Washington State Association of Counties v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 99230-4 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, a Washington nonprofit association; Snohomish County, a Washington municipal entity; Kittitas County, a Washington municipal entity; and Whitman County, a Washington municipal entity; Respondents, v. STATE of Washington, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Jeffrey Todd Even, Tera Marie Heintz, Karl David Smith, Camille Maria McDorman, Office of the Attorney General, P. O. Box 40100, 1125 Washington Street Se, Olympia, WA, Spencer Wade Coates, Attorney at Law, 800 5th Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Paul J. Lawrence, Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave. Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, Lyndsey Marie Downs, Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office, 3000 Rockefeller Ave. # Ms504, Everett, WA, Denis Paul Tracy, Whitman County Prosecutor, 400 N. Main St., Colfax, WA, Christopher Elliott Horner, Kittitas County Prosecutor, 205 W 5th Ave. Ste. 213, Ellensburg, WA, for Respondents.
¶1 This case concerns the amount of reimbursement that counties are entitled to from the State for costs associated with purchasing, installing, and operating additional ballot boxes. In order to answer that question, we must consider the relationship between RCW 29A.40.170 (), RCW 29A.04.430 (), and RCW 43.135.060 (). We must also consider the constitutional challenges to Section 430 raised by the respondents and the trial court.
¶2 We hold that Section 430 controls over the unfunded mandate statute and provides reimbursement only of the State's proportional share for the costs of compliance with the ballot box statute. Further, we hold that the 2020 amendment of Section 430 does not violate article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution and that the respondents Snohomish, Kittitas, and Whitman Counties (the Counties) cannot claim any vested right that would require us to invalidate the retroactive effect of Section 430. We therefore reverse the order granting partial summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
¶3 The State of Washington sought direct review of a trial court order granting partial summary judgment to the Counties and the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC).1 The State contends that it is required to reimburse political subdivisions only for its proportional share of any election related costs, pursuant to Section 430 and RCW 29A.04.410 -.470 (). Respondents claim that all counties are entitled to full reimbursement for the costs of adding ballot drop boxes in their respective counties, in accordance with the unfunded mandate statute.
¶4 In Washington, county auditors are "ex officio the supervisor[s] of all primaries and elections, general or special," in their counties. RCW 29A.04.216. Auditors are responsible for "provid[ing] the supplies and materials necessary for the conduct of elections," including ballot drop boxes.2 Id. They "shall also apportion to the county, each city, town, or district, and to the state of Washington, its share of the expense of such primaries and elections." Id. The auditors use a reimbursement process governed by RCW 29A.04.410 -.470 () to recover each jurisdiction's proportional share of election costs.
¶5 The county election office must keep track of all expenses related to an election in order to allocate costs to other jurisdictions. Auditors then follow the reimbursement process outlined in the Budgeting, Accounting, and Reporting System, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (BARS GAAP) Manual , which is a uniform "system of accounting and reporting for all local governments," created by the state auditor.3 RCW 29A.04.420(3) ; RCW 43.09.200. This manual treats operating expenses and capital expenses differently. "Operating expenses" include salaries and wages, benefits, supplies, and services, as well as equipment that falls below the capital threshold (which for most counties is $5,000). Clerk's Papers (CP) at 661. "Capital expenses" are any expense above the capital threshold.
¶6 Operating costs are allocated by either the number of issues and offices on the ballot or the number of registered voters in each jurisdiction. Capital expenses may be allocated using one of two methods. Counties have discretion to choose their allocation method. The first is a depreciation method where " ‘[c]harges must be based on rates that will result in a reasonable recovery of the original equipment over its useful life.’ " Id. at 662. The second method allows counties to charge a 15 percent "overhead factor" to "all other costs associated with an election." Id. The reimbursement methods do not provide for full reimbursement of election costs.
¶7 In 2017, the legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5472, which amended RCW 29A.40.160 by adding a provision concerning the number of ballot drop boxes that must be installed throughout the state. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 112, § 4(17). The provisions regarding ballot drop boxes were later recodified into a separate section, RCW 29A.40.170 (). LAWS OF 2019, ch. 6, §§ 5, 6. Pursuant to this statute, county auditors are required to install a "minimum of one ballot box per fifteen thousand registered voters in the county and a minimum of one ballot drop box in each city, town, and census-designated place in the county with a post office." RCW 29A.40.170(2). The fiscal note stated that the statute would require the purchase and installation of 257 ballot drop boxes statewide and estimated that it would cost $1,285,000 to implement the program, with ongoing annual costs of $1,000 per box. Agency Fiscal Note to Substitute S.B. 5472, at 2, 65th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2017) (prepared by Dep't of Commerce).
¶8 The legislature did not appropriate additional funding for the ballot box statute. S.B. REP. ON SUBSTITUTE S.B. 5472, at 2, 65th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2017). The Office of the Secretary of State offered limited grants to "distressed rural counties" for the amount of $1,000 per ballot drop box purchased on a first-come, first-served basis. CP at 430-32. Based on the record, it appears that only five counties received this grant. Id. at 54-55.
¶9 Counties can seek reimbursement from the State, cities, towns, and districts for their "proportionate share of the costs" pursuant to RCW 29A.04.410 -.470 (). RCW 29A.04.410. This statutory scheme was enacted to ensure "that the county is not responsible for any costs involved in the holding of any city, town, district, state, or federal election." Id. Prior to July 1, 2021, Section 430 provided that counties could seek reimbursement from the State only for the State's portion of election costs in odd-numbered years. In 2020, Section 430 was amended to permit reimbursement from the State for elections in even-numbered years. LAWS OF 2020, ch. 337, § 4. The amendment also added a provision stating that "[f]unding provided in this section to counties for election costs in even-numbered years is retrospective and prospective reimbursement under RCW 43.135.060 [] for any new or increased responsibilities under this title." RCW 29A.04.430(2).
¶10 Some counties, such as Snohomish and Kittitas, began implementing the ballot box statute immediately, despite concerns about how they would be able to afford such significant costs. These counties then submitted reimbursement requests to the State, most of which were denied. Other counties, including Whitman County, could not afford to comply with the ballot box statute. Whitman County also did not qualify as a "distressed rural county" and was therefore not eligible for a grant. CP at 443.
¶11 The Counties and WSAC filed suit against the State for its denial of their reimbursement claims, seeking declaratory judgment and damages. The parties agreed to file "cross-motions for partial summary judgment as to legal issues that do not involve questions of fact." Id. at 25-26. After briefing and oral argument, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Counties.
¶12 The court's order contained "findings" that the 2020 amendment to Section 430 violated article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution, and that making it retroactive would impermissibly interfere with the Counties’ vested rights "to seek reimbursement under the Unfunded Mandate Statute." Id. at 798, 800. Based on those findings, the court ordered that the ballot box statute "is an unfunded mandate" and that "[a]ll Washington State counties shall be entitled to full reimbursement from the State" pursuant to the unfunded mandate statute. Id. at 800. Further, the court ordered that "Clallam, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Pierce, and Snohomish counties are entitled to damages in the form of full reimbursement for funds expended to date in order to comply with SB 5472 but for which the State has denied them full reimbursement." Id. at 800-01. The State sought direct review in this court.
¶13 The issues before this court require statutory and constitutional interpretation in order to determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial