IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

GLOBAL NEIGHBORHOOD; 

REFUGEE CONNECTIONS OF 

SPOKANE; SPOKANE CHINESE 

ASSOCIATION; ASIAN PACIFIC 

ISLANDER COALITION – SPOKANE; 

SPOKANE CHINESE AMERICAN 

PROGRESSIVES; and the SPOKANE 

AREA CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL 

ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN,

Respondents,

v.

RESPECT WASHINGTON,

Appellant,

VICKY DALTON, SPOKANE COUNTY 

AUDITOR, in her official capacity; and 

the CITY OF SPOKANE,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 35528-4-III

PUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, J. — In this well briefed and astutely argued appeal by both sides, we 

face the intimidating and humbling task of classifying, as either administrative or 

legislative, a city initiative that authorizes without restriction city employees to question 

individuals as to immigration status. This classification determines the eligibility of the 

FILED

JANUARY 29, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

2

initiative for vote by the people of Spokane. The appeal raises other issues, including the 

mootness of the suit after the city council amended a city ordinance referenced in the 

initiative, the standing of challengers to obtain an injunction removing the initiative from 

the ballot, the imposition of a statute of limitations to a suit challenging a proposed 

initiative, the application of laches to preclude a suit challenging an initiative, the legality 

of the initiative in light of state and federal law, and the implication of the initiative 

backers’ First Amendment rights. Because the proposed initiative arises from an 

administrative framework, because the initiative entails directions to city employees, 

because the initiative meddles in the administration of the city’s police force and may 

interfere in effective law enforcement, and because the initiative runs contrary to state, if 

not, federal law, we declare the initiative administrative in nature. We affirm the trial 

court’s grant of an order enjoining placement of the initiative on the ballot. 

FACTS

This appeal concerns the validity of “Proposition 1,” a proposed City of Spokane

initiative originally scheduled for placement on the November 2017 ballot. The gist of 

the initiative would allow Spokane city employees, including law enforcement officers, 

to question without any restriction individuals about their immigration status and 

citizenship status, permit employees to assemble information on residents’ immigration 

status, and share the information with others. The background to the lawsuit precedes the 

filing of the initiative and begins with state law and continues with Spokane Police 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

3

Department internal policy and Spokane ordinances adopted by the Spokane City 

Council. We review, but heavily redact for purposes of shortening an already lengthy 

opinion, state law, police department policy, and city ordinances before identifying the 

history and content of Proposition 1. 

We begin with some background to the challengers of Proposition 1, which 

challengers initiated this declaratory suit to declare Proposition 1 invalid. Plaintiff 

Global Neighborhood, a nonprofit organization, operates under the mission statement to 

“‘provide former refugees with opportunities for holistic development.’” Clerk’s Papers 

(CP) at 7. Global Neighborhood serves former refugees living in the city of Spokane by 

engaging in activities aimed at improving quality of life, such as providing employment 

at a thrift shop it owns and operates. 

Plaintiff Refugee Connections of Spokane, also a nonprofit organization, develops 

projects, programs, and resources that benefit refugees and immigrants and their 

communities in Spokane. In support of the suit, Amina Abdul-Fields, Chair of the Board 

of Directors of Refugee Connections, submitted a declaration. Abdul-Fields averred that 

Refugee Connections’ many services to refugees and immigrants include the Harvest 

Project, Patient Passports, and Interpreter Training. The organization promotes civic 

engagement through police potlucks, law and justice workshops, and the World Refugee 

Day Celebration. Refugee Connections understands that many immigrants arrive from 

nations wherein authority symbolizes a threat. The law and justice workshop seeks to 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

4

foster a positive view of the United States legal system, explain how the American 

criminal justice system functions, identify key civil liberties, and provide written 

information on where to seek assistance in protecting those rights. 

Amina Abdul-Fields declared that members of the immigrant and refugee 

community served by Refugee Connections will become targeted and injured by changes 

to law enforcement profiling resulting from the passage of Proposition 1. The immigrant 

community will be subjected to additional stops by Spokane police officers solely on the 

basis of the person’s appearance, accent, or mannerisms. Increased contact with law 

enforcement based solely on immigration status will increase fear and reluctance on the 

part of refugees to contact police or seek protections from the legal system. Abdul-Fields 

concluded that adoption of Proposition 1 will challenge Refugee Connections’ ability to 

serve the immigrant and refugee community. 

Spokane Chinese Association, a nonprofit association, was formed by people of 

Chinese cultural heritage residing in the Spokane area. The organization strives to 

advance communication and friendship among its members and to enrich their lives and 

local culture by organizing activities related to Chinese culture or common interests. The 

plaintiff Asian Pacific Islander Coalition—Spokane promotes equitable access to 

culturally competent and linguistically accessible health and human services, economic 

development for small businesses, civil and human rights, and equal access to education 

for Asian Pacific Americans, including immigrants, refugees, and citizens. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

5

Each plaintiff organization contends it serves members of the community that will 

be adversely targeted by changes to law enforcement profiling resulting from the passage 

of Proposition 1. We refer to the plaintiffs collectively as “Global Neighborhood.” 

The parties agree that this appeal poses no direct question as to whether city 

employees’ seeking and sharing of the immigration status of individual constitutes racial 

profiling. Nevertheless, this appeal in part embodies the relationship between racial 

profiling and enforcing immigration law. Global Neighborhood claims that Proposition 1 

promotes racial profiling. RCW 43.101.410, enacted in 2002, directs local law 

enforcement agencies to address racial profiling. The statute declares, in part:

(1) Local law enforcement agencies shall comply with the 

recommendations of the Washington association of sheriffs and police 

chiefs regarding racial profiling, as set forth under (a) through (f) of this 

subsection. Local law enforcement agencies shall:

(a) Adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent racial 

profiling;

(b) Review and audit their existing procedures, practices, and 

training to ensure that they do not enable or foster the practice of racial 

profiling;

(c) Continue training to address the issues related to racial profiling. 

