Senior Citizens League, Inc. v. Department of Social Security

En Banc. March [No. 1951.] 31664. Depart- al., Inc. et Appellants, League,

Senior Citizens Security al., et Respondents.1 ment of Social 1Reported in 228 P.

Forrest & Rowles and Brown & Millhouse, for appellants. The Attorney General, Jane Dowdle and Lyle Iversen, L. Assistants, for respondents. J. —This is a consolidation of two actions which

Hamley, were brought to test the constitutionality initiative mea- sure No. 178. That initiative, referred to herein 178, as No. was passed by the voters on 7, November 1950, and became effective 7, December 1950. It is a comprehensive act relat- ing the statewide public assistance program, amends, and in substantial respects, of 1949, Laws 24 chapter p. (Rem. Supp. 9998-33a et §§ seq. measure 172]). No. [initiative

146

Plaintiffs instituted the two on actions December 1950. they declaring declaratory judgment In one asked for a No. injunctions, general unconstitutional, for and for relief. they injunctions general In the other asked for relief only. complaints thereafter'filed, Amended were the two being allegations, prayers identical as to different but with for relief, as above indicated. Defendants demurred the complaints. purpose time, amended At the the same for expediting cause, the filed an to each defendants answer complaint. permission was the amended This done with waiving and without demurrers. court defendants’ judgment pleadings. Plaintiffs The then on moved Argument two actions were thereafter consolidated. was at on motions. had one time both demurrers and both upon ground demurrers, trial court sustained complaints sufficient that the did not state facts amended accordingly of action. A decree constitute cause was declaring ordering, decreeing, adjudging, entered, dismissing the Plain- constitutional, action. No. appealed. herein to the tiffs have reference is made When security designation department alone, the “de- of social “departments” partment” will The term be will used. security designate of social used department of health. preliminary questions

Respondents present several as to reach the issues which must be considered before we constitutionality questions, raised of No. 178. These passed upon court, demurrers, were not trial Although being grounds. re sustained on other demurrers cross-appealed, spondents entitled to have preliminary questions done here. renew these This erroneous that, rule if an under the a decision is based ground, if on correct be sustained will nevertheless ground. Knight, 43; In re Pac. Buchan Wash. (2d) 652; re P. Boulevard, 64, 15 Rockwood 170 Wash. (2d) 226 P. Estate, Bodvin’s 37 Wn. They

Respondents jurisdictional present question. first Washington; against contend the state that this is a suit against only in the can be maintained that suits state legislature in has that the state manner which the consented legislature prescribed, sued; as shall be and that the has may recipients public in assistance sole manner which rights public laws, maintain their under the assistance hearing procedures fair out in Laws of and court review set (Rem. Supp. chapter §§ §§9998-33h, 1949, 6, 1949, 8 and 9 9998-33Í). procedure not followed in the instant This was respondents argue, Consequently, the court has no case. jurisdiction subject matter of this action.

Respondents asserting in an are correct that action against cannot be maintained the state without its consent. County Superior 685, Court, State ex rel. Pierce 86 Wash. Superior 108; Court, 151 Pac. State ex rel. Thielicke v. (2d) § Wn. 309, II, 26, 114P. 1001. Article of the state by provides legislature constitution, that the direct shall brought law what manner and what courts suits against respect done, state. This has been with to causes general, by 1895, action in the enactment of Laws of chapter p. by chapter Laws of amended (Rem. §§ §§ [P.P.C. Stat., Rev. 933-1 to 886 to 890 933-9]).

Respondents appellants make no contention that have failed 886 et Stat., follow of Rem. Rev. seq. regard statutory general procedure, Hence, with to this necessary against it is not to determine this whether is suit necessary question the state. Nor is to decide that considering special proce- statutory court review provided by chapter dure true of 1949. This is Laws special statutory procedure because is exclusive with respect grievances to the to, kind of therein referred whether grievances presenting or not a claim con- or those suit against sidered to be action an the state. only grievances

It remains to be whether the determined appellants of the kind referred assert this case are chapter §§ to in 8 and 6, Laws of 1949. special statutory procedure

This to cases which relates applicant aggrieved recipient an or feels himself agency. Appellants, however, decision administrative aggrieved by any regu- allege they are rule or do agency, promulgated lation determination grants regard assistance to their individual gist complaint eligibility of their is that No. therefor. modify chapter purports 6, 178, to amend and Laws which many respects, unconstitutional, that 1949, in is re- give spondents, proposing 178, are there- in effect to No. illegal arbitrary powers fore to exercise to the about appellants. detriment of allegations may may not state facts sufficient

These They at to constitute a cause of action. least disclose grievance upon upon the decision relied is based agency. accordingly appear It of the administrative would provided by hearing procedure that the and court review applicable. chapter 1949, not here 6, Laws of support Respondents, however, have cited cases several gov- statutory procedure position special of their that the Todd, ex Breslin v. these, erns in this One of rel. case. State (2d) application (2d) 315, an 8 Wn. 113 P. involved sought applicant mandamus, a writ county, against King the commissioners of enforce, as by preference employees’ accorded Rem. veterans’ §§ §§ -49]. [P.P.C. 932-47, Stat., Rev. 10753and 10754 by public provides that a failure second of these sections require- preference comply officials to with veterans’ man- court ment shall a misdemeanor. This held preference, since damus does not lie to enforce the only legislature penalty rem- intended the criminal edy. with administrative That case was not concerned procedure, relief available. court but the ultimate attempts by respondents involved Two other cases cited provided appeal procedure in to short-cut the court filing by applications compensation for writs act workmen’s supreme rel. ex court. These are State mandate 272; Pac. 103, 226 130 Wash. Clifford, Hawksworth (2d) Superior Court, Wn. State ex Burkhard v. rel. griev- question but that nó 120 P. 477. There was presented gov- anees there were of the kind which were by procedure provided erned court review the act. ground by denied the writs on the familiar that relief We permitted plain, not be there mandamus will where is a speedy, adequate remedy by appeal. ex rel. State Hinkle, LaFollette v. Wash. Pac. also cited by respondents, application an a likewise involved for writ special procedure of mandamus, and court statute was no application involved. We denied the for the same reason preceding announced the two cases. Department Security,

State ex rel. Kroener v. Social Supreme State Court also relied re No. spondents, disposed entry denying was minute application opinion having writ, for a no been issued. Causes disposed simple entry minute are not useful as precedents, ruling since the basis for the court’s is not revealed. any

Examination of indicates, the file that case aggrieved by event, that the relators claimed to be the act promulgating of the rules, certain and in removing public one of the relators from the assistance pursued hearing rolls. The relators had the administrative procedure provided by chapter § 8, 6, 1949, Laws of but by procedure desired to short-cut the court review of applying to this court for a writ of mandate. no Thus issue presented grievances was as to whether the there asserted by special procedure chap- were the kind covered 6, ter Laws 1949.

It is our that, conclusion or is a whether not this against appellants suit state, not, were view grievances required nature of asserted, here to follow hearing procedure chapter court review set out regard injunc 6, Laws of 1949. that, It follows with to the jurisdiction subject tion action, the court matter. had declaratory judgment be referred to at a action will point opinion. later in this preliminary question presented respondents

Another regard injunction appel- proceeding to the is whether legal injunction. capacity to for an lants have the sue It is complaint allege respondents’ position that the fails to facts showing any deprivation appellants’ actual or threatened private rights. upon

It incumbent one tem who seeks relief porary permanent injunction (1) legal clear or to show a right, well-grounded equitable (2) or of imme fear right. Hays diate invasion of that ex Wilson, State rel. (2d) (2d) King County 670, 105; 17 Wn. 137 P. v. Port of (2d) (2d) Seattle, 37 Wn. 223 P. appellants, except corporate appellant,

All of the recipients chapter 6, were under Laws when this brought. Recipients applicants action was or have no in right public they or herent vested in the assistance are receiving (2d) Ernst, desire receive. Adams v. Wn. extending, expanding, 254, 95 P. 799. The matter of curtailing, withdrawing public public is one of assistance policy only. programs involving Pension and relief specific prospective contributions funds actual or only provide voluntary bounty may beneficiaries any Snyder’s at In re Petition, discontinued time. 59, 160Pac. 12. Wash.

Appellants not, however, do assert such inherent or an. right receiving. presently vested to the benefits They deny do not state curtail or discontinue position those benefits at time. It is their that the state purporting so, has not done since No. to have that nullity. They effect, is unconstitutional and therefore a chapter further contend that conferred Laws statutory rights them certain assistance they may protect long which assert and as as that act is law.

