Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the voters’ intent in approving the measure. Id. Where the language of the initiative is clear and unambiguous, a court may not look beyond the text of the measure; however, if the initiative is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, a court may determine the voters’ intent by applying canons of statutory construction or by “examining] the statements in the voters pamphlet.” Id. at 205-06. a. The Single Subject of 1-776 The first step in the article II, section 19 analysis is to determine whether Pierce County has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that 1-776 violates the single-subject requirement. An initiative embraces a single subject if its parts are rationally related to one another. Kueckelhan v. Fed. Old Line Ins. Co., 69 Wn.2d 392, 404, 418 P.2d 443 (1966) (<HOLDING>); Fritz v. Gorton, 83 Wn.2d 275, 290, 517 P.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire (B) holding where the defendants conduct in setting a fire was a proximate cause of a fire fighters death the death occurred in course of and in furtherance of the arson (C) holding that the land contract vendor was entitled to fire insurance benefits when the fire occurred after a judgment for possession was obtained by the vendor pursuant to summary forfeiture proceedings (D) holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire (E) holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable
Output (English): holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire