Plummer v. Gaines
| Decision Date | 22 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39166,39166 |
| Citation | 422 P.2d 17,70 Wn.2d 53 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Willis A. PLUMMER, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Donald L. GAINES, Judge, Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County; and John T. O'Brien, Ed Munro and Scott Wallace composing the Board of County Commissioners of King County, Respondents. |
John Spiller, Seattle, for petitioner.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., James E. Kennedy, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Wright, Innis, Simon & Todd, Evan L. Schwab, Seattle, amicus curiae.
Amendment 21 to the Constitution of the State of Washington provides that 'Any county may frame a 'Home Rule' charter for its own government subject to the Constitution and laws of this state.' The legislative authority (board of county commissioners) of a county may 'cause an election to be had' at which not less than 15 nor more than 25 freeholders are to be elected to draft a proposed Home Rule Charter, to be thereafter submitted to the voters of the county for approval or rejection. In the event the county legislative authority does not in its discretion 'cause an election to be had,' the 'Registered voters equal in number to Ten (10) per centum of the voters of any such county Voting at the Last preceding general election, may at any time propose by petition the calling of an election of freeholders.' (Italics ours.)
In this case, a petition containing the valid signatures of approximately 28,000 registered voters was submitted to the board of county commissioners of King County. The board of county commissioners deemed that the petition contained the names of sufficient registered voters as required by Amendment 21 to the Constitution and proceeded to accept applications of freeholders as candidates to be selected by the voters to draft the Home Rule Charter.
Mr. Willis A. Plummer commenced this action in the Superior Court of King County to enjoin the Board of County Commissioners from proceeding with the freeholder election, contending that the petition did not contain the signatures of 10 per cent of the voters of King County who had voted at the 'last preceding general election.' From a judgment denying the relief prayed for, Mr. Plummer sought and was granted a review by certiorari of the superior court order in this court.
The facts are not in dispute. The last preceding election held in King County on November 2, 1965, was held pursuant to the provisions of chapter 123 of the Laws of 1965, RCW 29.13.020. 189,987 electors voted. Ten per centum of this number is 18,998. If this was not a general election, the next preceding election was held November 3, 1964, pursuant to Art. 6, § 8 of the State Constitution, at which 457,190 qualified voters voted. Ten per centum of this number is 45,719.
Did the petition contain the names of 'registered voters equal in number to ten (10) per centum of the voters of * * * such county voting at the last preceding general election,' as required by Amendment 21? Or, which election--the one held November 2, 1965, or the one held on November 3, 1964--constituted the last preceding general election within the contemplation of Amendment 21?
We conclude that the petition did not contain the requisite number of signatures, because the election held on November 3, 1964, constituted the 'last preceding general election' for purposes of Amendment 21.
Const. art 11, § 5, permits the legislature to provide for the election of officers of the several counties by General and Uniform laws. This power, however, is subject to the provisions of Const. art. 6, § 8, which fixes the date when county elections, not otherwise provided for in the constitution, shall be held as 'the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November' of the Even numbered years. The constitution fixes no date or year for the conduct of elections in cities, towns, school districts, or other similar political subdivisions, thus leaving discretion in this respect with the legislative body.
Prior to the enactment of Laws of 1965, ch. 123, § 3, RCW 29.13.020, city, town, and district elections in Class A and Class AA counties were held, pursuant to legislative direction, in March of the even numbered years. Laws of 1955, ch. 55, § 1. City, town, and district elections in other than Class A and Class AA counties were held in December of the year called, as legislatively prescribed by Laws of 1927, ch. 279, § 1.
The legislature expressed its purpose in adopting Laws of 1965, ch. 123, § 3, RCW 29.13.020, as follows:
The purpose of this section is to change the time of holding all general city, town, and district elections to a common election date, throughout the state of Washington being the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of the odd-numbered years.
By the enactment of Laws of 1965, ch. 123, § 3, the legislature thus expressed its intention to consolidate the city, town, and district elections from March and December, respectively, to the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November of the odd-numbered years. Clearly, the legislature was not dealing in this section with county elections governed by Const. art. 6, § 8. Instead, it was dealing exclusively with city, town, and district elections not otherwise covered by the constitution.
As provided by the 1965 enactment, the voters of the various affected districts and political subdivisions within King County cast their ballots for the following candidates and issues on November 2, 1965: (1) candidates for the county board of education district No. 4 and district No. 5; (2) candidates for the Seattle school board; (3) candidates for school boards of suburban school districts in Mercer Island, Highline, Renton, Bellevue, North Central, Shoreline, Lake Washington, and North Shore; (4) candidates for Port Commissioner position No. 2 and Port Commissioner position No. 5, Port of Seattle; (5) Seattle school propositions No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and (6) King County propositions Nos. 1 and 2 to exceed the 40 mill limit as provided by the constitution.
Items 1, 4, and 6 were on all the ballots cast within the confines of King County; items 2, 3, and 5 were only on the ballots of the districts to which they pertained. What the situation was with respect to candidates and issues in other similar elections held on November 2,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seattle School Dist. No. 1 of King County v. State
... ... Brownlee v. Clark, 87 Wash.2d 478, 482, 553 P.2d 1344 (1976); Haines v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 87 Wash.2d 28, 34, 549 P.2d 13 (1976); Plummer v. Gaines, 70 Wash.2d 53, 58, 422 P.2d 17 (1966); Highway Comm'n v. Pacific N. W. Bell Tel. Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 222, 367 P.2d 605 (1961). See State ... ...
-
Chi-Dooh Li, In re
... ... Accord, e.g., Plummer v. Gaines, 70 Wash.2d 53, 422 P.2d 17 (1966); Territory ex rel. Kelly v. Stewart, 1 Wash. 98, 23 P. 405, 8 L.R.A. 106 (1890). This basic concept of ... ...
-
City of Tacoma v. O'Brien
... ... declared: 'The construction of the meaning and scope of a constitutional provision is exclusively a judicial function.' [534 P.2d 117] In Plummer v. Gaines, 70 Wash.2d 53, 58, 422 P.2d 17, 21 (1966), this court stated: ... (T)he legislature may not determine what constitutes a 'general ... ...
-
Fain v. Chapman
... ... The interpretation of words utilized in the constitution is, of course, the duty of the courts and not the legislature. Plummer v. Gaines, 70 Wash.2d 53, 422 P.2d 17 (1966); State Highway Comm'n v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 367 P.2d 605 (1961) ... 2 ... ...