Pierce County v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentChambers, J.
(dissenting) — I disagree with the majority that merely because some subjects are not “operative,” multiple unrelated subjects embraced by a bill or initiative do not violate article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
*443This initiative embraces at least two subjects. First, it limits the amount state and local governments may charge for motor vehicle licensing. Initiative Measure 776 (1-776) §§ 2, 3, 4, 6 & 8. Second, it calls for four counties to halt development of a voter-approved light rail transit system until the funding mechanisms are…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Seattle School District No. 1 v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. BarnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1966
- Power, Inc. v. HuntleyWashington Supreme Court · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.