260 P.3d 245
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- City enacted ordinance establishing automated traffic safety cameras under Bellingham Municipal Code 11.16.020 and contracted with ATS in 2011 to install the system.
- RCW 46.63.170 authorizes local legislative approval for camera use; the city council must enact an ordinance first.
- Initiative 2011-01 filed Jan 25, 2011 would require council and voter approval for camera use; county auditor certified sufficient signatures.
- City Council voted to take no action on the initiative; ATS filed suit on July 29, 2011 seeking declarations and injunctions.
- Trial court denied ATS’s declaratory and injunctive relief and granted special motions to strike under RCW 4.24.525; penalties and fees imposed.
- This appeal challenges the preelection scope of initiative power, standing, and sanctions, with this court to decide before ballots are printed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative 2011-01 is within local initiative power. | ATS argues initiative exceeds local legislative authority. | City/County contend initiative conflicts with RCW 46.63.170 and is beyond local power. | Initiative is beyond the scope of local initiative power; invalid. |
| Whether ATS has standing/justiciability to challenge the initiative preelection. | ATS as party to the contract has injury-in-fact and is within zone of interests. | No substantial injury shown; government entities not properly aligned as necessary. | ATS has standing; claim justiciable. |
| Whether the initiative is beyond scope of local initiative power (preemption by statutory scheme). | Initiative governs municipal authority contrary to granted legislative authority. | Legislature grants authority to local legislative body; initiative cannot override. | Initiative beyond scope; invalid. |
| Whether anti-SLAPP sanctions/disposition (RCW 4.24.525) were proper. | ATS shows probability of prevailing; public participation element exists. | Trial court properly struck; sanctions appropriate. | Anti-SLAPP order reversed; sanction award vacated. |
| Whether injunctive relief should be granted to enjoin election. | Invalid initiative could cause injury to ATS’s contractual interests. | Invalid initiative cannot cause actual injury; no basis for relief. | Injunctive relief denied; election injunction not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wash.2d 1 (2010) (preelection scope review of initiative power actions)
- Futurewise v. Reed, 161 Wash.2d 407 (2007) (pre-election challenge to scope permissible)
- Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wash.2d 290 (2005) (standard for preelection challenges to initiative power)
- Malkasian v. City of Sequim, 157 Wash.2d 251 (2006) (local authority; scope of initiative power; administrative vs. legislative)
- Guthrie v. City of Richland, 80 Wash.2d 382 (1972) (statutory grants to local authority not subject to initiative)