State ex rel. Donohue v. Coe
| Decision Date | 13 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 34020,34021,s. 34020 |
| Citation | 302 P.2d 202,49 Wn.2d 410 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington on the relation of Dewey C. DONOHUE, W. C. Raugust, Robert C. Balley, and Ernest W. Lennart, Petitioners, v. Earl COE, Secretary of State, Respondent and Relator, The League of Women Voters of Washington, Intervener and Relator. William M. Clapp, Washington State Farm Bureau Federation, and Ralph T. Gillespie, Interveners, The Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston County, Honorable Charles T. Wright, Judge, Respondent. Dewey C. DONOHUE, W. C. Raugust, Robert C. Bailey, and Ernest W. Lennart, Petitioners, v. Earl COE, Secretary of State, Respondent and Relator, The League of Women Voters of Washington, Intervener and Relator, William M. Clapp, Washington State Farm Bureau Federation, and Ralph T. Gillespie, Interveners, The Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston County, Honorable Charles T. Wright, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Don Eastvold John S. Robinson, Andy G. Engebretsen, Olympia, for Earl Coe. relator.
George N. Prince, Seattle, for the League of Women Voters of Washington, intervenor and relator.
Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester, Lyle L. Iverson, Seattle, for Donohue.
William M. Clapp, Ephrata, for William M. Clapp.
Brodie & Fristoe, Olympia, for Washington State Farm Bureau Federation and Ralph T. Gillespie.
We are here concerned with two attempts, one by a common-law proceeding and the other based upon the initiative statute, Laws of 1913, chapter 138, p. 418, as amended [cf. RCW 29.79], to prohibit the secretary of state from certifying an initiative measure to the ballot. The superior court for Thurston county entered an order on the first day of October, 1956, in the proceeding based upon the statute, enjoining the secretary of state from certifying the initiative measure 'for inclusion on the ballot to be voted on on November 6, 1956'; and in the common-law action he entered, on the same date, an order directing the issuance of a writ of prohibition having the same effect as the injunction.
The secretary of state, by writ of certiorari, brings these orders before us for review. Those seeking the relief granted by the superior court will be referred to herein as the petitioners.
Initiative No. 199 is an attempt to implement art. II, § 3 of our state constitution, which requires that, after each enumeration of the inhabitants of the state made by authority of the United States.
'* * * the legislature shall apportion and district anew the members of the senate and house of representatives, according to the number of inhabitants * * *.'
The legislature has never carried out this constitutional mandate. The only redistricting since statehood (1889) was by virtue of an initiative measure enacted in 1930. Now, twenty-six years later, another initiative measure has been sponsored for that purpose. The requisite number of legal voters have signed the petitions.
It is unnecessary at this time to state the provisions of the proposed measure or to consider whether it would be valid if approved by the people. State ex rel. Griffiths v. Superior Court, 1916, 92 Wash. 44, 159 P. 101, 162 P. 360.
Our constitution states that
'* * * the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature * * *.' Art. II, § 1, as amended, Amendment 7.
Also:
'The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.' Art. II, § 1, as amended, Amendment 7, § 1(a).
After providing for the initiative and referendum by petition, the constitutional amendment states:
Art. II, § 1, as amended, Amendment 7, § 1(d).
The constitution enumerates only three requisites to the adoption of an initiative directly by the people (without the intervening step also provided for of submission to the legislature): (1) 'Ten per centum, but in no case more than fifty thousand, of the legal voters' must sign petitions which include the full text of the measure proposed (Under the constitution the legal voters who sign the petitions are the ones who 'propose' the measure); (2) the petitions must be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months before the election at which the measure is to be voted upon; (3) the measure proposed, to be approved, must receive a majority of the votes cast thereon, and the vote cast upon such measure must equal one third of the total votes cast at such election. Art. II, § 1, as amended, Amendment 7, § 1(a, d).
Anything added to these constitutional requisites must be by legislation 'enacted especially to facilitate' the operation of the reserved right of the people to initiate legislation. This was recognized by the legislature in the enactments here considered. Laws of 1913, chapter 138, p. 418, and amendments thereto [cf. RCW 29.79]. The title of the 1913 enactment states that it is 'An Act to facilitate the operation of the provisions of section 1 of article II of the constitution relating to the initiative and referendum * * *.'
The proceeding here under consideration that is based upon the statute is predicated upon the allegations that 'Petitioners are citizens, residents and taxpayers of the State of Washington and are qualified voters therein, and they are dissatisfied with the determination of the Secretary of State that the petition in support of Initiative No. 199 contains the requisite number of signatures of legal voters.' This brings them within the language of § 17 of the statute [cf. RCW 29.79.210], i. e.:
'Any citizen who shall be dissatisfied with the determination of the secretary of state that the petition contains or does not contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters may, within five days after such determination, * * *.'
appeal to the superior court for Thurston county. However, the bill of particulars which they subsequently filed made it clear that they did not question the number of legal voters who signed the petitions but, instead, were questioning the action of the secretary of state in accepting and filing the petitions containing the signatures of the registered voters and the statements concerning contributions and disbursements required by § 11 of chapter 138 [cf. RCW 29.79.120, .130, .150].
