272 P.3d 227
Wash.2012Background
- Mukilteo is a noncharter code city operating under Title 35A RCW and has initiative powers under MMC and RCW 35A.11.080-.100.
- Initiative 2 sought to prohibit automated traffic safety cameras and to repeal the existing camera ordinance, with a two-thirds voter requirement and advisory vote provisions for future measures.
- City Council adopted measures recognizing Initiative 2 and placed Proposition 1 on the November 2010 ballot; Proposition 1 was described as an initiative on the ballot materials.
- MCSG, Mukilteo residents, sued to prevent ballot inclusion, arguing Initiative 2 exceeded local initiative power.
- Proposition 1 passed; the City later repealed Ordinance 1246 and enacted Ordinance 1275 repealing the camera program.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief; the Supreme Court granted direct review on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of MCSG to challenge Proposition 1 | MCSG has standing as residents eligible to vote and interests germane to public safety. | Not provided in summary; implied defense that standing requirements may not be met. | MCSG has standing to challenge Proposition 1. |
| Whether Proposition 1 was an initiative or an advisory vote | Prop 1 was an initiative and enforceable as such. | Prop 1 was an advisory vote, not an initiative. | Prop 1 was historically, in substance and procedurally an initiative. |
| Scope of the initiative power regarding automated traffic safety cameras | Proposition 1 falls within the initiative power. | Automated traffic safety cameras are within legislative, not initiative, authority. | Proposition 1 exceeds the initiative power because local authority to regulate cameras is granted to the legislative body by RCW 46.63.170. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash.2d 251 (2006) (scope of initiative power when legislature grants authority to local governing body)
- State ex rel. Guthrie v. City of Richland, 80 Wash.2d 382 (1972) (legislature grants to city governing body not subject to initiative repeal)
- Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Wash.2d 847 (1976) (limits on initiative power when authority rests with legislative body)
- Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, 163 Wash.App. 427 (2011) (appellate treatment of initiative-related questions and agency authority)
- Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811 (1973) (definition of justiciable controversy for declaratory judgments)