Officers should be trained in how to better interact with persons they stop 

so that legitimate police actions are not misperceived as racial profiling;

(d) Ensure that they have in place a citizen complaint review process 

that can adequately address instances of racial profiling. The process must 

be accessible to citizens and must be fair. Officers found to be engaged in 

racial profiling must be held accountable through the appropriate 

disciplinary procedures within each department;

(e) Work with the minority groups in their community to 

appropriately address the issue of racial profiling; and

(f) Within fiscal constraints, collect demographic data on traffic 

stops and analyze that data to ensure that racial profiling is not occurring.
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

6

In explaining the 2002 law, the legislature declared: 

[R]acial profiling is the illegal use of race or ethnicity as a factor in 

deciding to stop and question, take enforcement action, arrest, or search a 

person or vehicle with or without a legal basis under the United States 

Constitution or Washington [S]tate Constitution.

 

LAWS OF 2002 ch. 14, § 1(1) (emphasis added). 

The legislature recognizes that the president of the United States has 

issued an executive order stating that stopping or searching individuals on 

the basis of race is not an effective law enforcement policy, that it is 

inconsistent with democratic ideals, especially the commitment to equal 

protection under the law for all persons, and that it is neither legitimate nor 

defensible as a strategy for public protection. 

LAWS OF 2002 ch. 14, § 1(2). 

We move to policies and ordinances of the city of Spokane, Washington State’s 

second city with a 2017 estimated population of 217,300. The Spokane City Council 

delegated the authority to adopt police department policy to the city police department 

and its chief. Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) 3.10.010(B)(1) provides:

The chief of police administers the Spokane police department and 

the police reserve force and has the authority to make rules and issue orders 

for the proper functioning of the division, consistent with law, council 

policy, and the rules of civil service commission. 

Presumably to comply with RCW 43.101.410, the Spokane Police Department 

adopted policies 402 and 428. Policy 402 reads, in part:

Bias-Based Policing

402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

7

This policy provides guidance to department members and 

establishes appropriate controls to ensure that employees of the Spokane 

Police Department do not engage in racial-or bias-based profiling or violate 

any related laws while serving the community.

402.1.1 DEFINITION

Definitions related to this policy include:

Racial-or bias-based profiling - An inappropriate reliance on 

factors such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual 

orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation 

with any other similar identifiable group as a factor in deciding whether to 

take law enforcement action or to provide service. 

402.2 POLICY

The Spokane Police Department is committed to providing law 

enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, 

cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this 

department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law 

equally, fairly and without discrimination toward any individual or group.

Race, ethnicity or nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, 

economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any other 

similar identifiable group shall not be used as the basis for providing 

differing levels of law enforcement service or the enforcement of the law.

402.3 RACIAL-OR BIAS-BASED PROFILING PROHIBITED

Racial-or bias-based profiling is strictly prohibited. However, 

nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering 

factors such as race or ethnicity in combination with other legitimate 

factors to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause (e.g., suspect 

description is limited to a specific race or group).

SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICY MANUAL §§ 402.1-402.3 at 238 (adopted Feb. 9, 

2016. https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/police/accountability/police-policymanual-2016-02-09.pdf. (Emphasis added). 

Spokane Police Department Policy 428 declares in part:
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

8

Immigration Violations

428.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The immigration status of individuals alone is generally not a matter 

for police action. It is incumbent upon all employees of this department to 

make a personal commitment to equal enforcement of the law and equal 

service to the public regardless of immigration status. Confidence in this 

commitment will increase the effectiveness of the Department in protecting 

and serving the entire community.

428.2 DEPARTMENT POLICY

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has primary 

jurisdiction for enforcement of the provisions of Title 8, United States Code 

(U.S.C.) dealing with illegal entry. When assisting ICE at its specific 

request, or when suspected criminal violations are discovered as a result of

inquiry or investigation based on probable cause originating from activities 

other than the isolated violations of Title 8, U.S.C., §§ 1304, 1324, 1325 

and 1326, this department may assist in the enforcement of federal 

immigration laws.

. . . .

428.3.1 BASIS FOR CONTACT

Unless immigration status is relevant to another criminal offense or 

investigation (e.g., harboring, smuggling, terrorism), the fact that an 

individual is suspected of being an undocumented alien shall not be the sole 

basis for contact, detention or arrest.

. . . .

428.3.3 ICE REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

If a specific request is made by ICE or any other federal agency, this 

department will provide available support services, such as traffic control 

or peacekeeping efforts, during the federal operation.

Members of this department should not participate in such federal 

operations as part of any detention team unless it is in direct response to a 

request for assistance on a temporary basis or for officer safety. Any 

detention by a member of this department should be based upon the

reasonable belief that an individual is involved in criminal activity.

. . . .

428.3.7 NOTIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT

If an officer believes that an individual taken into custody for a 

felony is also an undocumented alien, and after he/she is formally charged 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

9

and there is no intention to transport to the county jail, ICE shall be 

informed by the arresting officer so that they may consider placing 

immigration hold on the individual.

Whenever an officer has reason to believe that any person 

arrested for an offense other than a felony may not be a citizen of the 

United States, and the individual is not going to be booked into the

county jail, the arresting officer may cause ICE to be notified for 

consideration of an immigration hold. In making the determination 

whether to notify ICE in such circumstances, the officer should, in 

consultation with a supervisor, consider the totality of circumstances 

of each case, including, but not limited to:

(a) Seriousness of the offense.

(b) Community safety.

(c) Potential burden on ICE.

(d) Impact on the immigrant community.

Generally, officers will not need to notify ICE when booking 

arrestees at the county jail. Immigration officials routinely interview 

suspected undocumented aliens who are booked into the county jail

on criminal charges and notification will be handled according to jail 

operation procedures.

