# City of Seattle v. State

> Washington Supreme Court · August 31, 1983 · 100 Wash. 2d 232

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793322

## Case

- **Full name:** The City of Seattle, Et Al., Respondents, v. the State of Washington, Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 31, 1983
- **Citations:** 100 Wash. 2d 232; 668 P.2d 1266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Williams
- **Judges:** Dore, Williams, Rosellini
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9793322

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding as an alternative ground for considering a challenge to an expired city ordinance that “we believe a case involving the public financing and limiting of campaign expenditures for political candidates is of such public importance there is ‘continuing and substantial pub…

## Opinion text

Williams, C.J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the first portion of Justice Rosellini's dissent that the issue of the *249 validity of Seattle's campaign financing ordinances is moot. I also agree with Justice Rosellini that this is not the type of situation, such as that presented by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 , 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) or Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d 51 , 615 P.2d 440 (1980), that involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest which may escape effective appellate review. Although the purposes underlying the campaign financing ordinances are laudable, I believe we should refrain from rendering a wholly advisory opinion in this matter until we have a valid enactment before us that has been briefed and argued by the proper parties in interest, including representative citizens of the City of Seattle. I therefore agree with Justice Rosellini that it is both inappropriate and unwise to reach the merits of this case despite its mootness.
I wish to make it clear, however, that I do not join in Justice Rosellini's discussion on the invalidity of the Seattle campaign financing ordinances on the basis of Const, art. 8, § 7, pertaining to the prohibition on gifts of public funds to private individuals. I would reserve any ruling on the validity of future campaign financing measures until the issue is squarely before this court.
I dissent.
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Williams, C.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793322. Public record. Not legal advice.