State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 10 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 59713-8,59713-8 |
| Citation | 869 P.2d 56,123 Wn.2d 451 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington on the Relation of Robert B. ROYAL, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Chuck Klarich, Alex Deccio, Betty Ingham and Yakima County Auditor, Doug Cochran, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Yakima County Prosecutor, Ronald S. Zirkle, Deputy, Yakima, for respondents.
Appellant Robert B. Royal appeals direct to this court from an order of the Yakima County Superior Court denying his writ of mandamus and declaratory relief against the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and the Yakima County Auditor for refusing to accept his declaration of candidacy for a fifth judicial position in the Yakima District Court which he claims must be created along with a sixth position under state law. We reverse the Superior Court.
On April 15, 1992, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners (Board) adopted resolution number 206-1992 which On July 23, 1992, the Yakima County Auditor posted a notice of vacancy for the newly created fifth district judge position and solicited declarations of candidacy for the 1992 primary elections. 3 On July 31, 1992, Robert B. Royal (Appellant) attempted to timely file his declaration of candidacy for that position, but it was not accepted by the County Auditor for the sole reason that the position had been abolished. 4
purported to authorize a position for a fifth district court judge in Yakima County to take office on January 1, 1993, and to be elected in the then--pending 1992 general elections, and purported to authorize a sixth position for election in the indefinite future at the discretion of the Board. 1 On July 21, 1992, the Board adopted resolution number 406-1992 which purported to amend resolution number 206-1992 by indefinitely postponing its implementation primarily for budgetary reasons. 2
On September 10, 1992, Appellant Royal filed in the Yakima County Superior Court a complaint for declaratory judgment to declare the Board's adoption of resolution number 406-1992 (abolishing the fifth position) illegal and for a writ of mandamus to compel the Auditor to accept Appellant's declaration of candidacy for the fifth district judge position and to conduct an election for that position with Appellant's name on the ballot. 5 On the same day the Superior Court, the Honorable Robert N. Hackett, Jr., set a hearing for the Board and the Auditor to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. 6
Appellant Royal claimed that Yakima County is required by RCW 3.34.010 to have six district court judges and asked that his declaration of candidacy be accepted for the fifth position in the next election. He argued that the Board's resolution number 206-1992 (creating the fifth position) is a valid exercise of power under RCW 3.38.040 7 and an attempt to comply with the mandate of RCW 3.34.010, but that the Board's resolution number 406-1992 (abolishing the fifth position) is void as a violation of both statutes. 8
The Board claimed that under an amendment to RCW 3.34.010 which was vetoed by the Governor, the correct number of district judges for Yakima County should be four as of January 1, 1992, and that therefore both of its own resolutions are void under RCW 3.34.020 and RCW 3.38.040 and .030. It maintained that the correct number of judges should continue to be four until the Legislature (and not the Board) determines otherwise under RCW 3.34.020.
On October 1, 1992, after briefs were filed and a hearing held, the court denied the relief requested by Appellant Royal. 9 The court's reasoning is contained only in the verbatim record of proceedings. The court stated it was necessary to consider the language of the vetoed amendment to RCW 3.34.010 10 in order to determine the true intent of the Legislature in this case.
On October 9, 1992, Appellant Royal sought direct review of the decision of the Superior Court, requesting accelerated review because of the then--pending 1992 general elections.
Accelerated review was denied and the 1992 elections were held without listing a fifth district judge position. All parties concede that the original reason for this lawsuit may be moot because the 1992 election has already been held, but nevertheless seek review under RAP 4.2(a)(4) because they claim the case involves an issue of "broad public import which requires prompt and ultimate determination." We granted review on July 7, 1993.
The sole question presented by this case is whether under RCW 3.34, providing for district judges, Yakima County is required to have four district court judges or six district court judges.
Article 4, Section 10 of the Washington Constitution provides in relevant part that "the legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected...." RCW 3.30.015 provides that the term "justices of the peace" shall be construed as meaning "district judges".
Under RCW 3.34.010, Yakima County has been entitled to six district court judges since 1965. 11 However, for many years the County has had only four district court judges. That number was derived from a formula established under former RCW 3.34.020 based upon district population. Under RCW 3.38.050, Yakima County has the option to remain one district court district or to create separate district court districts according to certain criteria. 12 Yakima County chose to remain a single district.