428.4 CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO REPORTING TO 

ICE

. . . .

All individuals, regardless of their immigration status, must 

feel secure that contacting law enforcement will not make them 

vulnerable to deportation. Members should not attempt to determine 

the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses or take 

enforcement action against them absent exigent circumstances or 

reasonable cause to believe that a crime victim or witness is involved 

in violating criminal laws. Generally, if an officer suspects that a 

victim or witness is an undocumented immigrant, the officer need 

not report the person to ICE unless circumstances indicate such 

reporting is reasonably necessary.

SPOKANE POLICE DEP’T, POLICY MANUAL §§ 428.1-428.4, at 282-85
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

10

In October 2014, years after the Spokane Police Department adopted 

Policies 402 and 428, the Spokane City Council enacted two ordinances. The 

ordinances codified the department policies respectively into former SMC §§

3.10.040, .050 (2014). Until 2017 amendments, the two code sections read:

3.10.040 Biased Free Policing 

. . . .

B. Spokane Police Department Officers and all officers 

commissioned under the Spokane Police Department shall be prohibited 

from engaging in bias-based profiling.

C. Bias-based profiling is defined as an “act of a member of the 

Spokane Police Department or a law enforcement officer commissioned by 

the Spokane Police Department that relies on actual or perceived race, 

national origin, color, creed, age, citizenship status . . . or any characteristic 

of protected classes under federal, state or local laws as the determinative 

factor initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an 

individual’s behavior or other information or circumstances that links a 

person or persons to suspected unlawful activity.” 

3.10.050 Immigration Status Information 

A. Unless required by law or court order, no Spokane City officer or 

employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage 

in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person.

B. Spokane Police Department officers shall have reasonable 

suspicion to believe a person has been previously deported from the United 

States, is again present in the United States, and is committ[ing] or has 

committed a felony criminal-law violation before inquiring into the 

immigration status of an individual.

C. The Spokane Police Department shall not investigate, arrest, or 

detain an individual based solely on immigration status.

(Emphasis added.) 

On November 26, 2014, one month after the Spokane City Council adopted former 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

11

SMC 3.10.040 and .050, Jackie Murray, on behalf of Respect Washington, submitted a 

petition for a proposed initiative with the Spokane city clerk. The proposed initiative 

would amend former SMC 3.10.040 to eliminate citizenship status from the list of 

prohibited factors for city police to consider during investigations, would repeal former 

SMC 3.10.050, and would add a new code section that would prohibit the city from 

limiting any city employee from collecting immigration status information and sharing 

the information with federal authorities. SMC 3.10.060 would read:

Respect for Law: The City of Spokane shall not limit the ability of 

any city employee from collecting immigration status information, 

communicating immigration status information and cooperating with 

federal law enforcement authorities unless such regulation is approved by a 

majority vote of the City Council and a majority vote of the people at an 

election. 

CP at 172.

On December 8, 2015, Jackie Murray sent two separate e-mails that declared she 

formally withdrew her sponsorship of the initiative petition. The Spokane County auditor

continued with the initiative process anyway and certified that Murray submitted the 

requisite number of signatures for a vote. On February 22, 2016, the Spokane City 

Council placed the initiative on the November 7, 2017 ballot as Proposition 1. The 

Spokesman Review and the Spokane Journal of Business thereafter penned editorials 

lamenting the filing of an anti-immigrant initiative. 

On March 27, 2017, after placement of Proposition 1 on the November 2017 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

12

ballot, the Spokane City Council passed Spokane Ordinance C35485, which repealed 

former SMC 3.10.040 and .050, the two code sections that Proposition 1 sought to amend 

or repeal. The city council adopted the ordinance ostensibly because it wished to 

consolidate various sections and chapters of the city code into a new Title 18 that 

addressed human rights. Before the creation of Title 18, the municipal code scattered 

human rights provisions throughout various code sections. Spokane Ordinance C35485

recodified similar, but not identical, language from the repealed sections into the new 

Title 18. The ordinance reads in part:

ORDINANCE No. C35485

An ordinance relating to human rights protections; repealing 

chapters 01.06, 01.08, 10.08E, and 10.18; sections 03.10.040, 03.10.050, 

and 03.10.060; enacting a new Title 18; and amending sections 01.05.210, 

04.10.040 and 04.10.050 of the Spokane Municipal Code.

WHEREAS, human rights provisions are scattered throughout the 

Spokane Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, protections for human rights are fundamental to the 

welfare of all people in Spokane; and

WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the utility of grouping all 

provisions which contain and describe the human rights protections of the 

Spokane Municipal Code in the same title; and

WHEREAS, the City of Spokane reaffirms its commitment to the

protection of the human rights of all those living in Spokane.

NOW THEREFORE, the City of Spokane does ordain:

Section 1. That chapters 01.06, 01.08, 10.08E, and 10.18, and 

sections 03.10.040, 03.10.050, and 03.10.060 of the Spokane Municipal 

Code are hereby repealed.

Section 2. That there is enacted a new Title 18 of the Spokane 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

13

Municipal Code to read as follows:

Title 18 Human Rights

Chapter 18.01 Law Against Discrimination

Section 18.01.010 Findings

The City of Spokane finds that discrimination based on race, 

religion, creed, color, sex, national origin, marital status, familial status, 

domestic violence victim status, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

honorably discharged veteran or military status, refugee status, the presence 

of any sensory, mental or physical disability as defined by the Americans

with Disability Act, 42 U.S.C., § 12101 et seq., and/or the Washington 

State Law Against Disability, Chapter 49.60 RCW, or the receipt of, or 

eligibility for the receipt of, funds from any housing choice or other subsidy 

program or alternative source of income poses a substantial threat to the 

health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Spokane. The City 

deems it necessary and proper to enact a local ordinance to address these 

issues.

. . . .

Section 18.01.030 Definitions

. . . .

