Washington Federation of State Employees v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTalmadge, J.
(concurring in part/dissenting in part) — I concur in the majority’s view that art. II, § 19 of the Washington Constitution applies to initiative measures such as Initiative 134. I write separately to emphasize my concern that this court’s treatment of art. II, § 19 cases has too often been a talismanic recitation of the "rational unity” doctrine without a real discussion of what that doctrine means. This lack of a real standard is frustrating for legislators and the public alike.
I disagree with the majority’s decision on the scope of remand, believing that the court should reverse the trial…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- State v. GrisbyWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Brosnahan v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Fritz v. GortonWashington Supreme Court · 1974
- Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1966
- Harbor v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.