Huff v. Wyman
184 Wash. 2d 643
Wash.2015Background
- Respondents filed Initiative 1366 in Jan. 2015 proposing to reduce the sales tax unless the legislature referred a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds legislative or voter approval to raise taxes; the filed heading read "2/3 Constitutional Amendment."
- The Secretary of State certified sufficient signatures to place I-1366 on the Nov. 2015 ballot.
- Appellants (taxpayers, county election officials, legislators) sued in King County Superior Court seeking to enjoin placing I-1366 on the ballot, arguing the initiative exceeded the people’s initiative power (Art. II, §1) and attempted to amend the constitution (Art. XXIII).
- The superior court found appellants had standing, treated the claim as a preelection subject-matter challenge, and concluded I-1366’s fundamental purpose was to amend the constitution but denied injunctive relief based on free-speech concerns.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted accelerated review, held appellants have taxpayer standing and the case is justiciable, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because appellants failed to show a clear legal right that the initiative was clearly beyond the initiative power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Appellants asserted taxpayer, county election official, and legislator standing to enjoin placement. | Sponsors contended appellants lack standing; SOS agreed only taxpayer standing. | Court: appellants have taxpayer standing; did not decide other standing theories. |
| Justiciability | Appellants: scope-of-initiative challenge appropriate preelection review. | Sponsors: initiative not yet enacted so not ripe. | Court: subject-matter challenges to whether an initiative exceeds article II are justiciable preelection. |
| Preliminary injunction burden (clear right) | Appellants: I-1366’s fundamental and overriding purpose is to amend the constitution (thus outside initiative power). | Sponsors/SOS: I-1366 is conditional legislation to reduce taxes unless legislature acts; within initiative power. | Court: appellants failed to clearly show the initiative’s primary purpose is constitutional amendment; therefore no clear right to injunctive relief. |
| Remedy scope / merits | Appellants sought removal from ballot. | Sponsors argued ballot placement should proceed; merits reserved. | Court: declined to decide ultimate merits (constitutional validity) on preliminary injunction record; affirmed denial of injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rabón v. City of Seattle, 135 Wn.2d 278 (preliminary injunction standard for ballot-access challenges)
- Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d 290 (scope-of-initiative subject-matter review preelection)
- Futurewise v. Reed, 161 Wn.2d 407 (generally refrain from adjudicating initiative validity pre-enactment)
- Phila. II v. Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d 707 (test for "fundamental and overriding purpose" exceeding initiative power)
- Kucera v. Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200 (injunctions are extraordinary; limits on preelection adjudication)
- LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193 (appellate court may affirm trial court on any supported basis)
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183 (limitations on contingent initiatives affecting future legislative acts)
- Ford v. Logan, 79 Wn.2d 147 (initiative power does not include power to directly amend the constitution)