D. “Discrimination” means different or unequal treatment because of 

race, religion, creed, color, sex, national origin, marital status, familial 

status, domestic violence victim status, age, sexual orientation, gender 

identity, honorably discharged veteran or military status, refugee status, 

disability, the use of a guide dog or service animal, or the use or eligibility 

for the use of housing choice or other subsidy program or alternative source 

of income. “Discriminate” means to treat differently or unequally because 

of race, religion, creed, color, sex, national origin, marital status, familial 

status, domestic violence victim status, age, sexual orientation, gender 

identity, honorably discharged veteran or military status, refugee status, the 

presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability as defined by the 

American with Disability Act and/or the Washington State Law Against 

Discrimination, [chapter 49.60 RCW], or the use or eligibility for the use of

housing choice or other subsidy program or alternative source of income. 

. . . .

U. “Profiling” means actions of the Spokane Police Department, its 

members, or officers commissioned by the Spokane Police Department to 

rely on actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, color, creed, age, 

citizenship status, immigration status, refugee status, gender, sexual 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

14

orientation, gender identity, disability, socio-economic status, housing 

status, or membership in any protected class under federal, state or local 

law as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against 

an individual, rather than an individual’s behavior or other information or 

circumstances that links a person or persons to suspected unlawful activity.

V. “Refugee status” means the status of a person who, under the 

provisions of 8 USC 1101(a)(42), is outside a country of that person’s 

nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any 

country in which that person last habitually resided, and who is unable or 

unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself 

of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded 

fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in 

a particular social group, or political opinion.

. . . .

Chapter 18.07 Police Practices

Section 18.07.010 Bias-Free Policing

A. The City of Spokane is committed to providing services and 

enforcing laws in a professional, nondiscriminatory, fair and equitable 

manner.

B. The Spokane Police Department, its officers, employees, and all 

officers commissioned under the Spokane Police Department are prohibited 

from engaging in profiling as the term is defined in this SMC 18.01.030[U].

C. The Spokane Police Department shall maintain policies 

consistent with this section.

Section 18.07.020 Immigration Status Information

A. Unless required by law or court order, no officer, agent, or 

employee of the City of Spokane shall inquire into the immigration or 

citizenship status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain 

the immigration status of any person.

B. Spokane Police officers may not inquire into the immigration or 

citizenship status of an individual unless they have reasonable suspicion to 

believe a person: (i) has been previously deported from the United States, 

(ii) is again present in the United States, and (iii) is committing or has 

committed a felony criminal law violation.

C. The Spokane Police Department shall not investigate, arrest, or 

detain an individual based solely on immigration or citizenship status.

D. The Spokane Police Department shall maintain policies 

consistent with this section.
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

15

Spokane Ordinance C35485 (Mar. 27, 2017) (emphasis added). 

PROCEDURE

In May 2017, Asian Pacific Islander Coalition-Spokane, Global Neighborhood, 

Refugee Connections of Spokane, Spokane Area Chapter of the National Organization of 

Women, Spokane Chinese American Progressives, and Spokane Chinese Association

filed this lawsuit to address the validity of Proposition 1. Defendants include Spokane 

County Auditor Vicky Dalton, the City of Spokane, and Respect Washington. The 

county auditor takes no position on the merits of the suit. Respect Washington actively 

opposes the suit. The City of Spokane takes no position on the merits of the lawsuit, but 

asks that, if Proposition 1 is invalid, we enjoin its placement on the ballot. In its answer 

to the complaint, Spokane noted that it will pay for the cost of the Proposition 1 election, 

and the city did not wish to pay for an election for an invalid measure. 

On July 28, 2017, Global Neighborhood moved the trial court for a declaratory 

judgment prohibiting Proposition 1 from being placed on the November 2017 ballot. 

Global Neighborhood raised at least three arguments in support of its motion for relief. 

Global Neighborhood claimed that Proposition 1 was invalid due to two procedural 

violations of the SMC. First, Proposition 1 lacked a sponsor in contravention of the 

Spokane Municipal Code, since Jackie Murray withdrew her sponsorship before the 

validation of signatures. Second, the petition for the initiative contained inflammatory 

and prejudicial language contrary to SMC 2.02.060(D)(5). In fact, the city clerk 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

16

informed Respect Washington that language in the petition conflicted with the 

requirements of the municipal code, and the clerk directed the group to remove the 

language. Respect Washington did not comply with the request. On the merits, Global 

Neighborhood argued that the subject matter of Proposition 1 was administrative in 

nature and thus not a proper subject for an initiative. 

The trial court granted Global Neighborhood’s request for declaratory judgment. 

In doing so, the trial court declared that a justiciable controversy existed, that plaintiffs 

held organizational standing and standing through their respective members, and that 

laches did not bar the suit. The superior court ruled Proposition 1 invalid because the 

measure seeks to repeal portions of the Spokane Municipal Code previously rescinded. 

The superior court also declared Proposition 1 invalid because the measure is 

administrative in nature and thereby exceeds the local initiative power. The trial court 

entered an injunction directing the removal of Proposition 1 from the November 2017 

ballot. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The primary issue on appeal and on which our decision rests is whether 

Proposition 1 is administrative or legislative in nature. Nevertheless, Respect 

Washington raises defenses and other hurdles to Global Neighborhood obtaining relief, 

which defenses and arguments include laches, the statute of limitations, lack of harm for 

purposes of an injunction, and violation of Respect Washington’s and its members First 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

17

Amendment rights by reason of the legal attack on Proposition 1. In turn, Global 

Neighborhood asks that this court decline to address the merits of Respect Washington’s 

appeal because of the moot nature of the case. Global Neighborhood does not seek to 

dismiss the appeal on the ground that the initiative’s sponsor withdrew her sponsorship 

before certification for the ballot. Since we would not need to address the merits of the 

appeal if some event rendered the appeal moot, we address mootness first. We also 

review, before entertaining the merits of the appeal, defenses asserted by Respect 

Washington. 