Respondents quarrel appellants up do not to this with point, chapter 6, and there is little doubt but that Laws of may rights statutory 1949, does confer certain be which long brief, These, enforced as in that act is in effect. rights persons eligibility require- are the of who meet the pur- grants provided ments of that act to receive the there 151 legally rules and suant to reasonable and authorized regulations fairly administered, and undue dis without preferences. provides crimination or act itself rights statutory may be asserted manner those which (Laws chap departmental 1949, of when invaded action. 9.) rights They may §§6, ter 8 and which be enforced (2d) State, 21, 378. court. See Conant v. 197 Wash. 84 P. well-grounded appellants of imme- But, a fear do have assuming, rights, statutory diate of those as we invasion purpose question, for the of that No. is void must this chapter 1949, and therefore in full effect? that Laws of is respondents appellants It is on that this narrow issue part company. having already reason,

If for found we should reverse this statutory rights appellants act, that under the 1949 have only be assert, the result would are entitled to long delay in the ultimate determination the issues specific appellants case, administrative this while wait for hearing special court decisions then follow involving procedure. the constitution- issues, Those review ality paramount public importance. The of No. are of policy question state, statute involves basic segment population, must affects a substantial very large appropriations. implemented takeWe legislature cognizance now the state fact that deliberations, aided, session, feel it will its that constitutionality 178. No. an as to the immediate decision deciding, accordingly assume, without We will well-grounded appellants of immediate invasion fear have a chapter rights statutory Laws under asserted their precedent ample course. Noble for this 1949. There is Liquor 1049; v. State Dibble, Randles Pac. Wash. (2d) See, also, P. Board, 33 Control Wn. We there Pac. 523. 670, 152 Tanner, Huntworth v. 87 Wash. in appellants the action fore hold maintain junctive relief. right no

Respondents appellants have contend that bring declaratory judgment the con- to test an action for a

152 stitutionality strenuously argued of No. 178. This is in the allegations indicated, briefs. As before of the com- two seeking plaints, injunctions seeking one and the other declaratory judgment, are identical. Hence all of the issues might complaint which be considered under the latter injunction complaint. also before us under the view disposition our ultimate of this case, is therefore unneces- sary declaratory judg- to whether the action for decide appropriate ment is under the circumstances. presented, prin-

The first constitutional issue and the one upon by cipally appellants, relied is whether No. un- 178 lawfully delegates legislative authority. Washington constitution, II, 1,

The Art. as amended by legislative power amendment, the seventh vests the Representatives, subject House of the Senate and to the power people bring initiate, reserved and to about legislative power purely The referendums. make sub delegated stantive law cannot be surrendered or to or by any agency. performed Greenough, Uhden, other Inc. v. (2d) 983, 43 A. L. 412, 181 P. 98 R. 1181. Wash. This rule applicable question whether law has been enacted legislature through people passage Borge, ex an measure. rel. Eckroth v. initiative State 69 N. D. 283N. W. 521. prohibition against delegation

The constitutional legislative power preclude delegation does not to ad power ministrative officers boards to determine things upon application fact or which the some state depend, provided the law is made to law enunciates a guided. such officers or boards must be standard Chicago, ex rel. M. & St. P. R. Co. v. State Public Service Bayles, Commission, 523; Pac. 94 Wash. State v. Royer Utility 20; v. 121 Wash. 209 Pac. Public Dist. (2d) 1302; 142, 56 P. State ex rel. No. 186 Wash. Wash ington Bridge Authority Yelle, Toll v. 195 Wash. (2d) Morgan Department Security, 120; P. v. Social (2d) 156, 127 Wn. P. proper circumstances, legislature under also, authority

delegate boards, officers to administrative express carry regulations out an promulgate rules operation purpose, and enforce- legislative effect the or to Seaborg, 15; Pac. 126,207 120 Wash ment of a law. Vail 796; In re Gifford, 261 Pac. Nelson, 146 Wash. State v. (2d) 348; L. Home Own- 475, 114A. R. 192 74 P. Wash. (2d) Corp. 765; 196 83 P. Rawson, ers’ Loan Wash. (2d) 5 Wn. 105P. Miles, State v. twenty-five thirty separate

Appellants or call attention to opinion, this provisions which, of their violate No. legislative powers, delegation against de- as so rule of provisions majority relate limited. The these fined and to which of the amount of assistance to the determination provi- recipients entitled. Some of the individual eligibility pertain sions, to the determination of however, pertain of these assistance, others to both for while provisions, Appellants contend, as to each of these factors. any attempt (1) delegation power without there that (2) purported legislative prescribe standards, or that the to vague phrased and doubtful in words of such standards are meaning permit patently un- of almost or so exercise no effect, stand- constitute, that limited discretion ards. given careful consideration to all of the criticized

We have representative statutory provisions, ex- selected have opinion. amples for discussion this Most of chapter 6, Laws of of No. 178 amend various sections of chapter. As a matter of 1949, or add sections to new convenience, indicated, refer to will, we unless otherwise chapter added, not 6 as so amended the sections of change. accomplishes such to the section of No. which supplied. cases,«the all italics have been (e), defining Appellants § “need” the term contend that any attempt delegation power without constitutes a provision prescribe legislative reads as fol- This standards. lows: “ requirements amount of an ‘Need’—The dependent of his for himself and the members individual department,

family, standards as measured available to such individual exceed all income and resources meeting requirements.” such gives provision appellants Specifically, assert that this power “standards.” unlimited set its own setting argue They relative to directions applicable, § those because are not standards contained pertain assistance” “standards directions § measuring “requirements,” in 3 dealt with standards (e). interpretation appellants’ agree of 5.

We cannot specifically provides paragraph that section The first there referred to shall of assistance” that the “standards living recipient’s applicant’s re- to determine “an used ” plainly quirements standards . . These are the same . (e). §in 3 referred to guidance of for the directions

Section 5 contains detailed developing department for all cate- standards in these things, Among recipients. gories applicants other paragraph § provided, standards that such first is fuel, food, shelter, for allowances shall include reasonable operation, personal clothing, maintenance household department necessary is The incidentals. maintenance and objective paragraph, to establish directed, the second living of the budgetary guides upon cost studies actual based budgets budget. to renewed These items of the semiannually. department directed, The is at least revised economy paragraph, into account to take fourth developing arrangements family living standards. such provides paragraph that the further of 5 This regulation, prescribe máximums for may, by rule and type household grants of the size and on the basis average family “related to shall be unit, which máximums state.” income this gen- specifically pertains paragraph, fifth pro- persons, employable unemployed for

eral assistance upon shall be based of assistance vides that the standards living compatible studies; with mini- cost a annual shall necessary subsistence; and healthful mum for decent and meeting emergent” permit needs of “actual and shall paragraph §of 5 also makes on an individual basis. The first monthly sixty-dollar minimum reference the so-called only grants, provides apply that minimum is to such “average living conditions,” under to an individual alone providing requirements” amount individual’s “actual sixty paragraph § 5, mini- dollars. the third this Under according subject formula mum is to revision stated monthly price changes index in the consumers’ based city Seattle, in the Wash- moderate income families ington, of the United issued the bureau of labor statistics (cid:127) department of States labor.

