concluding that a half dozen subtopics, ranging from regulation of lobbyists to inspection of public records, were "reasonably related," thus satisfying "the nexus requirements of the `rational unity' test"
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a half dozen subtopics, ranging from regulation of lobbyists to inspection of public records, were "reasonably related," thus satisfying "the nexus requirements of the `rational unity' test"
- Notwithstanding the importance of First Amendment rights, the general public has a paramount right to information which would help it "evaluat[e] the influence of money upon legislative decisionmaking and related functions of government"; the state's lobbying and disclosure law was designed "for the expressed purpose of fostering openness in ... government ... [and] to exhibit in the public forum the identities and pecuniary involvements of those individuals and organizations that expend funds to influence government."
- holding this to be a basis for finding the citizen's lawsuit provision of the Act constitutional
- "factors that may influence the electorate's evaluative processes are not always disclosed in the heat of a campaign and less often when the official has taken office."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion. My only concern is with the holding that article 2, *316 section 19 of the state constitution applies only to legislative “bills.” Although this is a holding in Senior Citizens League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142 , 228 P.2d 478 (1951), the dissent’s criticism of that case is persuasive, and I would hold that article 2, section 19 applies to initiatives. To that extent I would overrule the foregoing case.
I believe the majority, however, correctly finds the subject matter of the initiative has a rational unity and that the subject of the initiative is sufficiently expressed in its title. For these reasons, the initiative does not violate article 2, section 19.
Stafford and Brachtenbach, JJ., concur with Utter, J.
Hamilton, J. — I have signed the majority opinion with the reservation noted in Justice Utter’s concurrence, with which I agree.