strong>itiative is not legislative <strong>in</strong> nature, or if it is<br />
outside the scope <strong>of</strong> the state's law-mak<strong>in</strong>g power, then a court may block the<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiative from appear<strong>in</strong>g on the ballot. Coppernoll v. Reed and Futurewise v. Reed<br />
<strong>in</strong>volve challenges to <strong>in</strong>itiatives under this pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. 394 In each case, the court<br />
decl<strong>in</strong>ed to hold that the <strong>in</strong>itiatives' subject matters were improper, reason<strong>in</strong>g that the<br />
challenges related to the <strong>in</strong>itiatives' substantive constitutionality rather than their<br />
subjects.<br />
Denny, supra note 47; Marlowe, supra note 47.<br />
389. For example, the sponsor <strong>of</strong> Initiative 960 <strong>in</strong>cluded changes to statutory law that were<br />
not <strong>in</strong>dicated by the <strong>of</strong>fset format. Compare 2008 Wash. Sess. <strong>Law</strong>s ch. 1 § 5 with 2005 Wash. Sess.<br />
<strong>Law</strong>s ch. 72, § 5 (the former purports to amend the latter but uses slightly different language <strong>in</strong> the<br />
"base"); see also WASH. REv. CODE § 43.135.035 .(2008) (reviser's note <strong>in</strong>dicates that Initiative 960,<br />
chapter 1, <strong>Law</strong>s <strong>of</strong> 2008, revised this section without use <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fset format). Cf Brian Ste<strong>in</strong>berg, At<br />
Work With: Representative Sonny Bono; I Got Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, Babe, N.Y TiMEs, Mar. 1, 1995,<br />
available at 1995 WLNR 3792074, at *2-3 (while serv<strong>in</strong>g on the Judiciary Committee <strong>of</strong> the United<br />
States House <strong>of</strong> Representatives, Congressman Sonny Bono objected to the "legalese" used by<br />
committee members and staff; .389. Rep. Charles Schumer rejo<strong>in</strong>ed, "We have to talk about the law.<br />
That's what we do here. We're mak<strong>in</strong>g laws here, not sausages.").<br />
390. Futurewise v. Reed, 166 P.3d 708, 710 (Wash. 2007); Coppemoll v. Reed, 119 P.3d 318,<br />
321 (Wash. 2005).<br />
391. Coppernoll, 119 P.3d at 321; see also Futurewise, 166 P.3d at 710 ("Preelection review<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiative measures is highly disfavored.") (cit<strong>in</strong>g Coppernoll, 119 P.3d at 321); see generally<br />
Even, supra note 44, at 273-75.<br />
392. Futurewise, 166 P.3d at 710 (cit<strong>in</strong>g Coppernoll, 119 P.3dat 321).<br />
393. 911 P.2d 389, 394-95 (Wash.1996) (<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>itiative that proposed to establish<br />
federal direct democracy).<br />
394. Coppernoll, 119P.3dat321;Futurewise, 166P.3dat7lO-l1.