Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1Concurrence · AlexanderAlexander, J.
(concurring) — It is readily apparent that initiative measure 695 (1-695) is a “bill” that embraces more than one subject. Thus, I entirely agree with the majority’s conclusion that it runs afoul of the single-subject provision in article II, section 19, of the Washington Constitution.
Having reached that determination, we should go no further. The majority does not, however, stop with its analysis of I-695’s collision with article II, section 19, but rather goes on to hold that the measure violates another provision of article II, section 19, as well as article II, sections 1(a) and (b), and…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Johnson.
2Cases cited69 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Helvering v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.