Appellants argue § re- most they standards, ferred to above are as because useless employ uncertain mean- words and terms of doubtful and ing, which leave contain and terms because words open the door for the of almost unlimited discretion. exercise Appellants “objective budgetary guide”; ask: isWhat an “family”; “average family”; unit”; “ac- an a “household They “average emergent in- tual and conditions”? need”; “type”; quire meaning to”; as to of “related “compatible They upon” if is to know “based with.” want living They “equal query: to.” The “actual same living cost” of whom? cost studies” of whom? The “annual Appellants provision to the examine the relative so-called sixty-dollar completely it is minimum, and conclude illusory. beyond scope enter into an

It case for us to of this analysis phrase effort to arrive term in an each such opinion. precise at to in this While definitions be stated may appellants suggest encountered, difficulties which may, anticipate and terms we cannot these words which of practice, prove practical a we, in Nor can controversial. speak, vacuum, in so to matter, make a such determinations proposed having is, us an actual without before application questioned specific, word or term in a case. enough say, present

It is purposes, that, in our opinion, the words and terms referred to are not of doubt- meaning, ful and uncertain meaning in the sense that such definitely readily not be ascertained. Most of them, in fact, are having gen- common words and terms erally accepted meaning. Where this is not the case, the meaning may considering ascertained context; having recourse to giving standard reference works; effect interpretations; established applying ju- administrative precedents; making legally permis- dicial use of other statutory sible intrinsic and extrinsic aids construction. many There is no doubt that of these words and terms permits compels are of a kind which the exercise of varying degrees. administrative discretion in Such discre- tion, however, must be exercised within the framework of the entire act. It must be consonant with the declarations legislative policy precede provi- the substantive (to below); sions of the act be discussed it must be directed specific policy toward the attainment of the body which are applied set forth in the of the act; it must be uniformly throughout (as required § the state 10 of chapter repealed by 6, Laws of which has not been possible exceptions No. with certain which need not considered); now be and it must be limited to the fields making which remain after conscientious use of the methods techniques specified §in 5 and in the elsewhere act. principal empowers § One of the devices which employ developing living its standards of requirements (objective budgetary guides) is an admini- general agencies strative method use similar state throughout genesis nation. this state it finds its chapter p. 216, 17, Laws 874. Initiative measure adopted (chapter 1941), No. Laws contains provision, department, exercising no similar but its general rule-making power up act, under that did set budgetary system fixing grants. as an aid the amount of expressly (1) chapter of (a) 6, Laws of Section budgetary “objective department requires to establish the Commenting particular administrative guides.” on this pursuant department its employed technique, the as chapter 1941, this rule-making power Laws of under Security, 14 Morgan Department Social said, court of (2d) P. 686: 156, 185, 127 Wn. contrary nothing in the establish- to the law “We find up, department yardstick has set the a as

ment of such referred would seem that some budgetary system, indeed, it and, to herein as its required in order is such framework grants.” fixing necessary equality of in the to establish a say every not undertake to that each and We do purported technique provided standard and administrative ambiguity practicable applica §in free from is of 5 is and provision example, § be, tion. It that sixty-dollar grant illusory, relating to minimum appellants view, however, are of the contend. We taking § whole, 5 as a and in consideration of all legislative sup contained, therein sufficient standards plied requirement. to meet the constitutional view (e), application § to 3 those standards we are opinion unlawfully delegate the latter section does legislative authority department. to the

Appellants provisions of act contend that several unlawfully delegate legislative power because author- department units, ize the fix “maximum” and values and “ceiling” legislative prescribing necessary values, without standards. (f) (4), exemption

Section 3 to the of an auto- relative conveyance form from classification as mobile or other gives right, by department rule “resource,” conveyance. regulation, to fix a “maximum” value on such (b), exemp- paragraph § to the of 3-a relative second belongings property personal tion of a home and of gives department “resource,” from as a classification right, by regulation, values, fix “maximum” rule regardless property, personal and “maximum” units paragraph (b), The third value. 3-a relative to the property personal consideration of the value of home belongings determining property eligibility, gives right, regulation, rule and to fix “ceiling” values.

Appellants, pointing bearing important after out upon which these have determination of eligibility grants, argue and amount of individual by department there is no standard whatsoever which the guided its determination of of these “máxi- “ceilings.” department mums” or It is contended that the has complete “by juggling discretion, unfettered and these money máximums,” to determine who shall receive from treasury, they public They and how much shall receive. possibly say ask: can' or Who as matter law what is per- home, car, is not a reasonable “maximum” for a or property, assuming sonal even that the word “reasonable” is read into the act?

It units, is to be noted that these “maximum” values or “ceiling” regulation. values, and are to rule be fixed and Thus is clear at the outset that the is not at carry liberty, “juggling” pre- máximums, out a against give purpose prefer- conceived to discriminate or particular applicants recipients. ence to or Such rules and regulations they must be reasonable. This means that must grounds, having be based reasonable view stated objectives legislation, persons affect alike of the and must all things same class. within the objectives legislation clearly

The rather re- of the are together. vealed when the entire act is read and considered summary objectives expressly stated, Those are also legislative policy form, in the declaration of which is set forth in 2 of No. 178. That declaration reads as follows: purpose provide for the “It is the and intent this act making conjunction public federal available, in with welfare matching public as is funds, assistance neces- such sary recipients thereof a insure the reasonable subsis- to. decency compatible act and health. This tence recognizes with possibilities of serious abuses

that there are whereby deserving public program aid those least such a expense deserving, of the and of the state will at benefit hereby political it is subdivisions, intended its pro- possible make sufficient administrative control gram minimize abuses or at least of assistance curb such qualified applicants depriving without recipients titled.” the same time at rightfully en- of the assistance to which quoted policy It observed that the declaration will be guides: lays following down the standards public (1) purpose provide for the is to welfare. (2) made con- Public assistance to be available is junction matching funds. Federal provided

(3) public is to be as is neces- Such assistance sary compatible with to insure a reasonable subsistence decency health.

(4) way to avoid The act to be such administered whereby deserving aid will abuses those least deserving, expense of the state benefit at the political and its subdivisions. depriving

(5) abuses are to curbed without Such be qualified applicants recipients of the to which assistance rightfully are entitled. guides important stand

One of the of these most (2),.which public provides that the be ards is assistance matching conjunction made “in with” Federal available § 2 in funds. This direction as as that contained is not broad expressed chapter 6, the Laws where intention was advantage” possible “the fullest take security the To the extent that of the Federal social act. governs, provision in No. under conflict, two in 178 are very theory implied repeal. however, least, At the requires 178 state declaration No. qualify program administered as assistance so permits, receive, in so the state’s contribution state to far as matching funds. of Federal available measure fullest § provision further out This intent is borne declaring 178) (not repealed chapter No. 6, Laws of 1949 chapter inoperative to the extent that it fails to conform security to the Federal social act. significance § of this declaration of of No. 178 as a

legislative guide apparent, standard is view of the matching well-known fact that Federal funds made only available to the states where there is adherence to general principles and standards formulated at the Federal level. The that there must result is be read into No. as legislative prin- standards, additional such of these Federal ciples complied which must be standards with order matching Morgan Depart- to obtain Federal funds. See Security, supra, prob- ment Social which dealt with this length. lem at

Perhaps important guides the most or standards (3), legis- § set out in 2 of No. 178 is which sets as the goal “compatible lative a reasonable subsistence decency Appellants health.” assert that this standard is applicable considering department’s power eligibility, “recipients” determine the term used, since is “applicants” “recipient” are not there to. A referred (§3 (c)) any person receiving defined as assistance or cur- rently approved to receive assistance at future date. opinion, particular although using standard, our this “recipients” word is not to limited the manner suggested by defining appellants. begins terms, Section provision apply with the that the definitions shall “unless the context think the indicates otherwise.” We context of § being policy appli- of No. an over-all declaration adequately act, to the entire cable indicates that the term “recipients” given applica- there used is to be broader (c). tion than in 3 called definition It seems question supplies guide only to that the in us standard a not determining provided for the amount of assistance to be to eligible, lays legislative policy those found but down the persons are in need of assistance in to live who order they decency express shall, in and meet the health where eligibility provided recipi- act, in the tests be considered ents under the act. policy,

Giving effect to these declarations of arewe opinion power depart that the conferred “ceilings” subject ment to fix “máximums” and legislative guide sufficiently definite standards to the de partment permit judicial and to review of individual specific, pertinent legislative determinations. To be among things, assure, standards other that the “máximums” “ceilings” (1) high not shall be so so low as to result matching (2) in funds; of Federal withdrawal shall not resulting hardships be so low that and burdens in compel applicants forego recipients public effect provide assistance should have to a sub reasonable compatible decency (3) sistence health; shall high deserving public not be so as to benefit those least deserving. expense at the aid of those most accordingly question We hold that the do unlawfully delegate legislative authority depart- to the ment. reaching application this conclusion, has been

given complexity subject to the rule that the matter legislation, police and its character as an exercise of power or otherwise, are to be taken into consideration in determining delegation whether there has been an unlawful legislative power. said, As this court Kelleher v. Min (2d) sustaining shull, Wn. 397, 119 P. constitutionality loan act: small always necessary “It is not that statutes and ordinances prescribe specific particularly rule of action. This is true impracticable in those situations where is difficult or comprehensive definite, rule, declare or where the dis- cretion to be an officer exercised administrative relates regulation imposed protection to a morals, safety, general health, 11 Am. Jur. Con- welfare. Law, stitutional 234.”

