The state Supreme Court issued a very divided opinion yesterday concerning whether the legislature violated the constitution when acting on I-940 and HB 3003 this session. With five separate opinions, a majority of the court eventually agreed the legislature acted improperly. This is an important ruling upholding the people’s right of initiative. Responding to the decision Sen. Padden said:

“The court recognized, as we did, that this tactic threatened the initiative process. Lawmakers could block public votes and thwart the people’s will by passing initiatives submitted to the Legislature and then amending them to death.”

Aside from the controversy with the legislature’s actions on I-940/HB 3003, a concerning opinion was issued by Justice Yu (page 43 of PDF):

“This decision will allow similar challenges not just to other initiatives but to any enrolled law where a question arises about whether the legislature complied with certain constitutional procedures . . .

A petitioner might soon ask this court to retract an enacted law because it was not introduced at least 10 days before the final adjournment of the legislature as required by article II, section 36 . . .

According to the precedent set by the split opinion in this case and the reasoning in Justice Stephens' dissent, this court is willing to invade the exclusive province of the legislature and allow petitioners to corrupt the finality and deference this court usually affords to the laws bearing the certified seal of Washington.”

What is noteworthy about Article II, Section 36 of the constitution is that restriction is why we see the legislature routinely use “title only” bills to circumvent it. Though it appears from Yu’s comments she doesn’t think that section should be binding, lawmakers believe it is a real requirement which is why they unfortunately try to work around it with blank bills.

Although no other justice signed on to Yu’s opinion, it is concerning to see a Supreme Court justice imply that lawmakers shouldn’t be bound by the clear language in the constitution. The protections and restrictions in the constitution should apply equally to all of us, including lawmakers.