# Fritz v. Gorton

> Washington Supreme Court · January 4, 1974 · 83 Wash. 2d 275

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550807

## Case

- **Full name:** William J. Fritz Et Al., Appellants, v. Slade Gorton Et Al., Respondents; Warren Simmons Et Al., Respondents, v. Slade Gorton Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 4, 1974
- **Citations:** 83 Wash. 2d 275; 517 P.2d 911; 1974 Wash. LEXIS 909
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Utter
- **Judges:** Finley, Stafford, Brachtenbach, Wright, Utter, Hale, Rosellini
- **Cited by:** 112 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550807

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- holding this to be a basis for finding the citizen's lawsuit provision of the Act constitutional

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550807. Public record. Not legal advice.