Mootness

After the certification of Proposition 1 for the November 2017 ballot, the Spokane 

City Council, through Spokane Ordinance C35485, repealed former SMC 3.10.040 and

.050, code sections that Proposition 1 sought to amend or repeal. Proposition 1 

specifically identified the two code sections as the initiative’s target. With Spokane 

Ordinance C35485, former SMC 3.10.040 and .050 no longer exist. According to Global 

Neighborhood, the repeal of former SMC 3.10.040 and .050 in Spokane Ordinance 

C35485 renders Proposition 1 moot, because revoking or amending nonexistent code 

sections serves no purpose. Global Neighborhood does not contend that the passing of 

the November 2017 election leaves the initiative moot. 

Global Neighborhood’s contention ignores the existence of the substantive 

provisions, previously found in former SMC 3.10.040 and .050, within Title 18 SMC. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

18

One could read Proposition 1 as now targeting SMC 18.01.010 and .030(D), (U), and (V), 

SMC 18.01.040, SMC 18.07.010 and .020, which sections continue to define prohibited

“profiling” as including acting on another’s perceived or actual citizenship status. The 

new sections, like the former sections, also generally prohibit a law enforcement officer 

from asking a person about his or her citizenship status. Global Neighborhood’s 

contention also ignores Proposition 1’s attempt to add a new section, SMC 3.10.060, to 

the Spokane code. The passing of Spokane Ordinance C35485 does not render irrelevant 

the addition of this new section to the code by an initiative. 

As a general rule, this court will not review a moot question. Citizens for 

Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 339, 350, 662 P.2d 

845 (1983). A case is moot when it involves only abstract propositions or questions, 

when substantial questions in the trial court no longer exist, or when a court can no 

longer provide effective relief. Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane,

155 Wn.2d 89, 99, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005).

The Washington Supreme Court directs this court to consider mootness because 

mootness challenges the jurisdiction of the court. Citizens for Financially Responsible 

Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d at 350. According to our high court, the 

reviewing court should first address whether an issue is moot as opposed to immediately 

resolving the merits of an issue. Rosling v. Seattle Building & Construction Trades 

Council, 62 Wn.2d 905, 907-08, 385 P.2d 29 (1963). 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

19

The parties forward two conflicting Washington Supreme Court decisions on the 

subject of mootness within the setting of an initiative or referendum: Citizens for 

Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 339 (1983), and City 

of Yakima v. Huza, 67 Wn.2d 351, 407 P.2d 815 (1965). We review each decision to 

discern whether we should declare the validity of some or portions of Proposition 1 moot 

because of Spokane Ordinance C35485. 

In City of Yakima v. Huza, chapter 5.50 City of Yakima Municipal Code imposed 

a tax on the gross receipts of electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and garbage utilities in 

the city of Yakima. In November and December 1961, the city respectively enacted 

Ordinances 300 and 308. The ordinances increased the permanent tax rate for the 

telephone utility receipts, enacted a temporary surtax for the calendar year 1962 on 

electricity and telephone utilities’ receipts, and enacted a tax on the gross receipts for the 

calendar year 1962 received by the natural gas company. In April 1962, Stephen Huza 

filed an initiative petition with the city clerk. The proposed initiative would repeal the 

increased tax rates on the gross receipts of the electricity and telephone utilities, repeal 

the tax on the gross receipts of the natural gas company, allow tax credits on future taxes 

equal to all increased taxes collected under Ordinances 300 and 308 before their 

revocation, and reduce taxes for water, sewer, and garbage services. The initiative 

proposed to accomplish its purposes by expressly repealing Ordinances 300 and 308. 

On July 3, 1962, the city of Yakima commenced legal action to challenge Stephen 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

20

Huza’s initiative petition on the ground that only the city council held authority to amend 

tax measures. On October 29, 1962, before any trial, the Yakima City Council passed 

Ordinance 390 that essentially adopted the same measures as Ordinances 300 and 308, 

but for the calendar year 1963. Ordinance 390 never mentioned Ordinances 300 or 308. 

Ordinance 390 instead directly referenced chapter 5.50, City of Yakima Municipal Code. 

On appeal, the City of Yakima argued that newly enacted Ordinance 390 rendered 

moot the right to vote on Stephen Huza’s proposed initiative since Ordinance 390 

repealed Ordinances 300 and 308, the two ordinances the initiative sought to repeal. The 

Supreme Court agreed. The Court reasoned that the proposed initiative would repeal the 

tax measures implanted in Ordinances 300 and 308, but those same taxes would continue 

based on Ordinance 390 despite the repeal of the earlier ordinances. The proposed 

initiative could have sought to directly repeal provisions of chapter 5.50 of the municipal 

code, but failed to expressly mention the code chapter. Although the initiative sought to 

repeal the tax increases, the court deemed the initiative worthless because the initiative 

did not mention the recently enacted ordinance number or the code sections that then

referenced the taxes. In effect, a city could renumber the ordinance or code section 

sought to be repealed by an initiative in order to escape the initiative. 

Three dissenters, in City of Yakima v. Huza, characterized the City of Yakima’s 

action as legislative shenanigans, a frustration of the initiative process, and a flagrant 

abuse of the judicial process. We agree with the dissenters that a city should not be 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

21

allowed to enact later ordinances that readopt the same substantive measures but under 

different numbering or coding, in order to obstruct a proposed initiative. 

In Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 

339 (1983), citizens filed a referendum with the city of Spokane city clerk, which 

referendum would repeal Ordinance C25792, an ordinance imposing a business and 

occupation tax. One month later, the Spokane City Council passed Ordinance C25832, 

which amended Ordinance C25792. We do not know the nature of the amendments. The 

clerk refused to accept the referendum based on the city attorney’s advice that only the 

city council held authority to adopt or repeal a tax measure and the measure was 

administrative rather than legislative in nature. The citizens sought a writ of mandamus 

to compel the filing and processing of the referendum. The superior court granted the 

writ. 