A expressed similar ex rel. McBride view was State Superior where, Court, 174 Pac. Wash. upholding relating quarantine health ordinances

left to health boards the definitions and classifications diseases, the court said: legislation legislative body, “The is that of the it but always practical every phase necessity to meet by general that has called for the the of a law enactment 425.) (p.

statute.” problem extremely The with which No. 178 deals is complex. problem meeting, it essence is within by appropriations, limits of a fixed fund established biennial varying public unpredictable assistance needs of an recipients. static, number of The fund is the number of but recipients vary and the each affected needs of as impact constantly changing economic and social only system factors. Not must the estab- administrative legislation cope problem, lished with this but must do so in such manner that will be rendered assistance delays, on a basis, fair and uniform without undue and expense. within reasonable limits as administrative very It is evident that the results could achieved desired be only by agency large conferring upon the administrative power facts, standards, measure of establish find only by very general discretion, exercise state- controlled ascertaining legislative policy. ments of This allows for possibly be utilization of information which could not legislature generally. people It available to the also possible adjustment, time, makes from time to categories program application over-all and its to certain changing loads, situations, case to take into account living average requirements as variations income and geographical factors, affected location and other time, sufficiency Any prospects of funds. and current to the unvarying attempt precise act, to set forth in the would, be followed form, the standards which must detailed wholly considerations, unrealistic. view of these relating legislation history to the care The in this state country, poor, in the states of the other as most clearly very been con- have never that the courts shows specific to contain of such a statute cerned with the need poor state, of this laws The first and definitive standards. (Rem. 9981-9992), §§ Stat., in 1854 Rev. enacted which were by chapter finally repealed 180, Laws of were prescribed of need or no standard of measurement county resources of kind aid commissioners given determining to the how much assistance should gave poor county. in each act far by more No. 178. Sec- discretion than conferred empowers simply fix tion 6 of that act to public assistance, uniform standards” for and “statewide all throughout to standards effect uniform observance of these conformity provided state, that such standards security other and the laws with the Federal social and acts pertaining ex of this state to assistance. See State Boyle Ernst, rel. P. v. Wash. growth security present of the of this social laws eligibility,

state, resources, need, with their definitions of terms, and other sanc- is traceable not to constitutional security largely requirements tion, but to the of the Federal agency.

Typical general public of the more assistance statutes generally prior changes in effect were to the made necessary by act, the Federal is the statute, Illinois enacted (Smith-Hurd (Perm, in 1932 Illinois Annotated Statutes ed.), 394). chapter two-paragraph provided §23, This act emergency provide that the Illinois relief commission shall unemploy- relief to who, residents of Illinois reason of otherwise, ment or “are destitute and in necessitous cir- provided It cumstances.” was further that such relief shall provided by distributing supplies by any or funds “and other means desirable the commission.” Thus there was entirely fixing left to the commission the of standards for eligibility the determination of both and amount of assis- provided, only legislative guide being tance to be recipients be “destitute necessitous circum- stances.”

Holding unlawfully delegate this statute did not legislative power, supreme Illinois, in court of Reif Barrett, Ill. 104, 132, 188N. E. said:

“Legislative authority pass power is to rules of law for government regulation people property. or body legislative power has the to enact a law Where the legal right necessary adjunct power it has the as a to such procedure adopt law. of such for the administration through through may commissions, boards, It it or do this authority may grant certain administrative bodies such spirit powers keeping act for with the and certain may practical application operation It the law. the even invest them with by exercised to be certain discretion discharge ministerial functions as of their them in the agencies. of discretion exercise Such administrative governing taxes, the the assessment be found Industrial laws examining boards Commission,, and different pro- for desiring practice passing upon applications fessions. It is of those providing legislative impractical acts people protection necessities health, welfare, every prescribe detail through commissions, boards or commis- performed boards such of the duties to be. judicial nor granted, powers, neither sions. Such legislative. or when granted is not . . . The discretion judicial falling legislative discretion a ministerial discretion but powers con- generis ejusdem toas of within the doctrine act.” ferred general which, us, is more A Nebraska act seems upheld Barrett, in v. de- than the Illinois statute was Reif delegation legislative power, unconstitutional, a of clared Smithberger Banning, 651, 492, in v. 129 Neb. 262 N. W. 100A. L. R. 686. Schneberger case, v.

To effect as the see the same Reif 228 Iowa 291 N. W. 859. Welfare, State Board Social of 410; 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional See, also, A. L. R. authority: pointed § last-cited Law, 234. out this As permitting tendency be more liberal in “The is to modern grants or officers to administrative bodies discretion of laws as the com- the administration order to facilitate governmental plexity conditions increases.” of economic and distinguish mainly considerations which It is these (2d) Gilroy, 221 P. case Wn. instant from State rely. appellants The which statute which delegation legis- an unlawful was there held invalid as relatively simple power, one with the lative dealt approving supervising problem child-care static why legislature good should There no reason homes. was provided comparatively The definite standards. not have provisions specified standards, contained other act but some agency authority upon conferring almost carte blanche along suggested lines, to be standards, own devise its granting withholding approval. applied One of these agency provisions, example, to withhold authorized the for satisfactory approval assurance if it fail to obtain should public necessary for the that the home “is and desirable policy, The act contained no declaration welfare.” legislature indicate what the statute did the nowhere else determining what is was be taken into consideration “necessary public and desirable” for the welfare. Gilroy distinguishing case

Another feature between pro- and the one before us is that the former statute regulation private property business, for vided statutory merely whereas confer assistance laws privilege. only privilege

Where the deals statute completely free state is to withdraw at time, the application delegation courts are less strict in the principle per than where the affects an statute established property right. sonal or in 12 See the annotations A. L. R. 1435; 1104; 54 A. L. R. A. L. R. 400. and 92

Appellants (e) contend that 16 constitutes an unlawful delegation legislative power. This section reads as fol- lows: “ (a), (e) (b), (c), (d), Sections

(e) determining elegibility apply in shall General Assis- unemployed employable persons emergency tance to ap- General Assistance. the determination need of plicants unemployed employable to Assistance General persons emergency Asistance, no and resources General exempt per department se; but the shall be considered as may, by regulation, adopt rule standards which will and personal permit property exemption property and of residential belongings as an available from consideration are determined to be essen- resource when such resources recipient’s applicant to inde- or restoration tial to the pendence.” exemption provision, that, under this

It seen is “resource,” any property as a from classificatiton such any, exemption, to rest if is made extent of such to to be “essential are determined such resources whether independence.” recipient’s applicant restoration or department upon the Appellants that this confers contend assistance, such who shall receive as to unlimited discretion objectionable particularly because much, and is and how into be taken circumstances that individual to direct seems consideration. prohi- provision violates that this do not

We believe problem legislative power. against delegation The bition complex. especially It was is is there dealt general necessary, purpose assis- extend, where evident emergency employable persons, unemployed tance to quoted section general first sentence of the assistance. The § applicable in 3. forth the first five definitions set makes (e), seen, “need,” and, as we have these, defines The fifth of depart- developed by gives application the standards pursuant § act. to 5 of the ment (e), recipients § is, in 16 dealt with

The classes employable persons unemployed to emer- and those entitled general position gency transients, are in the assistance, public concerned, assistance rolls far as the so age categories recipients compared of old to the other — dependent children, aid to the blind. assistance, aid to recognition legislation, that the therefore natural It is temporary available character of assistance the more property exemption (e), provides that the under referenced to resources should from classification as independence. applicant’s recipient restoration purpose. logical not be It should reasonable is This legislature people to beyond power considered practi- simply purpose' it is not because such a effectuate further. to refine standard cable en- an empowered on these determinations to make

167 provides that such tirely basis, since the section individual only exemptions in accordance with standards made can be regulation. in standards, turn, Those adopted rule and legislative harmony of declarations in must § policy 2 of No. 178. out in set unlawfully (e) § opinion does not are of the

We authority department. legislative delegate to the up point, valid, and held to be discussed have, to this We legislative power delegation concerned, is of in so far as following chapter provisions of as amended of Laws (b), (f) (4); paragraphs (e) 3-a No. 178: Sections (e). 3; 5; 2 and challenged by appel provisions other

All of the in find them studied, and we likewise lants have been prohibition by the constitutional tested offensive when reasoning legislative powers. against delegation Our provision reaching has to each such in conclusion as this analogous has been set out or to that which been similar 178 is not unconstitu It our conclusion No. above. leg delegation any supposed unlawful tional because powers. islative

