State v. Superior Court for Thurston County

• Decision Date: 09 June 1932
• Docket Number: 23887.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SEYMOUR v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THURSTON COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

12 P.2d 394

168 Wash. 361

STATE ex rel. SEYMOUR v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THURSTON COUNTY.

No. 23887.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 9, 1932

Department 2.

Action by the State, on the relation of W. L. Seymour, to review the judgment of the Superior Court of Thurston County, D. F Wright, Judge, dismissing an action, to restrain the Secretary of State from filing and canvassing petitions in connection with 'Initiative Measure No. 62, generally referred to as the game control bill.

Affirmed.

Patterson & Ross, of Seattle, for relator.

John H Dunbar, and E. W. Anderson, both of Olympia, and John J Sullivan and Everett O. Butts, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The state, on the relation of W. L. Seymour, brought this action to restrain the secretary of state from filing and canvassing petitions in connection with what is known as Initiative Measure No. 62, generally referred to as the 'game control bill.' To the complaint a demurrer was interposed and sustained. The plaintiff refused to plead further, and elected to stand upon the complaint. A judgment was entered dismissing the action, and the case is brought here to review this judgment.

The facts alleged in the complaint, sufficient to present the question to be determined, may be summarized as follows: In 1921, what is known as the Administrative Code (chapter 7, p 12, Laws of 1921) was passed. By section 2 of this act there were created ten departments of the state government, one of which was 'the department of taxation and examination.' In 1925 a law was passed which created and established a state tax commission which was to be known and designated as the 'Tax Commission of the State of Washington.' Chapter 18, p. 33, Laws of 1925. This act makes no reference to the act of 1921. By section 11, c. 280, p. 683, Laws of 1927, the department of taxation and examination is specifically abolished. In 1929 the Legislature amended section 2 of chapter 7 of the Laws of 1921 (chapter 115, section 1, Laws of 1929). By this act there was created the department of highways which had had not been embodied in the previous act. No mention is made in the latter act of a department of taxation and examination. Section 1 of Initiative Measure No. 62, which is the one Before us, amends section 2 of chapter 7 of the Laws of 1921, and adds the 'department of game.' In this act no mention is made of the act of 1925 or of 1927, which repealed the provision in the act of 1921 creating the department of taxation and examination, or of the act of 1929, which created the department of highways.

The legislative title of Initiative Measure No. 62 is as follows: 'An act relating to the organization and administration of the state government, creating the department of fisheries, the department of game, and certain officers connected therewith and defining the powers and duties thereof, and amending Chapter 7 of the laws of 1921, Chapter 178 of the laws of the extraordinary session of 1925, and repealing certain acts and parts of acts in relation thereto.'

Upon the filing of the measure the Attorney General gave it a ballot title as follows: 'Initiative Measure No. 62, entitled: An Act relating to wild animals, wild birds and game fish, and providing for state control and regulation thereof; creating a state department of game, providing for the appointment of certain officers in connection therewith and defining their powers and duties; amending Chapter 7, Laws of 1921, and Chapter 178, Laws Extraordinary Session of 1925, and repealing certain acts and parts of acts.'

The relator brought the action upon the ground that the ballot title does not express and give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure, and for this reason seeks to prevent the measure going on the ballot, because, as he alleges, the voters will be misled by the ballot title.

The controlling question is whether the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General expresses and gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure. Without so deciding, we shall assume that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this question.

Section 5398, Rem. Comp. Stat. provides that, within ten days after an initiative measure shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state, the Attorney General shall prepare a ballot title of not to exceed one hundred words, 'which ballot title may be distinct from the legislative title of such measure, and shall express, and give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of such measure and shall not be intentionally an argument, or likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure. * * *' Relator argues that the ballot title is not a true and impartial statement of the purpose of Initiative Measure No. 62, because it fails to show that such measure will have the effect of repealing chapter 115 of the Laws of 1929, and thus abolish the state highway department, and of repealing chapter 18, Laws of 1925, and ...