There has not previously been a challenge to the discrepancy in the number of judges between the six designated in RCW 3.34.010 13 and the four calculated by applying the population formula under former RCW 3.34.020. 14 Under that formula, the legislative authority of the county was given discretion to make final determination on the number of district judges in the county and whether they would be full or part time. 15
The current version of RCW 3.34.010 (Laws of 1991, ch. 354, § 1) states in relevant part:
The number of district judges to be elected in each county shall be: ... Yakima, six: PROVIDED, That this number may (Italics ours.)
be increased in accordance with a resolution of the county commissioners under RCW 3.34.020.
The current version of RCW 3.34.020 (Laws of 1991, ch. 313, § 2) states in relevant part:
(1) Any change in the number of full and part-time district judges after January 1, 1992, shall be determined by the legislature after receiving a recommendation from the supreme court....
....
(4) If the legislature approves an increase in the base number of district judges in any county as of January 1, 1992, such increase in the base number of district judges and all related costs may be paid for by the county from moneys provided under RCW 82.14.310 [] ...
(5)(a) A county legislative authority that desires to change the number of full or part-time district judges from the base number on January 1, 1992, must first request the assistance of the supreme court. The administrator for the courts, under the supervision of the supreme court, shall conduct a weighted caseload analysis and make a recommendation of its findings to the legislature for its consideration as provided in this section.
(b) The legislative authority of any county may change a part-time district judge position into a full-time position.
(Italics ours.)
The remainder of subsections (1) and (4) and subsections (2) and (3) of RCW 3.34.020 provide the procedures for making changes, factors for implementing the weighted caseload analysis, the councils and associations to be consulted, the requirement of a detailed state and local cost report, and a designation of the source of funding.
The controversy in this case arises primarily because in 1991 the Legislature made a change in the statutory language governing the number of district court judges in the state. This is the first case before this court questioning the meaning of the statutory language in RCW 3.34.010.
The language of current RCW 3.34.010 and .020 suggests they are incongruous and somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, RCW 3.34.010 provides that there shall be six district judges for Yakima County and that the county legislative authority may by resolution increase that number. On the other hand, RCW 3.34.020 provides that any change in the number of judges after January 1, 1992, shall be determined by the Legislature.
Appellant Royal argues that the Board must immediately carry out the mandate of the Legislature under RCW 3.34.010 and provide for six district judges in Yakima County. He cites several cases for the proposition that use of the word "shall" creates a mandate, while use of the word "may" creates discretion in the official specified in the statute. 19 He is correct. 20 However, as the Board also correctly points out, the word "shall" has been interpreted as directory, rather than mandatory, when the intent of the Legislature would be frustrated by a literal reading. 21 The A further incongruity in the statutes is that there are references to a "base number of district judges" without a clear definition of that term. 22 One possible interpretation of the term "base number" is the number of judges designated in RCW 3.34.010--in this case six. Another possible interpretation of the term is the number of judges actually in existence on January 1, 1992, as arguably referred to in RCW 3.34.020(4) and (5)(a)--in this case four.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staats v. Brown
... ... James BROWN and the State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife, ... the Snake River near Heller Bar in Asotin County as well as debris which he believed had been ... Tommy P. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 97 Wash.2d 385, 391-92, 645 .2d 697 (1982) ; State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Comm'rs, 123 ... ...
-
> FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, TENINO AERIE NO. 564 v. Grand Aerie of …
... ... FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, and Washington State Aerie, Fraternal Order of Eagles Washington State ... , which reversed a ruling of the Thurston County Superior Court that the male-only membership ... out its purposes and granted the State Board Against Discrimination 82 jurisdiction and ... 68. State ex rel. Royal v. Bd. of Yakima County Comm'rs, 123 ... ...
-
State v. Thorne
... ... Jim Krider, Snohomish County Prosecutor, S. Aaron Fine, Deputy, Everett, for ... State ex rel. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wash.2d 13, 26, ... State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Comm'rs, 123 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24119-6-II.
... ... State v. Land, 121 Wash.2d 494, 500, 851 P.2d 678 ... , 141, 995 P.2d 31 (2000) (citing State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Comm'rs, 123 ... ...
-
State v. Riker, Battered Women Under Duress: the Concept the Washington Supreme Court Could Not Grasp
...682 P.2d 312, 314-16 (1984)). 168. Id. at 371, 869 P.2d at 54. 169. Id. 170. Id. 171. Id. at 371-72, 869 P.2d at 54. 172. Id. at 374-75, 869 P.2d at 56. 173. Id. at 375, 869 P.2d at 174. Id. at 354-55, 869 P.2d at 45-46. 175. Id. at 354, 356-57, 869 P.2d at 45-46. 176. Id. at 356, 869 P.2d ......