Appellants to of No. 178 next contend that the failure prior opportunity provide to be heard for notice and an regulations deprives agency promulgation rules process property con- law, without due them of their Washington trary provisions state I, 3, of Art. to the of the Federal fourteenth amendment and the constitution constitution. pro- departments empowers

The act fixing regulations mini- mulgate máximums and rules and determining .establishing to be used mums, standards setting grants, eligibility of individual and the amount administering guides up to be followed and criteria other provision notice act for There is no the act. regu- hearing prior promulgation rules and of such requiring the de- lations. There are several formulating fact-finding procedures adopt partment procedures contemplate rules, such but these do not no- hearings right. tice to the as a matter of guar The essential elements of the constitutional process, procedural aspect, antee due in its are notice opportunity compre and an heard to be or defend before a orderly proceeding adapted tent tribunal an to the na (2d) ture of the In re Hendrickson, 600, case. 12 123 Wn. (2d) 322; § 12 267, P. Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, 573. process required, Procedural due is however, general regu- the formulation and issuance of rules and distinguished rendering lations, as from the of determina- adjudicatory proceedings. tions and decisions in Nor is procedural process required due where there no is inter- liberty, property right. life, ference with or a vested Mea- by either tests, sured of these it is clear that the sanctions process applicable. of the due clauses are not here “Rule-making” legislation level, is on administrative legislation granting statute, i.e., the confines of within required by as the constitution and its doctrine of non delegability separability powers. Willapoint Oy Ewing, (2d) sters, 676, denied, Inc. v. 174 F. certiorari 338 laying general regula U. S. 860. It is the function of down distinguished apply that to named tions as from orders being adjudica persons specific situations, or the latter Rule-Making, tory Fuchs, 52 nature. Administrative Harv. L. Rev. 263. classifying

Admitting problems are encountered rule-making procedures hand, on the one some kinds of as difficulty judicial quasi-judicial other, no such or on regulations presented which The rules and is this case. prescribed relate 178 are those under No. distinguished persons from situations, classes They specific persons lan- are, to use the and situations. procedure 237, guage act, 60 Stat. of the administrative “gen- (c), agency (c), §2 § statements 1001 U.S.C.A., 5 designed particular applicability effect future eral or policy prescribe . . .” interpret, implement, law or require process due do not hearing promulgation notice and before there be Spokane Younger, regulations. Hotel Co. rules and v. such 595; Bi-Metallic Inv. 359, 194 Pac. Co. v. State 113 Wash. Equalization, 441, 372, 239 U. S. 60 L. Ed. 36 S. Ct. Board of supra; Guiseppi Willapoint Oysters, Ewing, Inc. v. v. 141; Walling, 761; A.L.R. H. F. F. Wilcox (2d) 347, State, 162 Okla. 19 P. Oil & Gas Co. A.L.R. regu- process requires due that such rules and

Whether publicized not here in In lations be thereafter is issue. chapter requires event, that de- Laws regulations by filing partmental publicized rules and secretary same with state. Spokane case, Hotel Co. this court held that a authorizing the industrial welfare commission to statute giving wages notice women, fix the minimum without opportunity employers heard, not uncon- to be liberty property depriving person life, stitutional a process supreme The court of the without due of law. upheld case, an States, United the Bi-Metallic Co. order equalization, without of the Colorado state board of issued prop- prior hearing, increasing of all taxable the valuation erty city forty per cent. decision in the The of Denver validity Willapoint Oysters, Inc., in the case sustained hearings by regulation, promulgated prior of a without establishing security agency administrator, stan- Federal oysters. identity of all canned fill of containers dards regulations case, In Co. rules the Wilcox Oil & Gas designed gen- corporation commission, the Oklahoma production in- application prevent in the eral waste oil hearing, held dustry, were without notice and issued process requirement. The reason- the due not to contravene epitomized observation ing in this is of all of these cases Co. case: Bi-Metallic in the Justice Holmes applies to a few conduct more than “Where a rule of every people impracticable one have a should it is adoption. The Constitution does direct voice its require meeting all acts to be done in town or an assembly (p. 445.) of the whole.” by appellants

Three decisions cited on this branch of readily distinguishable, case are dealt with because quasi-judicial proceedings involving property rights of specific Morgan individuals. v. States, United 304 U. S. 1, 82 1129, 773, Ed. Ct. 999, L. 58 S. was concerned with validity agriculture secretary anof order of the fix- ing charged by agencies rates market maximum to be at City Virginia, yards. stock Southern R. Co. v. Kansas 190, 260, 290 U. L. 148, S. 54 S. Ct. had to do with a Ed. empowered require statute a indi- which state officer to grade crossings vidual railroads to eliminate at their own expense. Light Co. Com- Wichita R. & v. Public Utilities mission, 51, U. 43 Ct. S. 67 L. Ed. S. dealt denying particular utility gas an a order rate increase to company. Telegraph Commission,

Western Union Co. v. Industrial Supp. appellants, Min- F. also held that the cited a minimum liv- nesota industrial not fix commission could according ing wage first for women minors without authority support hearing. only of this full cited ruling Morgan Ed. 468, 80 L. States, 298 U. S. v. United was prior appeal in the same Ct. is a 56 S. Morgan seen, As have case to above. we referred rule-making. Morgan administrative case did not involve contrary event, Union Co. decision Western supra, Younger, Spokane to our Hotel Co. own decision precedent acceptable issue be- on the an and hence is not fore us. authority are of view

We conferred upon departments by regula No. to make rules and adopt minimums, tions, standards, and fix máximums rule-making, pertains legislative not, and is in so far to hearing requirements concerned, are notice and as governed by process of the state and the due Federal constitutions.

171 foregoing pro reasons, due In addition to inapplicable requirement must held to be here be cess be asserting right appellants not the kind of cause are process provisions due are which the concerned. process “property,” clause,

The term as used the due rights. reference con- to vested It has no to mere refers may privileges municipality or which a or cessions state 1195; or at 16 control, and bestow withhold will. C.J.S. Essays § on Con- Law, 599; Constitutional Selected (Foundation Press-1938) Appellants, stitutional Law rights public already seen, have have no vested to we provided by chapter assistance, whether Laws regulations Therefore, or which otherwise. rules may appel- promulgated deprive under 178 cannot be No. property subject protection the due lants of under process requirement. the due conclude that No. 178 not contravene

We does process provisions of the state Federal constitutions. protec-

Appellants equal next assert that No. denies laws, tion fourteenth amendment in violation to the Federal constitution. argument, suggest support appellants a num- of this ways

ber the act administered so as be unduly or over favor one individual class individuals grant. eligibility amount of in the or another matter (f), providing § for the dele- It is also asserted that programs gation health of local of the administration authorizing (e), county departments, or local provide on medical services of health (contract, professional staff, state one of three bases fees), payment constitu- contravene this or also direct safeguard. tional or classes of

Where individuals individuals differently of classifications established on the basis treated equal protection rule, statute administrative requires classifications reasonable and such clause policy, principle based some arbitrary Spokane capricious. & Trust Eastern 172 Hart, 127

Co. Wash. 221 615; Pac. 12 Am. Jur. § Law, Constitutional provision find no

We of No. 178 which establishes a man- datory statutory arbitrary capricious, classification that is or compels departments arbitrary or which to establish capricious not, or classifications. The act is for the most self-executing. part, actually Whether it will be admin- arbitrary capricious in an manner, istered can not now Any attempt question foretold. to deal with this now wholly premature, is therefore and must await the' inci- dents of actual administration. just respect equal has said

What been with to the protection applies, equal appellants’ clause force, § I, contention No. violates Art. of the Wash ington prohibiting special privileges constitution, state and compel immunities. The act not a violation of these does guarantees, per hence is not se constitutional unconsti grounds. tutional on these Whether it will be administered provisions, remains to in such manner as to violate those be seen.