There are only three circumstances under which the statute gives the courts any supervision over the manner of the exercise of the legislative power of initiative reserved to the people:
First: Section 3 of the 1913 enactment [cf. RCW 29.79.060] provides that, if the persons sponsoring the initiative are dissatisfied with the ballot title as formulated by the attorney general, they may appeal from his decision to the superior court for Thurston county, stating their objections. That court's determination of the ballot title shall be final.
Section: Section 11 [cf. RCW 29.79.130] provides that the sponsors of the proposed initiative shall submit the signed petitions to the secretary of state, together with a statement concerning contributions and expenditures. Section 12 [cf. RCW 29.79.150] deals with the examination of the petitions by the secretary of state to determine whether they 'appear to be in proper form and to bear the requisite number of signatures of legal voters, * * *.' and his acceptance and filing thereof or his refusal to file the same. Section 13 [cf. RCW 29.79.160, .170] provides that, if the secretary of state refuses to file the petitions, the person submitting the same for filing may appeal to the superior court for Thurston county for a citation requiring him to bring such petitions before the court, and for a writ of mandate to compel him to file the same. A decision by that court granting the writ is final; the refusal to grant may be reviewed by this court on a writ of certiorari. (It is the acceptance and filing of the petitions and of the statements referred to in § 11 of which the relators really complain, but no review is provided if the secretary of state accepts and files the petitions.)
Third: Sections 15, as amended [cf. RCW 29.79.200], and 16, as amended [cf. RCW 29.79.240], relate to the preparation of initiatives for submission to the legislature and cover the details of canvassing and counting the names of certified legal voters on the petitions. Section 17 [cf. RCW 29.79.210] provides that any citizen 'dissatisfied with the determination of the secretart of state that the petition contains or does not contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters' may appeal that determination to the superior court for Thurston county, and that court can direct or enjoin the certification of the measure to the legislature. This court may review the action of the superior court on a writ of certiorari. Section 18, as amended [cf. RCW 29.79.220], makes the procedures in §§ 15, 16, and 17 applicable to an initiative petition for submission to the people.
It is to be noted that the reviews provided for in §§ 3 and 13 can be sought only by those interested in getting the initiative measure onto the ballot, and the only review that 'any citizen' can invoke is provided for in § 17 and is limited to the determination of whether a sufficient number of legal voters have signed the petitions. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CLEAN v. State
...unconstitutional. (See State ex rel. O'Connell v. Kramer, 73 Wash.2d 85, 86-87, 436 P.2d 786 (1968) and State ex rel. Donohue v. Coe, 49 Wash.2d 410, 418, 302 P.2d 202 (1956)). James D. Gordon III & David B. Magleby, Pre-Election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums, 64 Notre Dame......
-
City of Sequim v. Malkasian
... ... CITY OF SEQUIM, a noncharter code city and a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, by and through its city council, Respondent, ... Paul MALKASIAN, circulator, ... a preelection review automatically became moot when the election was held, relying on State ex rel. Jones v. Byers, 24 Wash.2d 730, 167 P.2d 464 (1946). That case has no application, however, given ... State ex rel ... Page 959 ... Donohue v. Coe, 49 Wash.2d 410, 414-15, 302 P.2d 202 (1956). Thus, opponents of a proposed measure cannot ... ...
-
League of Educ. Voters, Non-Profit Corp. v. State
...in the absence of collusion, fraud, or interference with a vested right, will not be judicially reviewed); State ex rel. Donohue v. Coe, 49 Wash.2d 410, 417, 302 P.2d 202 (1956) (determination of questions arising incidental to the submission of an initiative measure to the voters is a poli......
-
Community Care Coalition of Wash. v. Reed
...laws make the question judicial. Schrempp v. Munro, 116 Wash.2d 929, 932, 809 P.2d 1381 (1991) (quoting State ex rel. Donohue v. Coe, 49 Wash.2d 410, 417, 302 P.2d 202 (1956)). ¶ 10 There are two types of initiatives, those to the legislature and those to the people. CONST. art. II, § 1(a).......
-
Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems
...fraud, or the interference with a vested right, will not be judicially reviewed); State ex rel. Donohue v. Coe, 49 Wash. 2d 410, 417, 302 P.2d 202, 206 (1956) (holding that determination of questions arising incidental to the submission of an initiative measure to the voters is a political ......