Summary
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Initiative Measure 776, which limited motor-vehicle license tab fees and repealed certain local vehicle excise taxes and fees. The court held that the initiative satisfied the single-subject and subject-in-title requirements, did not substantially impair King County’s bond obligations, and did not violate local home-rule, initiative-power, or due-process principles. The court reversed the superior court’s summary judgment for Pierce County and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Initiative Measure 776 violated article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution by embracing more than one subject.
- Whether the initiative's ballot title adequately expressed its subject under article II, section 19.
- Whether repeal of the local vehicle license fee substantially impaired King County's contractual obligations to its bondholders under article I, section 23.
- Whether the initiative violated constitutional principles of local home rule under article XI, sections 4 and 12.
- Whether repeal of the motor vehicle excise tax exceeded the scope of the statewide initiative power under article II, section 1.
- Whether repeal of the motor vehicle excise tax deprived Sound Transit or its voters of property without due process under article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether Salish was entitled to attorney fees under the common-fund principle.
Holdings
- Initiative Measure 776 embraced a single subject because its operative provisions were rationally related to limiting state and local government charges imposed on motor vehicles.
- Initiative Measure 776's ballot title adequately expressed the initiative's single subject and did not violate article II, section 19.
- Initiative Measure 776 did not substantially impair King County's contractual obligations to its bondholders and therefore did not violate article I, section 23.
- Repeal of the statutory authority for local vehicle fees and Sound Transit's motor vehicle excise tax did not violate Washington's constitutional home-rule principles.
- Initiative Measure 776 did not exceed the scope of the statewide initiative power by repealing the general statute authorizing Sound Transit's motor vehicle excise tax.
- Sound Transit failed to establish that Initiative Measure 776 deprived it or its voters of a vested property right without due process.
- Salish was not entitled to attorney fees under the common-fund principle.
Key quotations
“policy expressions in a bill or initiative measure do not contribute additional “subjects” within the meaning of article II, section 19.” (433)
“Because I-776’s “rule of action” was $30 license tabs and because its policy statements were “no part of the law,” I-776 did not embrace two unrelated laws or enactments.” (435)
“Given the county’s express commitment to the bondholders that they could rely entirely on its full faith and credit pledge, and based solely on the specific facts presented in this case, we cannot conclude that 1-776 “substantially impair[ed]” King County’s contractual relationship with its bondholders.” (439)
Factual background
In November 2002, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure 776, which generally limited motor-vehicle license tab fees to $30 and repealed certain local vehicle excise taxes and fees. King County had issued double-barreled bonds after the initiative qualified for the ballot, disclosing both the pending initiative and its pledge of full faith and credit and other revenues to repay the bonds. The superior court declared the initiative unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court concluded that the initiative's operative provisions were rationally related and that the bondholders' contractual relationship was not substantially impaired.
Procedural history
Pierce County, Tacoma, and individual residents filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Initiative Measure 776. King County later joined, and the superior court granted a preliminary injunction and then summary judgment for Pierce County, concluding that the initiative violated Washington's single-subject and subject-in-title requirements and impaired King County's contractual obligations to bondholders. The State and Salish sought direct review, which the Washington Supreme Court accepted on an accelerated basis.
Remand instructions
Reverse the superior court's grant of summary judgment and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. Salish's request for attorney fees at trial and on appeal is denied.