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the City of Spokane, while relying on City of 

Yakima v. Huza, argued that the proposed initiative became moot with the adoption of 

Ordinance C25832, which amended Ordinance C25792, the subject of the initiative. The 

Citizens court distinguished Huza on the basis that the later adopted Yakima ordinance 

was complete in itself and never referenced the two ordinances sought to be repealed by 

the initiative. The later adopted Spokane ordinance merely amended the earlier 

ordinance sought to be revoked. The later adopted Spokane ordinance did not stand 

alone. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

22

Despite distinguishing Huza, the Citizens court wrote that it agreed with the Huza

dissenters that a repealing or reenacting ordinance should not be allowed to frustrate the 

initiative process. Accordingly, the Supreme Court will frown on the deliberate efforts 

by a legislative body to circumvent the initiative rights of the electorate. The Citizens

court, however, declined to reconsider Huza because of the differences in the effect of the 

respective Yakima and Spokane later adopted ordinances. 

We do not know if the Spokane City Council deliberately adopted Spokane 

Ordinance C35485 for the purpose of evading Proposition 1. But we need not rest our 

decision on any deliberate evasion. 

We doubt the validity of City of Yakima v. Huza after Citizens for Financially 

Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, but deem this appeal more aligned with the 

facts of Citizens, not Huza. The Citizens court wrote that Huza must be limited to its 

unique facts, a comment that may politely overrule Huza. Like the Yakima amending 

ordinance in Huza, Spokane’s Ordinance C35485 is complete in itself. Nevertheless, 

unlike the Yakima ordinance and similar to the Spokane amending ordinance in Citizens, 

Ordinance C35485 refers to the previously enacted code sections, which are the objects 

of Respect Washington’s initiative. Although Proposition 1 does not identify the current 

code sections that prohibit profiling based on and questioning about one’s citizenship 

status, a court or a city official could deem Proposition 1 to now target code sections 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

23

found in Title 18 SMC. Since a new ordinance should not frustrate the initiative process, 

we hold that the validity of Proposition 1 is not moot. 

Spokane Ordinance C35485 added refugee and immigration status to citizenship 

status as forbidden subjects of questioning and profiling by law enforcement officers. 

These additions raise the problem of whether Proposition 1, if passed, would allow 

questioning detainees about citizenship status, but not about refugee or immigration 

status, despite the three statuses being interrelated. Because we rest our decision on other 

grounds, we need not resolve this anomaly. 

Despite the Supreme Court directing us to address mootness first because 

mootness impacts the jurisdiction of the courts, mootness does not necessarily preclude 

court review. This court may review a moot issue of continuing and substantial interest 

that presents a question of a public nature likely to recur. Citizens for Financially 

Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d at 351. Washington courts have 

repeatedly entertained suits involving the right of initiative or referendum despite 

possible mootness because the suits entail substantial public interest. Philadelphia II v. 

Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d 707, 712, 911 P.2d 389 (1996); Citizens for Financially 

Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d at 351; Leonard v. City of Bothell, 

87 Wn.2d 847, 849, 557 P.2d 1306 (1976); Save Our State Park v. Hordyk, 71 Wn. App. 

84, 89, 856 P.2d 734 (1993). In Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v. City 

of Spokane, the high court ended its opinion by stating that, even if the appeal became 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

24

moot, it would still consider the validity of the initiative because the case presented an 

issue of continuing and substantial interest to the public. 

The principle that mootness impacts the court’s jurisdiction conflicts with the rule 

allowing this court to hear moot appeals impacting a substantial public interest. If we 

have no jurisdiction, we have no authority to hear and determine the case. Bour v. 

Johnson, 80 Wn. App. 643, 646-47, 910 P.2d 548 (1996). Nevertheless, assuming this 

appeal to be moot, we would proceed to the merits anyway. 

Statute of Limitations

As defenses, Respect Washington asserts both the statute of limitations and the 

doctrine of laches. Respect Washington contends either or both should bar Global 

Neighborhood’s request for declaratory relief. Respect Washington highlights that, on 

February 22, 2016, the Spokane City Council placed Proposition 1 on the November 7, 

2017 ballot. Global Neighborhood did not file its complaint until more than one year 

later, May 1, 2017. Global Neighborhood did not file its summary judgment motion for 

declaratory relief until July 28, 2017. 

We address first the defense of the statute of limitations. Global Neighborhood 

brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment. Washington’s version of the Uniform 

Declaratory Judgments Act lacks any statute of limitations. The Supreme Court has 

announced that a declaratory judgment action must be brought within a reasonable time. 

Automotive United Trades Organization v. State, 175 Wn.2d 537, 541-42, 286 P.3d 377 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

25

(2012). This court has four times stated that, when assessing a reasonable period of time, 

we look to an analogous limitation period allowed for an appeal of a similar decision as 

prescribed by statute, rule of court, or other provision. Schreiner Farms, Inc. v. American

Tower, Inc., 173 Wn. App. 154, 159-60, 293 P.3d 407 (2013); Cary v. Mason County, 

132 Wn. App. 495, 501, 132 P.3d 157 (2006); Brutsche v. City of Kent, 78 Wn. App. 370, 

376-77, 898 P.2d 319 (1995); Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. App. 530, 536-37, 

815 P.2d 790 (1991). The Washington Supreme Court has never adopted this principle of 

adoption by analogy. 

Respect Washington forwards three election related statutes of limitations. A 

challenge to a statewide initiative or referendum ballot title must be commenced within 

five days. RCW 29A.72.080. The deadline for a challenge to a local ballot title is only 

ten days. RCW 29A.36.090. A judicial challenge of a refusal by the Washington 

Secretary of State to file a statewide initiative must be filed in court within ten days. 

RCW 29A.72.180. 

