Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that Initiative 747 violated article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution because it did not accurately set forth the law it purported to amend. Although the initiative described a reduction in the property-tax levy limit from two percent to one percent, the prior two-percent initiative had been declared unconstitutional, leaving a six-percent limit in effect. The court concluded that the initiative’s text could not be cured by explanatory material in the voters’ pamphlet.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- When must compliance with article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution be evaluated for an amendatory initiative?
- Did Initiative 747 violate article II, section 37 by failing to set forth accurately the law it amended and by misleading voters about the initiative's substantive effect on existing property-tax levy limits?
- Whether Initiative 747 also violated article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution's subject-in-title requirement.
Holdings
- For an amendatory initiative, compliance with article II, section 37 is evaluated at the time of the operative popular vote, not merely when the initiative is filed.
- Initiative 747 violated article II, section 37 because its text inaccurately stated that it reduced the general property-tax levy increase limit from two percent to one percent, when the operative law at the time of the vote imposed a six-percent limit or the lesser of six percent and inflation.
- The court did not decide whether Initiative 747 violated article II, section 19 because its article II, section 37 violation was dispositive.
Key quotations
“Given the common purpose supporting article II, section 19 and article II, section 37, to ensure that those voting on legislation are not deceived or misled, it is common sense to extend this reasoning to article II, section 37 cases, evaluating compliance at the time of the vote rather than at the time of filing, and we so hold.” (154)
“Thus, where we must weigh delay for initiative proponents against constitutionally prescribed clarity for the voters, the constitution must prevail.” (159)
“We therefore conclude that 1-747 violates article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution.” (162-63)
Factual background
Washington's property-tax statutes historically limited regular property-tax levy increases generally to six percent, subject to specified exceptions and voter approval. Initiative 722 purported to reduce the limits to two percent, but the Washington Supreme Court later held Initiative 722 unconstitutional before voters approved Initiative 747. Initiative 747 purported to amend the two-percent limits to one percent, even though the operative law at the time of the vote retained the six-percent limits. The court concluded that the initiative's text therefore materially misled voters about its effect on existing law.
Procedural history
In January 2005, nonprofit organizations and Whitman County challenged Initiative 747 under article II, sections 37 and 19 of the Washington Constitution. The King County Superior Court ruled for the challengers, holding that Initiative 747 violated article II, section 37 because it represented that it reduced a two-percent levy limit to one percent, although the operative law had a six-percent limit after Initiative 722 was declared unconstitutional. The superior court did not reach the article II, section 19 claim. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court retained the case for direct review.