# Eyman v. Wyman

> Washington Supreme Court · August 28, 2018 · 191 Wash. 2d 581

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887147

## Case

- **Full name:** Tim EYMAN and Michael J. Padden, Respondents/Cross Appellants, v. Kim WYMAN, in Her Capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant, the Washington State Legislature; And De-Escalate Washington, Appellants/Cross Respondents, Cyrus Habib, in His Capacity as Lieutenant Governor, Intervenor.
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 28, 2018
- **Citations:** 191 Wash. 2d 581; 424 P.3d 1183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Fairhurst
- **Judges:** McCloud, Fairhurst, Stephens
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9887147

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- discussing Lowry, 131 Wn.2d at 320-32

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887147. Public record. Not legal advice.