Significant differences lie between a challenge to the title of an initiative and a 

challenge to the substance of the initiative. The initiative if adopted will take effect 

regardless of any defect in its title. If any lawsuit will remedy the flaw in the initiative’s 

name, the lawsuit should be brought in advance of the election and in time for the 

Secretary of State or local government official to place a proper title on the ballot. A 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

26

challenge to a refusal to place an initiative on the ballot also should be brought quickly in 

order to remedy any wrongful refusal to consign the measure to the ballot. 

A challenge to a local initiative as exceeding the scope of a municipality’s 

legislative power may be brought after the initiative election. If the challenge can be 

brought after the vote, we should erect no impediment by reason of a statute of 

limitations applying before the effectiveness of the initiative as an ordinance. 

We deem the preelection challenge to a ballot initiative analogous to a challenge 

to an adopted ordinance or statute. Under state law, no statute of limitations applies to a 

challenge to the constitutionality of a statute or other action. Automotive United Trades 

Organization v. State, 175 Wn.2d at 542-43 (2012); Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm, 155 

Wn.2d 112, 117, 118 P.3d 322 (2005); DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center, 136 

Wn.2d 136, 146-47, 150, 960 P.2d 919 (1998). Similarly, no statute of limitations should 

apply to the challenge of an ordinance that exceeds the authority of the entity adopting 

the measure whether by its legislative body or the voters by initiative. When a plaintiff 

challenges the substance of an agency decision as exceeding statutory authority, no 

statute of limitations applies until agency action adversely impacts the plaintiff. Aguayo 

v. Jewell, 827 F.3d 1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 832, 197 L. Ed. 2d 

69 (2017). Many Washington decisions have entertained preelection initiative challenges 

without suggesting a statute of limitations that applied before the election might bar such 

a challenge. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

27

Laches

We move to the doctrine of laches. Laches is an implied waiver arising from the 

knowledge of existing conditions and acquiescence in them. Buell v. City of Bremerton, 

80 Wn.2d 518, 522, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972). One who relies on a laches defense bears the 

burden to prove: (1) knowledge or reasonable opportunity to discover on the part of a 

plaintiff that he or she has a cause of action against a defendant, (2) an unreasonable 

delay by the plaintiff in commencing that cause of action, and (3) damage to the 

defendant resulting from the unreasonable delay. King County v. Taxpayers of King 

County, 133 Wn.2d 584, 642, 949 P.2d 1260 (1997). Damage to a defendant can arise 

either from acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or from a change of 

conditions. Lopp v. Peninsula School District No. 401, 90 Wn.2d 754, 759-60, 585 P.2d 

801 (1978). 

Generally, laches depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. 

Schrock v. Gillingham, 36 Wn.2d 419, 428, 219 P.2d 92 (1950). We regard the nature of 

the case to be one factor to consider when determining whether laches should be applied. 

Lopp v. Peninsula School District No. 401, 90 Wn.2d at 759. Other factors include the 

circumstances, if any, justifying the delay, the relief demanded, and the question of 

whether the rights of defendant or other persons, such as the public, will be prejudiced by 

the maintenance of the suit. Lopp v. Peninsula School District No. 401, 90 Wn.2d at 759. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

28

Laches is an extraordinary defense that is appropriately applied only when a party, 

knowing his rights, takes no steps to enforce them and the condition of the other party has 

in good faith become so changed that the party cannot be restored to his or her former 

state. Ward v. Richards & Rossano, Inc., 51 Wn. App. 423, 435, 754 P.2d 120 (1988). 

Absent unusual circumstances, the doctrine of laches should not be invoked to bar an 

action short of the applicable statute of limitation. In re Marriage of Capetillo, 85 Wn. 

App. 311, 317, 932 P.2d 691 (1997). 

Global Neighborhood contends that all three elements of laches are missing in this 

appeal. Global Neighborhood first contends that the record does not show that it had any 

knowledge of the existence of Proposition 1 until it filed suit. We reject this contention 

since actual knowledge is not necessary. The first element of laches extends to a 

reasonable opportunity to discover on the part of a plaintiff a potential cause of action. 

The record shows that the Spokane City Council publicly addressed the placement of 

Proposition 1 on the ballot. The record further shows Proposition 1 to be well publicized 

in the Spokane environs. The record includes editorials by the Spokesman Review and 

the Spokane Journal of Business ruing the anti-immigrant initiative. 

Global Neighborhood waited until May 1, 2017, to file suit despite the Spokane 

City Council, on February 22, 2016, placing Proposition 1 on the November 2017 ballot. 

Global Neighborhood comments that it filed suit one month after the Spokane City 

Council recodified the Spokane Municipal Code’s racial profiling prohibitions into other 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

29

sections in the code. But Global Neighborhood does not suggest that it delayed filing suit 

in order to determine if the city council would recodify the provisions. Global 

Neighborhood also lacks an explanation for delaying its challenge for more than one 

month after passage of Spokane Ordinance C35485. Therefore, we cannot assess the 

reasonableness of the delay and, for purposes of this appeal, we assume 

unreasonableness. Nevertheless, we find no harm to Respect Washington by reason of a 

delay. 

Respect Washington relies on Lopp v. Peninsula School District, 90 Wn.2d 754 

(1978), wherein the Supreme Court held that the challengers’ one-month delay after the 

special election for a school district bond constituted an unreasonable delay. The 

challenger contended that the school district failed to give proper notice of a board 

meeting during which the board amended the title to a bond measure submitted to the 

voters. Nevertheless, the court found the public to have been harmed by the delay in 

challenging the vote approving the bond measure. The school district had received a 

favorable bid on the bonds, and, if the district could not accept the bid, it would need to 

commence the entire bond offering procedure again. The district would also lose three 

months of interest income, and construction plans would be delayed. The delay in 

construction would further exacerbate the already congested condition of classroom 

facilities.
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

30

Respect Washington complains that the delay in filing suit harmed it because the 

delay ensured that the organization could not receive appellate review of a decision prior 

to the November 2017 election, and, in turn, Respect Washington could not benefit by the 

initiative being on the 2017 ballot. Respect Washington observes that the superior 

court’s decision was issued on August 29, 2017, one week before the September 5, 2017 

deadline for the ballots to be printed. 

