discussing enrolled bill doctrine, which is rooted in separation of powers and which prevents judiciary from inquiring into the process by which a bill was passed once the bill has been certified by the legislature
How later courts described this case
- discussing enrolled bill doctrine, which is rooted in separation of powers and which prevents judiciary from inquiring into the process by which a bill was passed once the bill has been certified by the legislature
- manipulation does not require “a subjective, conscious,” or bad-faith attempt by individual legislators to undermine the executive’s veto power
- “Under the last antecedent rule of statutory construction, courts construe the final qualifying words and phrases in a sentence to refer to the last antecedent unless a contrary intent appears in the statute.”
- setting out the remedy of the decision and quoting Wash Const, art 2, § 1(a)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAIRHURST, C.J. (dissenting)
¶ 84 Article II, section 1(a) of the Washington State Constitution provides a framework for what the legislature may constitutionally do with certified initiative measures brought before them. If the legislature enacts an initiative measure "without change or amendment" during the regular session, the initiative then becomes law. WASH. CONST. art. II, § 1(a). However, if the legislature fails to enact the initiative measure "without change or amendment" by taking no action on the initiative or by rejection of the initiative, either explicitly or by proposing an alternative during the regular session, then the initiative must be placed on the ballot along with the alternative proposal, if applicable.
Id.
¶ 85 In this case, we consider what the legislature did and did not do throughout the regular session (not simply what action it took at one moment in time) and place those actions within the constitutional framework. The legislature did not take "no action."
Id.
The legislature did two things-it passed Initiative 940 (I-940) and Engrossed Substitute House Bill 3003 (ESHB 3003). LAWS OF 2018, chs. 11, 10. ESHB 3003 expressly amends I-940. Therefore, I-940 was not enacted during the regular session "without change or amendment." Rather, I-940 was rejected through the passage of ESHB 3003 as an alternative proposal, albeit not labeled as one. Despite these machinations by the legislature, the outcome is clear. The legislature passed two laws during the same regular session that resulted in legislation that differs from I-940 as certified.
1
Therefore, both I-940 and ESHB 3003 must go on the ballot. We should grant the
writ of mandamus and compel the secretary of state to take such action.
"This act takes effect June 8, 2018, only if chapter ... (Initiative Measure No. 940), Laws of 2018, is passed by a vote of the legislature during the 2018 regular legislative session and a referendum on the initiative under Article II, section 1 of the state Constitution is not certified by the secretary of state. If the initiative is not approved during the 2018 regular legislative session, or if a referendum on the initiative is certified by the secretary of state, this act is void in its entirety." Laws of 2018, ch. 10, § 10 (alteration in original).