Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council v. State

(dissenting) — The majority says that “ ‘it is the legislature’s job—not ours—to stem the tide of potential absurd results that might result from impartially applying the plain meaning of statutory language.’ ” Majority at 560 (quoting Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 140 Wn.2d 403, 416, 997 P.2d 915 (2000) (Sanders, J., dissenting)). This proposition, borrowed from a dissenting opinion, is contrary to decades of cases standing for exactly the opposite proposition—that this court will not construe a legislative enactment to effect absurd results.

Rather than interpret…