Luther v. Ray

(dissenting) — I dissent. The problem herein relates to interpretation of a statute, that is, RCW 88.16 as amended by Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 337, § 2(2).

I strongly disagree with the majority in its conclusion that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. I believe the legislative language is as ambiguous and unclear as language could possibly be.

We said in State ex rel. Pendleton v. Superior Court, 199 Wash. 73, 78, 204 P. 1053 (1922): "the rule is that statutes will not be construed to shorten the terms of incumbent officers unless the intent is plainly and clearly…