I-695 Ruled Unconstitutional
What happens now?
Initiative 695 was ruled unconstitutional in its entirety by Judge Robert Alsdorf in King County Superior Court in a decision issued March 14, 2000. However, this ruling is not the final decision on the validity of Initiative 695. The decision by Judge Alsdorf will be appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. Oral argument on the case is tentatively scheduled to be heard on June 29, with a final decision expected by late summer or early fall.
What is the impact of the decision by the King County Superior Court?
The most significant immediate impact is that the judge prohibited the state or local governments from holding elections to seek voter approval of increases in taxes, fees, or charges imposed by governmental units as required by Section 2 of Initiative 695. This provision of the initiative required voter approval of any increase in a tax or monetary charge imposed by the state or a local government.
Of course, whether a local government chooses to impose an increase in a tax or fee during the interim period while waiting for a final decision from the state supreme court on the validity of Initiative 695 also involves political and community considerations.
Does this decision affect other election requirements that already existed for some taxes separate and apart from Initiative 695?
No. Previously existing election requirements pertaining to a local government imposing or raising a tax, separate and apart from Initiative 695, are not affected by this decision and remain in effect. For example, excess levy election requirements for the property tax are not affected by this decision and must be followed the same as before.
What is the impact of the decision on the continued collection of the motor vehicle excise tax?
The decision invalidated Section 1, which imposed the $30 license tab fee, and Section 3, which repealed the motor vehicle excise tax. However, the judge acknowledged that the state has already been implementing the collection of the reduced $30 car tab fee since January 1, 2000, and concluded that it would be too disruptive to change this scheme of collection at this time. Therefore, the judge did not issue an injunction to change the method of collection that the state has instituted, and the $30 fee will remain in effect, at least until the state supreme court has ruled on the initiative.
In any case, it seems likely that the motor vehicle excise tax is dead. Even if the state supreme court holds that the section of the initiative repealing the MVET is unconstitutional, the governor and state legislators have indicated the MVET will not be reinstated in its prior form.
What will happen next in the Initiative 695 lawsuits?
As indicated, the decision by Judge Alsdorf will be appealed to the state supreme court. The date for oral argument is tentatively scheduled for June 29. The date for oral argument could be even earlier if both parties agree to an earlier date. A decision is unlikely before late summer or early fall.
Some of the other lawsuits that are seeking clarification of the initiative may be held in abeyance until the supreme court makes its decision. Clearly, if the supreme court also holds the entire initiative to be unconstitutional, then suits seeking clarification of the meaning of the term "tax" as used in the initiative become irrelevant and moot.
What options are available to the state supreme court in the appeal? The state supreme court has the authority to take several courses of action. One is to affirm the decision of the superior court and hold Initiative 695 unconstitutional in its entirety. The supreme court may also overrule the decision and hold that all aspects of the initiative are valid and enforceable. Alternatively, the supreme court may decide that part of the initiative is unconstitutional, but decide that other sections are valid and enforceable.
Why was the initiative held unconstitutional?
There were several grounds for deciding that the initiative was unconstitutional. The court held that the initiative:
- violated the constitutional requirement that an initiative have only one subject;
- established an unlawful referendum procedure in violation of the state constitution;
- violated the constitutional requirement that all subjects be identified in the ballot title;
- violated the constitutional requirement that an initiative set forth the text of other laws which it necessarily amends and explain how those amendments are worded or would be implemented.
Where can additional information be obtained on this subject?
One of the best sources of information is the MRSC Web site at www.mrsc.org. Our site also has links to other Web pages with additional information, such as the Association of Washington Cities. On the MRSC home page under "Current Issues" is information on Initiative 695, which contains a special section on "Litigation." The text of the superior court decision can be accessed through a link from this page. Of course, we recommend that you discuss the implications of this lawsuit with your legal counsel and bond counsel.