CITIZENS FOR RESP. WILDLIFE MGMT. v. State
Decision Date | 19 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 72186-6.,72186-6. |
Citation | 71 P.3d 644,149 Wash.2d 622 |
Parties | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, Fred Blauert, an individual, Karen Awrylo, an individual, Bruce Vandervort, an individual, Michael G. Thornily, Sr., an individual, Robert Rupar, an individual, and George Sovie, an individual, Petitioners, v. STATE of Washington, Respondent, and Protect Pets and Wildlife, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Doris Day Animal League, the Fund for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Progressive Animal Welfare Society, Intervenor-Respondents. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Robert Kehoe, Seattle, for Petitioners.
Shawn Newman, Olympia, Jonathan Lovvorn, Washington, DC, Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Amy MacKenzie, Neil Wise, James Pharris, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.
Daniel Fazio, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Wa. State Farm Bureau.
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management, on direct review to this court, claim that Initiative 713 violates Washington Constitution article II, sections 19 and 37. Finding that appellants have not shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Initiative 713 violates the constitution, we affirm the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion.
Appellants, Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management (Citizens), are a coalition of over 400 wildlife conservation, scientific, business, outdoor recreation, farming, timber, nuisance animal control, and wildlife management organizations and individuals who are opposed to Initiative 713 (I-713). Respondents are comprised of the State and defendant-intervenors, a coalition of public interest organizations that sponsored I-713 (Sponsors).
Voters passed I-713 by a 54.61 percent vote on November 7, 2000. The official ballot title reads: "Shall it be a gross misdemeanor to capture an animal with certain body-gripping traps, or to poison an animal with sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide?" State of Washington Voters Pamphlet, General Election 8 (Nov. 7, 2000). Prior to I-713, real property owners and duly licensed recreational and commercial trappers were limited as to the types of traps they could use to trap wild animals by WAC 232-12-141. This section allowed the use of both padded and unpadded foot-hold traps and also provided requirements for padding thickness and jaw face width. See former WAC 232-12-141(4)(a)-(d) (2000). This section disallowed trapping with steel traps with teeth or serrated edges or with neck or body snares attached to a spring pole or other such device. Former WAC 232-12-141(e), (h). Kill traps had to be checked every 72 hours and animals caught in restraining traps had to be removed within 24 hours of capture. Former WAC 232-12-141(f), (g). I-713 references WAC 232-12-141 and Citizens do not contend that I-713 unconstitutionally changes that section's provisions. Even before I-713, sodium fluoroacetate could not be legally used in Washington. Also, as to sodium cyanide, Clerk's Papers (CP) at 206-07.
The initiative has now been codified in RCW 77.15.192-.198; the corresponding revised code section will be cited for relevant sections of the initiative throughout this opinion. I-713 basically outlaws the trapping or killing of any mammal with body-gripping traps, sodium fluoroacetate, or sodium cyanide. It is set out below.
77.15.192 Definitions. The definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 77.15.194 through 77.15.198.
(1) "Animal" means any nonhuman vertebrate.
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits the director from granting a special permit to department employees or agents to use traps listed in this subsection where the use of the traps is the only practical means of protecting threatened or endangered species as designated under RCW 77.08.010.
RCW 77.15.192-.198.
In February 2001, Citizens filed an amended complaint seeking declaratory judgment that I-713 violated the Washington Constitution and an injunction barring enforcement of any portion of the initiative. Sponsors intervened on the State's behalf and cross-motioned for summary judgment. The superior court denied Citizens' motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion. Citizens appealed; this court granted direct review.
Whether Initiative 713 violates article II, sections 19 and 37 of the Washington Constitution.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment which is properly granted where there are no material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). When reviewing an order of summary judgment, the appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). The court should grant the motion only if, from all the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. Id. Construction of a statute is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. State v. Ammons, 136 Wash.2d 453, 456, 963 P.2d 812 (1998).
Amicus Curiae Washington State Farm Bureau raises several novel arguments that Citizens did not. However, those arguments will not be discussed as we will not address arguments raised only by amicus. See Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 140 Wash.2d 403, 413, 997 P.2d 915 (2000)
.
Citizens contend that initiatives should be given less deference than legislatively enacted bills, when reviewing for constitutional infirmities, because initiatives result from a "closed process" where "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wash. State Legislature v. Inslee
...other statute or enactment." Id. ; see also El Centro , 192 Wash.2d at 129, 428 P.3d 1143 ; Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State , 149 Wash.2d 622, 642, 71 P.3d 644 (2003) ( CRWM ); State v. Manussier , 129 Wash.2d 652, 663, 921 P.2d 473 (1996) ; Wash. Educ. Ass'n v. State , 97 ......
-
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of Seatac
...fail if their substantive provisions do not fall “ ‘fairly within’ ” the restrictive language.Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 633, 71 P.3d 644 (2003) (quoting State ex rel. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wash.2d 13, 26, 200 P.2d 467 (1948) ). ¶ 11 He......
-
Washington State Grange v. Locke
...Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 205, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000)); Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 631, 71 P.3d 644 (2003). A. Article III, Section 12 — Governor's Veto This court has held that in approving or disapproving legislatio......
-
City of Sequim v. Malkasian
...60, 68, 85 P.3d 346 (2004). The appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 630-31, 71 P.3d 644 (2003); Herron v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 108 Wash.2d 162, 169, 736 P.2d 249 ¶ 21 The city contends that the ini......
-
"original Acts," "meager Offspring," and Titles in a Bill's Family Tree: a Legislative Drafter's Perspective on City Offircrest v. Jensen
...1883)). 11. E.g., Grange v. Locke, 153 Wash. 2d 475, 497-98, 105 P.3d 9, 21-22 (2005); Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash. 2d 622, 638, 71 P.3d 644, 653 (2003); see Fraser, supra note 6, at 460, 466; Dustin Buehler, Comment, Washington's Title Match: The Single-subje......