Finally, challenge sufficiency appellants of the ballot legislative provision The constitutional thus titles. Washington §II, constitu- invoked is Art. state reading tion, as follows: subject, and that more than one

“No bill shall embrace expressed in the title.” shall be provision applies only legis

This constitutional governed by lative titles. Ballot titles' are Stat., Rem. Rev. provides, [P.P.C. § 639-3]. This statute in effect, express give impartial that ballot titles shall a true and purpose measure, statement of the of such and shall intentionally argument, likely prejudice, an create - against either for or the measure. The ballot title reads: Security modifying “An the Citizens Act Act of 1948 (Initiative 172) transferring Measure No'. Department program to the of Health.” medical

assistance fairly definitely Appellants concede that this title transferring the purpose medical section states security program the de- from the social partment properly No. that initiative states health, and 1949) (chapter But assert is modified. Laws nothing “the in the to indicate that there is title eligibility both the standards have been removed” and that treatment relief and and method the amount medical arbitrary and unlimited” the -“have been over to turned departments. of the directors of the two discretion de turn over the view, In our 178 does not No. eligibility treat of medical and the termination amount “arbitrary the the unlimited” discretion ment to would, for The of such a statement directors. inclusion improper. run counter reason, It also would including argumentative statutory against prohibition designed prejudice. are of material create We statutory require opinion that the title meets the ballot ments. legislative surplusage,

The title is mere since the provision quoted applies only constitutional above to “bills.” presented legisla A bill is a “form or draft of a law ture for enactment.” Webster’s New Dic International tionary. proposed pending The term refers to laws in legislature. In Hulet, re 159 430; Wash. 292 Pac. Hub May Lowe, 135; Rice, bard v. Fed. 546; v. 91 Ind. State Hegeman, (Del.) Many 44 Atl. Pennewill 621. passed people initiatives which have been of this legislative example, pre state have had no title. For two (initia ceding having public initiatives to do with assistance [chapter 1949] tive measure No. 172 Laws of and initiative 1941]) [chapter 1, measure No. 141 ballot Laws had legislative passed people no titles but titles. No act of this state been declared unconstitutional be has ever legislative cause of a title. defective legislative re-

However, if title is it is assumed that quired by legislative law, we are of view adequately re- title here used meets the constitutional quirements, recently enunciated Gruen v. State Tax (2d) Commission, 1, 211 P. 35 Wn. prop-

No. 178 is not unconstitutional, and the trial court erly complaints. dismissed the judgment

The is affirmed. JJ., concur. Beals, Robinson, Mallery, Grady, (concurring result) J. in the individual worth, Don —Ten appellants recipients types have been of various (chapter under assistance of initiative 172 1949). Laws of people acting legislative state, of this in their ca-

pacity, enacted initiative which amended initiative particulars majority opinion. in the described These appellants assert that these are unconstitu- amendments grounds: tional on three n (1) They delegation legislative power constitute a prescribing without standards.

(2) process protection They equal violate the due constitutions, of our clauses state and Federal (3) amendatory and the ballot title The title of the act § 19, the constitution. II, insufficient under Art. of state are appellants my opinion, no have In the ten individual standing questions Ob- above stated. to raise the first two League, ques- viously, appellant Inc., cannot Senior Citizens any validity on amendments of these tion the constitutional ground. respect unconstitutionality, to the first claim of

With accepted recipients assistance under these initiative delegation legislative appears me contain a of to to which though differently, comparable, power stated somewhat may former initiativé 178. The act of with the respect as initiative 178. to attack this as vulnerable be any ren- position taken, rule which would If their be well might ground, also be on this 178 unconstitutional der majority opinion indicates that applicable The 172. gave to the officers more discretion far relief acts earlier by 178. charged is conferred than enforcement with their

175 argument appellants, if their followed Thus, these might any logical conclusion, be left without its they any should event, In I do not think that assistance. amendatory operation enjoin permitted of an act validity has suffi- of a act which and to basic assume power ciently delegations legislative to warrant of similar validity. testing its constitutionality legislative passing act, a on unless

this cannot it to be unconstitutional court hold appears act or from itself to be invalid on face of Ajax may judicial notice., facts of which the court take Gregory, P. Wash. legislative delegation question improper If this power properly I find initiative us, is cannot from before anything judicial can 178, or from of which the court take confronting people they problem notice, that when practical matter enacted it could have been dealt with as agency conferring upon without administrative powers rea- For the conferred it therein. holding opinion, majority I sons concur stated delegation legislative that there no was unconstitutional power. ground, assuming appellants are

The ten second these clearly position question, merit. raise the without legislature, acting by people measure, initiative or the privilege receiving public grant as- or withhold the right There indi- sistance as see fit. is no vested any particular vidual to be cared for in manner. Snyder’s Petition, court in In re

As this said Wash. 3 Pac. A. L. R. 1230: acquire can “No individual class individuals a vested right any particular Indeed, to for in manner. be cared legal obligation poor the is under no to care for at state its obligation undoubtedly so, all. there is it has moral to do While a obligation no as can be enforced in law. Such such largess provide legally the relief as it does is nature of a legislative bounty, may at or the be discontinued will.” subject

A more recent decision on this is Ernst, Adams v. (2d) relating Wn. 95 P. where the 1935 act age by to old assistance was amended a later act in 1939 disadvantage recipient to the involved that case. upholding power legislature the the of to so the amend prior act, we said: right’ easily “The term ‘vested is not defined has and by express

been used the courts to various shades of mean- ing. commonly However, the term has been held to connote right present enjoyment’ ‘an immediate fixed future or right present enjoyment, present and ‘an immediate or a right enjoyment.’ fixed of future nothing “We think that the did 1935act more than to con- upon persons statutory privilege fer a certain class of a entitling them to receive assistance from the state under privilege the However, that act. if is dignified by calling right, by to be a the which, it it is one very ment or subject expressly it, act amend- which created repeal. right it It is not vested in the sense that property is beneficiary the or that it and of which has become fixed deprived consent; his rather

cannot be without right, contingent qualified upon ex- is it a the continued gave original istence it of the law which substance. right privilege conferred “Since, as we hold, now by right, legal but not, sense, 1935act was a vested subject expressly was, provisions state 21 of act, made any amending repealing act, and since § prerogative to it has exercised the reserved liability has, the act of disclaimed right defined all the later need other than as claims of based on respondent’s now claim cannot act, follows that paid, except extent, basis, be allowed or on though recognition there Even its under the 1939 act. preferred either under have a claim been accruals payment been thereof has act, or the 1935 act are rightfully the director disclaimed. Disbursements by now controlled 1939act.” process These decisions demonstrate that the due equal protection our state Federal clauses constitu- applicable presented. tions are situation here to the Turning ground unconstitutionality, to the third these appellants question sufficiency entitled legislature people title of or the initiative While may they repeal comply initiative must with amend or applicable provisions the state to the of constitution as may accomplished. initia- manner in which this Until qualify repealed, persons tive 172 amended or who is so provided under its are entitled to assistance as may Consequently, appellants properly therein. at- these ground tack 178 on the title However, initiative the stated. amendatory of the act and the ballot title are sufficient for majority opinion. the in the reasons stated above, I As stated entertain serious doubts as to whether appellants may questions presented. the these raise first two my they declaratory opinion, relief are entitled sufficiency (except question the of act and as to the of the justiciable titles) con- ballot because there is no actual troversy. Conaway (2d) 884, Co., v. Time Oil 34 Wn. any injunction, P. 1012. Neither are entitled remedy adequate if since the an law act affords them at fairly by of them is not director of social treated security (Laws administering §§8 of and act chapter hearing providing a fair before the director right appeal courts). and to the stated, For the I the affirmance reasons herein concur judgment of the of the court. trial — (dissenting part concurring part) J.

