King County Republican Central Committee v. Republican State Committee

• Decision Date: 22 April 1971
• Docket Number: No. 41569,41569
• Citation: 79 Wn.2d 202,484 P.2d 387
• Parties: KING COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, Respondent, v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, C. Montgomery Johnson, Chairman, Appellants, Frank Green, State Committeeman; and Beth Davies, State Committeewoman, Defendants.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 202

79 Wn.2d 202

484 P.2d 387

KING COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, Respondent, v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, C. Montgomery Johnson, Chairman Appellants Frank Green, State Committeeman; and Beth Davies, State Committeewoman, Defendants.

No. 41569.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

April 22, 1971.

Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones Edward N. Lange, Seattle, for appellants.

Caplinger & Munn, James S. Munn, Seattle, for Frank Green and Beth Davies.

Rutherford, Kargianis & Austin, Russell A. Austin, Jr., Seattle, for King County Republican Central Committee.

HAMILTON, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a summary judgment decreeing that appellant, the Republican State Committee, is without authority to make procedural rules governing the process by which delegates to the Republican State Convention are chosen by county Republican Central Committees. The following are the facts giving rise to this litigation.

At an organizational meeting held on January 11, 1969, the appellant adopted rules governing its organization and procedures. Later, in August, 1969, these rules were, in part, amended. With respect to delegates to the state convention, the rules, as amended, provided:

B. Each county shall have three delegates. The number of additional delegates to the State Convention and the allocation of those delegates to the counties shall be recommended through the Executive Board and approved by the State Central Committee.

C. The State Central Committee endorses the delegate type convention for each one of the 39 counties as against the open or closed type convention. The precinct caucus is the beginning of grass roots political organizations. To be entitled to its pro rata share of representation at the state convention as provided for in the preceding portions of Section 24, a county shall provide for and conduct duly publicized, open precinct caucuses at which delegates are elected to attend a delegate type county convention. The procedures to be followed in the local precinct caucus--county convention process shall be recommended through the Executive Board and approved by the State Central Committee. Such procedures approved by the State Central Committee shall be incorporated into the official call for the state convention and sent to all counties before January 15 of the convention year.

In December, 1969, in keeping with the foregoing, the state committee adopted procedural rules governing the selection of convention delegates at the precinct caucus--county convention level to be applied uniformly throughout the state. These rules were preparatory to the Republican State Convention scheduled to be held on August 8, 1970, and were included in the official call for that convention issued on January 14, 1970.

Meanwhile, on October 16, 1969, the King County Republican Central Committee adopted revised bylaws governing its local organization and procedures, including procedures for precinct caucuses and the county convention. These bylaws were in conflict with the state committee's rules in several particulars, I.e., in the number of delegates selected at precinct caucuses to attend the county convention, in the qualification of certain nonelected delegates to the county convention, and in the eligibility of persons between 18 and 21 years of age to participate in the precinct caucuses and the county convention. Pointing to the differences between the rules of the state committee and the King County Central Committee, the county committee issued its official call for precinct caucuses to be held on March 3, 1970, and directed such caucuses to be conducted pursuant to and in accord with the King County Central Committee's bylaws.

Taking note of the action of the King County Central Committee, the chairman of the state committee addressed a letter to the chairman of the King County Committee on February 19, 1970, urging compliance with the state committee's rules, and advising that a failure to abide by such rules could result in disqualification of the King County delegates at the Republican State Convention. Proceeding as planned, the King County Central Committee scheduled and held precinct caucuses on March 3, 1970, under the local rules, and on that date instituted this action seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the state committee was without authority to adopt procedural rules governing the county organization's selection of delegates to the state convention.

The principal contending parties, the King County Republican Central Committee and the Republican State Committee, both moved for summary judgment. On May 1, 1970, the superior court, after determining that there was no dispute of material fact, entered judgment by the terms of which it concluded that the appellant state committee was without authority to make rules governing the respondent county committee in the matter of choosing delegates to the state convention.

This appeal followed and, because of the close proximity of the scheduled state convention, the appellate process was accelerated and the cause was set for oral argument before this court on June 9, 1970. In the meantime respondent, the King County Republican Central Committee, moved for dismissal of the appeal contending that appellant had failed to properly perfect the appellate record. Following the oral arguments directed to the motion to dismiss and to the merits, and mindful of the emergent nature of the case, this court, after full consideration of the record, the written briefs and the oral arguments of the parties, issued an order prefatory to this opinion on June 11, 1970, denying the motion to dismiss and reversing the judgment of the superior court. We now set forth our reasons for the prefatory order.

The moving respondent predicated its motion to dismiss the appeal upon the contention that appellant failed to bring before this court a certified statement of facts, and, further, that the order granting respondent's motion for summary judgment did not specifically identify the pleadings, affidavits, and documents considered by the trial court in entering the judgment.

The appellate record before this court consists principally of a transcript, certified by the clerk of the superior court, containing the pleadings, the respective motions for summary judgment with attached affidavits and documents, and the trial court's judgment. Subsequent to the filing of respondent's brief including its motion to dismiss, and on June 5, 1970, appellant supplemented the record by filing a certificate of the trial judge wherein he stated that the transcript on file contained all of the matters and proceedings which were considered by him in rendering judgment. Appellant contends the record is thus complete.

In American Universal Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 59 Wash.2d 811, 815, 370 P.2d 867, 870 (1962), we spelled out the rule to be followed in appealing from a summary judgment, together with the reasons therefor, as follows:

In an appellate review of a summary judgment entered pursuant to Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 56, RCW Vol. O, this court can review only those matters that have been presented to the trial court for its consideration before entry of the summary judgment. The matters considered may be certified to this court by either of two methods, or a combination of them. First, they may be incorporated in a statement of facts certified by the trial court; second, they may be identified with particularity in the summary judgment signed by the trial court and then furnished to this court by transcript certified by the clerk of court. The reason is obvious: it would be unfair to consider, on appellate review, matters not presented to the trial court for its consideration. We must have before us the precise record--no more and no less--considered by the trial court.

Basing its motion upon this procedural rule, and in support of the motion, respondent points to Kataisto v. Low, 73 Wash.2d 341, 438 P.2d 623 (1968), wherein we affirmed a summary judgment for the reason that this rule had not been timely complied with. Furthermore, with respect to the belated certification of the contents of the transcript by the trial judge at the behest of appellant, respondent contends that it is ineffectual because it came without notice and after the filing of respondent's brief. In this latter regard respondent cites Hill v. City of Tacoma, 40 Wash.2d 718, 246 P.2d 458 (1952); Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wash.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800 (1953), and Popovich v. Department of Labor and Industries, 66 Wash.2d 908, 406 P.2d 593 (1965). In each of the cited cases this court denied an appealing party the remedy of curing deficiencies in assignments of error or in a certified statement of facts after the respective respondents' briefs had been prepared and filed.

We have no quarrel with the holdings of the cases cited by respondent. Under the circumstances in each case the holding were justified. However, we do not find them applicable in the instant situation.

The trial court in its judgment recited that there was no material dispute of fact, and the parties in essence agree there is none. Neither was there any diversity of view as to the underlying question of law to be resolved, I.e., the interpretation of RCW 29.42.010. Because of the significant and emergent nature of the matter in dispute the normal time periods for perfecting an appeal were substantially shortened and the appellate process materially accelerated. Except for the interposition of respondent's motion, all parties, despite the abbreviated time factors, addressed ample and skillful written and oral arguments to the pertinent legal question involved. And the trial judge's supplemental certificate filed prior to the date set for oral argument, verified that the transcript before us represented no more and no less than the precise record considered by the trial court in ruling on...