Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wash. 2d 828

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the Thurston County Superior Court had jurisdiction to review a ballot-title challenge involving a legislatively enacted alternative measure. It further held that the superior court's ballot-title decision was final and generally not appealable, and declined to exercise extraordinary review because the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court affirmed denial of intervention and denied the requested writ; a dissent argued that the ballot title was misleading and should be corrected.

Holdings

1. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioners' untimely motion to intervene because the petitioners had notice of the proceeding, failed to intervene before judgment, and showed no extraordinary circumstances justifying delay.
2. A superior court's decision on a ballot-title challenge is final and not subject to direct appeal or discretionary review under the governing statute and appellate rules.
3. The Supreme Court may exercise inherent review in unusual circumstances to determine whether a superior court's ballot-title decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, but the circumstances here did not warrant review.
4. The Thurston County Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear ballot-title challenges to legislatively enacted measures.
5. The petitioners were not entitled to a writ of prohibition because the superior court had jurisdiction and the petitioners had an adequate legal remedy that they failed to use timely.
6. Citizens' request for attorney fees was dismissed because Citizens failed to file the affidavit required by RAP 18.1.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying the legislators' and Yes 97B Committee's motion to intervene.
2. Whether the Washington Supreme Court could review the superior court's ballot-title decision by direct appeal, discretionary review, or inherent authority.
3. Whether the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the ballot title for a legislatively enacted measure.
4. Whether respondents were entitled to attorney fees.

Disposition

other