Finley, strongly disagree I majority dissent and views respecting constitutionality delegation legis- power lative in initiative 178. I concur in some disposition views, in the of the consolidated in- cases majority opinion. dicated This be further ex- plained as follows: agree majority

I with the view that this court should questions relating consider the constitutional to initiative questions large 178. This is based convictions that public importance involved; views this very might importance court well be some considerable perhaps of some assistance to the other two co-ordinate government, procedural and that branches of state hurdles legal impede not be technicalities should allowed to 17» performance court in

this of this service. references majority opinion declaratory judgment in the to the act possible powers accompanied by equity courts, authority, citations of are concurred in me. Delegations legislative authority have been accorded consistently validity provided courts, constitutional delegations by reasonably the are limited some definitive policy, constituting standards, statement of some re- guide boundary straint, a relative to administrative activity permitted The or directed the statute. kind of policy required by statement the its courts, or standard degree clarity, definiteness, extent or detail, of and its its depends upon Seemingly, has varied. variation the the activity, particular field the of of administrative newness activity field, involved administrative in the and necessities only the —to mention a few of the factors considered legislative power. passing delegations in courts of delega- judicial thinking clearly approve The in trend is to agencies. of tions broad discretion to administrative requir- point of cases, some this has true almost to been ing by way policy statement or the barest minimum acceptable ample majority au- The standard. cites digression may thority foregoing. possible A minor for point. in at order this only being recognize It is realistic to the creation of ad- agencies- ministrative and the evolution of administrative dynamic development outgrowth as a natural of our law democracy. commission, The interstate commerce later along agencies commission, trade other the Federal with at general approval, accepted level, and accorded Federal now severely years, both were most criticized several from respect standpoint creation their their and with Realistically again, subsequent operations. the interstate change quite a result a basic commerce commission was way in factor itself. life, in our rather than causative antedating words, creation com- In other somewhat engines and railroads mission, had been invented steam outgrowth commission was been established. The had change proper American life—a natural and that basic government changed development in the field of to meet a changing relationships situation of citizens. Against foregoing backdrop, spe- let us now consider Subsequent cific of initiative 178. references relate to initiative unless otherwise indicated. namely, policy § 2,

statement of that such assist- necessary ance re- shall be made available “as is insure to cipients compatible thereof a reasonable subsistence decency might, my judg- health,” alone, considered judicial constitutionality, ment, meet tests and result legislative authority. approval delegation This persuasive policy if, is even more in addition to the state- (1) necessity ment, for state we consider administra- (initiative requirements tive conformance to Federal §17); (2) requirement grants § 2; initiative (§5); shall be awarded on a uniform statewide basis (3) emphasized possibly clearly fact, too majority, chapter policy that the statement of Laws of (initiative 172), specifically repealed by is nowhere controlling initiative and still could be toas administra- activity pursuant might tive to initiative 178. All of this spell guide policy restricting out a or administrative ex- plenary power, by might or cesses and the same token con- plausibility delegation power fer constitutional on the here But involved. several factors detract from the con- plausibility policy stitutional of the above-mentioned state- § ment in 2. language

First, there in 2 is which states: recognizes possibilities “This act that there are of serious program whereby abuses of such a of deserving those least public expense deserving, aid will benefit at the of the political and of the state and its subdivisions, in- and it is hereby possible tended to make sufficient administrative program control of the of assistance to curb or at least depriving minimize such abuses without at the same time qualified applicants which recipients and of the assistance rightfully entitled.” strengthens, quoted language possibly with,

This conflicts policy compulsion words, or “. . . weakens the decency compatible health,” and reasonable subsistence with depending upon particular notion of what administrator’s constitutes an assistance administration. abuse language regarding above-quoted policy Second, through coupled language §§ “abuses,” for ex- ample (2) (1) § 4, values,” the terms “maximum “maxi- (3) (4) “ceiling values,” mum units,” value,” “unit and property, recipient-owned personal homes, which relate to belongings, might up-to objective and not add an standard. losing reader, At the but so risk the interest above-quoted significance impact that the terms and language very pertinent understood, be better some length, quoted, § 4 from at some as follows: regulation, shall, “The rule and fix maxi- (a) paragraph mum for both a values home as defined belongings personal property defined in and (b); paragraph per- units of and shall also fix maximum regardless property, If the reasonable value sonal value. belongings property personal property and of exceeds home or such unit or the so established maximum values owning property person be shall value, then the such meet his needs over deemed to have a resource available ownership necessary for home above the amount belongings, personal property both, ownership department, can utilized as established meeting investment, and shall his need toward producing capable an that such excess value is deemed per person four than a return of not income to such at less re- per computation of income In the cent annum. person determining need, purpose such for the sources per equal four charged income shall be with an annual earnings there- the actual valuation or cent of such excess greater. from, whichever is the by regulation, also, rule and “The shall fix personal property property ceiling and home values on both recipient belongings, applicant for, of, or and if personal property prop- public possesses or home assistance belongings, erty of both, of a value excess such or ceiling person ineligible public values, such shall be for assistance. current fair value, shall be the market less liens

“Value and encumbrances record.”

Apparently, language, above-quoted under the the ad- (1) (2) ceiling fix ministrator would maximum values and (perhaps, values. If the “reasonable value” this means value, “current fair market less liens and encumbrances record”) (real property per- home, of a or other sonal) recipient public owned a assistance, exceeds (1) (2) ceiling grant the maximum or value, value his percentage case, would be reduced a fixed in the first canceled the second. recapitulate: (1) To An administrator’s ideas as to coupled (2) “abuses,” with his ideas as to “maximum “ceiling values,” units,” “maximum value,” values,” “unit upon might easily and the other, influence of the one grants being result in increased, reduced, or canceled al- together. depend subjective upon Thus, too much would merely criteria individual official. It be could n subjective emphasis. matter of Furthermore, first- policy § described of 2 as to “. . . reasonable subsistence compatible decency might easily health,” too affected, and fluctuate with the tenure of administrators. policy

Thus, the first-described statement of even though strengthened by provisions of initiative some initiative, could be so eroded other weakened, and so more than “window it would become little dressing.” might up defects, but This add to constitutional past possible such correction. defects are not dynamics, democracy, Our in its has turned its back system providing needy. the almshouse assistance to the Admittedly, period relatively are in we of evolution and governmental experimentation opera- new this field security public programs tions. Social assistance have severely, respects, perhaps, and, been' criticized some thing justifiably. type sure, Of one we some program assistance will be with us some time predecessors, contemplates to come. Initiative like its grants public providing assistance; of in need of the those may grants recipients spend as which the somewhat being provisions of initiative understood, the choose. This (§§ problems internal 178, relative to administrative 9), important. through possibly part §of become most 8, and regulate purport the methods It is these which finally grants particular be de- will which the of size way recipients. to the individual find their termined and § policy in of contained here the of It is statements very policy be- The could well initiative 178 break down. my meaningless the of so-called in of evaluation come view activity. ex- Each administrative standards for internal appears guide to lack or standard administrative amined objectivity. example, “maximum value “need,” and For finally, conveyance,” instance, to in each relate on such or the subjective the administrator of determinations illustrates agency. language § “need,” 3, relative to of quoted point follows: quite as well, re- (e) amount ‘Need’—The “Section dependent and the quirements himself of an individual of family, the standards measured members of his available department, resources income and all exceed requirements.” meeting such individual to such terms and too little in the above I too little find 178 to them to initiative cause of such terms definition experience thing of or to the minds same mean the Recognizing the fact that administrators. different two' employ little or no standards of our sister states some (see legislation Illinois public assistance of the enactment (Perm, Statutes Annotated Smith-Hurd, Illinois statute — majority upon in the ed.), chapter commented 23, 394, as procedure me opinion), not convince this does necessary, or that should desirable, either was used clearly Washington. definitive More of in the state followed justi- appear more to be policy or standards of statements activity legislation and public assistance field of fied subject evolutionary nature the new because large segment the citizens the state of matter. A may through Washington 178. A benefits initiative obtain large portion tax the state be re- revenue carry program, quired this assistance with no out availability influence tax reve- inconsiderable important governmental equally nue for other activities. good policy good government only and that the basic It is pro- legislation developed public to the assistance establish provide gram to be framed in such a manner as the only policy, not a statement of also ad- administrator but “guides” objectively. can be tested ministrative subjective criteria the above, As indi- discussed interprets applies he administrator, vidual as and ad- “guides” contemplated by ministrative initiative will living significantly con- determine the economic status recipients. subjective The ditions of same criteria could Y, in or Mr. the successor X, allow Mr. administrator year administrator, to in or less a fund one disburse legislature appropriated last for an intended to similarly, subjective biennium; entire criteria could allow spend only appropriation, or less, him to one-half throughout mag- be an entire biennium. The one could miserly other wretched. Could be said nanimous, the policy? up that either or desirable state would add sound (1) My acceptance majority’s relative view (2) delegation legislative power, contemplated the state- (3) contemplated policy, contained ment of standards constitutionality, depends is, in initiative factors involve These factors hereinafter discussed. possible mentioned defects elimination of constitutional principal be considered factor above and hereafter. complete that initiative 178 is this connection is requires anticipates com- specifically itself. Section pertinent legislation. plementary Some elaboration point. at this by (1) legislation may state, be enacted

