Ballot Title for Initiative v. Gorton

• Decision Date: 27 January 1977
• Docket Number: No. 44238,44238
• Citation: 559 P.2d 562,88 Wn.2d 192
• Parties: In re the Matter of the BALLOT TITLE FOR INITIATIVE 333 et al., Petitioners, and Slade GORTON, Attorney General, State of Washington, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 192

88 Wn.2d 192

559 P.2d 562

In re the Matter of the BALLOT TITLE FOR INITIATIVE 333 et

al., Petitioners,

and

Slade GORTON, Attorney General, State of Washington, Respondent.

No. 44238.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Jan. 27, 1977.

For majority opinion, see 558 P.2d 248.

WRIGHT, Associate Justice (dissenting).

I dissent. The majority has, in effect rewritten this statute, and placed something in it that the legislature did not intend. Their excuse for this action is that otherwise the statute would violate the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Const. art. 1, § 12 and U.S.Const. Amend. 14.

The action provided in RCW 29.79.060 gives the proposers of a measure the right to appeal to superior court. No such right is given to any other person or group of persons. This procedure is strictly statutory, and would not be available without this legislation. When a special procedure is provided by statute, the terms of the statute are exclusive and mandatory. Hatfield v. Greco, 87 Wash.2d 780, 557 P.2d 340 (1976). If this act violates a constitutional provision, it must fall, but the courts may not add something to an act in an attempt to cure the defects. State v. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 146 P. 628 (1915); State v. Martinez, 85 Wash.2d 671, 538 P.2d 521 (1975).

I believe, however, that RCW 29.79.060 is valid as written. This act does not involve a suspect classification, nor does it impinge upon a fundamental right. Therefore, under both Const. art. 1, § 12 and U.S.Const. Amend. 14 the legislature need only have a rational basis for the classification. Sonitrol Northwest, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 588, 528 P.2d 474 (1974); State ex rel. O'Brien v. Towne, 64 Wash.2d 581, 392 P.2d 818 (1964); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). The classification is valid. The proposers of an initiative measure have special duties which they and they alone must bear. They prepare the text of the proposed enactment, they usually prepare a legislative title, and they have the duty of taking each of the steps required by statute. To classify the Proposers of an initiative measure differently from all other persons is rational.

Another reason exists for denial of the writ RCW 29.79.060 provides 'The decision of the superior court shall be final.' This being a statutory remedy and the statutory provision being exclusive and mandatory, there is no provision for any form of review...