In our basic legislative (2) bill; these are the two initiative, and pro- procedures. obvious, less third, A somewhat familiar possible. complementary cedure, is It consists of a com- procedures. bination of the first two provides statutory Initiative 178 a certain framework contemplating complicated program administrative rela- public tive to assistance. Amendment 11 to the state con- appropriations. part: stitution relates to It reads “No moneys paid treasury shall out of the ex- ever . . . cept pursuance appropriation by point of an law.” This pertinent purport initiative 178 does not to make because things, appropriation. By pointed an its scheme of out important appropriations above, the matter of is left for legislature. action the state legislature practical unques- matter, will

Now as program tionably take to continue a reasonable some action public public assistance, time, circumstance, tailored desires, state, the financial status of interest and governmental respecting activi- other interest and desires legislature That is the do? ties or services. What will majority my question, concurrence with the crucial opinion depends upon the answer. exploring possibilities, all me,

It has occurred to without legislature might, initiative, consider on its own that the upon any of action: one of three courses and act might appropriate legislature funds to refuse to 1. The disregard might implement initiative It initiative 178. appropriating funds complete statute and enact a substitute legis- exclusively implementation of such substitute for the (No expressed to the constitu- opinion here as lation. tionality procedure.) of this might legislature appropriate a certain amount money implementation of initiative without for the appropriation.

any strings on such whatsoever might appropriate legislature for im- funds the 3. The strings pro- attached, plementation 178, with of initiative clearly administratively viding flexible, but definitive and budgetary guides of such for the disbursement restrictive, funds. appropriated payment for the of benefits funds

No legislature by, directly Now, if the in, initiative 178. above, first of action mentioned the course should follow implementation appropriate for the should funds paid thereunder could not initiative benefits appellants department. have It is if would doubtful if legally cognizable initiative 178 under claims benefits appropriations the de- available to no funds or there were sug- Any payment partment interests or of such claims. gested rights appellants under initiative 178 would my opinion speculative event, it is or inchoate. such an involving payment questions ini- under that the of benefits in the consolidated cases would be moot. Non- tiative 178 beyond pos- availability funds is not a result the realm of legislature might interpret sibility, words, because “ legislature appropriate such funds as are . . . shall necessary carry purposes .,” this act . . out request political initiative as a moral or 9 of lacking legal compulsion. practical method suasion, but No ap- whereby legislature me occurs to could be forced to propriate foregoing hypothesis. funds, under the legislature

Should the follow course of action num- (2) legis- above, I must bered conclude that the combined (initiative plus appropriation statute) lation an would statutory provide policy fail sufficient or standard for guidance of the director of the state security, an social and thus would be unconstitutional dele- legislative power. gation granting words, In other initia- euphemistic qualities, nevertheless, tive 178 certain conflicting policy § 2, above; statements as discussed through language §§of 8 as it conflicts with the state- policy § above; and the utter lack ments of discussed through objectivity §§ 178; 3 8 of of true initiative all foregoing lead me to the conclusion. such considerations legislature num- the course of action Should the follow missing (3) supply link in the initia- above, it could bered administratively by providing an words, In other tive 178. policy clearly restrictive, over-all definitive and flexible, but funds, admin- relative to the disbursement of or standard activity unquestionably and would be istrative discretion Reasonably precise policy or desires channeled. controlling clearly legislature paramount and then would be subjective or criteria of-an than elastic discretion rather security. department of social and the state administrator carefully legislature, after last, this connection with (2) considering (1) tax revenue and the total estimated governmental operations, required other state the funds might appropriate it would “x” amount of dollars which give appropriate or effect to its desires feel to would be By qualifying public policy of the use relative to assistance. language appropriations, director relative to security required could be of social state throughout spread appropriations entire biennium perhaps except appropriation, some spend the entire and appropriation percentage of the small determined contingencies adequate last legislature to cover to be Budgeting, quarterly aon the biennium. months of few consequent perhaps revisions and basis, semiannual application interpretation internal administra- of and permit (§§ through particularly), could standards tive flexibility in case variations to accommodate administrative chang- recipients, other changed circumstances load, program. At ing assistance inherent factors geared conform could be time, administration the same requiring disbursement biennial standard over-all on The effect less. more, no dollars, no “x” amount recipient would treasury on the individual the state desires, legislative discretion, result, then, sub- should), of some (as the result policy it well administrator. jective idea of an or some criteria meaning effect reasonably precise manner, In this policy § 2 initiative given might to the statements controlling according By effect to state- an over-all thus “x” policy dollars available in 2 in terms ments of through plus might §§ spent, required be that' to be chapter repealed, of Laws those applied compliance re- be related to and with the could administratively policy § 2 vitalized and used without difficulty. constitutional incomplete, in- conclusion,

Now, initiative is an piece legislation, statutory operative or administrative necessary. complementary legislation program. is Further suggested rights appellants interests At this time or damage Any danger speculative possible or inchoate. activity seemingly pursuant appellants to administrative to similarly. All characterized under initiative could be (1) legislative contingent upon namely, appro- action; is (2) priation is funds, the manner in which that legislature acts, as it will to be consummated. When appellants constitutional do, have interests entitled to protection by the courts. my attempted to consti-

I relative have outline views coupled questions pertinent 178 when to initiative tutional legis- legislation complementary I believe with justified might appears be- to me to be enact. This lature (2) (1) appellants’ interests, and cause of the nature questions public policy important involved. differing expressed herein,

On the basis views my opinion majority, that from do those properly the actions. court dismissed the trial (dissenting) J.C. do not share the Schwellenbach, —I agencies expressed enthusiasm for administrative in both Judge Finley’s majority opinion dissent. If our (cid:127) way complex of life American has become so government (or people acting legislative óf branch necessity capacity) up legislative must of set their some agency perform intricate details of administrative legislation confronting purposes proposed then authority delegate administrative such it, it cannot unguided agency agency such which would leave legislative words, other unrestricted discretion. others, abdicate, the essential or transfer branch cannot constitutionally legislative it is vested. functions with which necessary increasingly This becomes more because of the growing crop agencies sprung of administrative which have up past years. in the few I feel initiative 178 the people, acting legislative capacity, unlawfully in their dele- gated powers government. ato co-ordinate branch of the provides

The initiative that the shall, rule regulation, and fix maximum values for both a home and personal property belongings, and and shall also fix maxi- personal regardless property mum units of of value. The provides department initiative also that the shall rule regulation ceiling property and fix values on both home personal belongings. property gives This arbi- trary power safeguards without restrictions or to the department. change If there should be a of state admini- completely stration, director, act, new under this could regulations adopted present reverse the rules and under the' director. nothing prevent

Furthermore, in the act to there is the deciding from amount be ex- first what shall pended given prorating to each then the amount to be recipient lowering by the maximum values device of ceiling delegation of and units such values. powers, without unlawful and unconstitu- restrictions, tional. (dissenting) many particulars J. the standards —In

Hill, established for the administration of this act are less definite and the discretion vested the administrator is more unlimited than in the statute held to be unconstitutional in Gilroy, (2d) State v. 37 Wn. 221 P. recognize legislation today

I that the favorite method of objective is to state an then create a bureau, a com- authority enforcing mission, or a director with full to make regulations. largely gov- The result is that we are more regulations, erned such Federal, state and than by Congress legislature. statutes enacted and our I see in act this an almost unconditional surrender in particular prin- area it with which is concerned of the ciple government of that ours is a laws and not of men. This govern- change form of not our will and this decision law multiply repeat and we other areas ment; it and but already passed stage, it, not if we have that reach will the substance survived form will have where faith. emphasize prolong I would dissent, but this

I shall legislative power, delegation re- phase twice of this one granted taken for so much moved, that is now referring support majority, for its con- it, used it as majority opinion, p. it is said: 159 of clusion. On very in No. least, however, the declaration “At the program public requires be so assistance the state far qualify receive, so state administered as permits, mea- the fullest available contribution state’s matching funds.” of Federal sure regulations changes Federal there What knowing, way are to nonetheless we but we no have program receive as to so our assistance administer matching funds. of Federal measure fullest available thing uncertain standards our The one certain about change comply Federal those must “Upon what Cassius, we ask with overlord. Well great?” grown so he is feed, our meat doth this Caesar (The economics the field of us into would lead answer concerned.) here we are taxation, with which delega- Being an unconstitutional there is convinced that legislative power act, I dissent. in this tion of

Case Details

Case Name: Senior Citizens League, Inc. v. Department of Social Security

Court Name: Washington Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 5, 1951

Citation: 228 P.2d 478

Docket Number: 31664

Court Abbreviation: Wash.