Although we recognize Respect Washington’s right to appellate review, Respect 

Washington cites no case that a delay in appellate review constitutes harm for purposes of 

laches. Also, Respect Washington’s claim of harm assumes that this court would reverse 

the superior court’s decision and allow Proposition 1 to be submitted for a vote. The 

claim of harm also assumes that it had the right to a vote on an initiative that exceeded 

the initiative power. If anything, the Spokane public is prejudiced by the expense 

incurred by the City of Spokane in conducting a special election for an initiative beyond 

the scope of the initiative power, such that this court should not dismiss the suit on 

laches. The claim of harm also assumes that this court lacks authority to direct placement 

of Proposition 1 on a later ballot. 

Respect Washington’s contention also fails to recognize the possibility of 

accelerated review by this court. Respect Washington never sought accelerated review. 

This court recently granted accelerated review and expeditiously issued an opinion in In 

re February 14, 2017, Special Election on Moses Lake School District No. 161 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

31

Proposition 1, 2 Wn. App. 2d 689, 413 P.3d 577 (2018), because of complications 

surrounding a vote to approve a school district bond. 

Injunctive Relief 

Respect Washington claims that Global Neighborhood and other plaintiff 

organizations lack standing to obtain an injunction enjoining the placement of 

Proposition 1 on the Spokane ballot. In so arguing, Respect Washington does not 

challenge the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this suit. Respect Washington challenges 

whether the organizations suffered sufficient harm to gain standing for the issuance of an 

injunction. We are unaware of any decision that delicately slices a party’s standing in 

this manner. 

Respect Washington challenges the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs suffered 

“organizational harm.” Respect Washington downplays any harm suffered by the 

organizations in diverting resources to assist members in the event Proposition 1 passed. 

Respect Washington observes that someone always must change activities if an initiative 

passes.

Respect Washington’s observation that someone always must change activities 

when an initiative passes because such is the nature of an initiative does little to bolster 

its argument that plaintiff organizations lack standing in our appeal’s context. Respect 

Washington apparently contends that, since an initiative always impacts someone, no one 

deserves standing to challenge the validity of the initiative. Respect Washington fails to 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

32

consider that someone impacted by the initiative always has standing. The doctrine of 

standing generally permits someone injured or impacted by an enactment to challenge the 

enactment. 

One who seeks relief by temporary or permanent injunction must show: (1) that he

or she possesses a clear legal or equitable right, (2) that he or she has a well-grounded 

fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) that the acts complained of are either 

resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury to him. Washington Federation

of State Employees v. State, 99 Wn.2d 878, 888, 665 P.2d 1337 (1983). Because all three 

of these criteria must be satisfied to warrant preliminary injunctive relief, the failure to 

establish any one or more of the criteria dictates that we deny the requested relief. 

Washington Federation of State Employees v. State, 99 Wn.2d at 888. 

All plaintiffs are organizations or associations. A nonprofit organization may 

represent its members in a proceeding for judicial review so long as it shows that one or 

more of its members are specifically injured by a governmental action. Save a Valuable 

Environment v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 867, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). Organizations 

possess standing to assert the interests of their members, so long as the members would 

otherwise have standing to sue, the organization serves a purpose germane to the issue, 

and neither the claim nor the relief requires the participation of individual members. Five 

Corners Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 304, 268 P.3d 892 (2011); 

International Association of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

33

207, 213-14, 45 P.3d 186, 50 P.3d 618 (2002). An organization also has standing in its 

own right with concrete and demonstrable injury to its activities caused by a drain on the 

organization’s resources. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379, 102 S. Ct. 

1114, 71 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1982); Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Reading these principles together, we conclude that an organization may gain 

standing to sue by either an impact on its own resources or by asserting the rights of or 

wrongs to its members. 

We conclude that at least one of the plaintiff organizations has standing on its own 

right and through its members. If one plaintiff has standing, the court will not address 

whether other challengers have standing. Huff v. Wyman, 184 Wn.2d 643, 649, 361 P.3d 

727 (2015); League of Education Voters v. State, 176 Wn.2d 808, 817 n.3, 295 P.3d 743 

(2013). A declaration from the chairman of the board of Refugee Connections of 

Spokane identifies its mission and the refugee and immigrant community the 

organization serves. The declaration explains how Proposition 1 will subject the 

organization’s community of service to stops solely because of race or looks despite 

community members being present legally in the United States. The declaration explains 

that Proposition 1 will impact the organization’s programs and limited resources. 

In addition to holding that the plaintiff organizations possess standing, we 

conclude that the City of Spokane also has standing and its standing would alone allow 

the suit to proceed. The City of Spokane is a named defendant, not a plaintiff. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

34

Nevertheless, Spokane sought relief from the superior court and this court. Spokane 

takes no position on the merits of the challenge to Proposition 1, but the city does not 

wish to incur the cost of an election for an invalid measure. Thus, the City of Spokane 

asks this court, as it did the superior court, to enjoin Proposition 1 from the ballot, 

assuming the initiative to be outside the scope of the local initiative power. We find no 

case that bases standing on the interests of a defendant, but granting standing on such 

circumstances is reasonable when the defendant, as does Spokane, seeks relief. 

Case law supports a city’s standing to seek an injunction precluding placing an 

invalid initiative on the ballot. In Philadelphia II v. Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d 707 (1996), the 

Supreme Court noted that preelection review of a statewide initiative was proper to 

prevent public expense on measures that are not authorized by the constitution. Our court 

has observed:

We have recognized that requiring a city to place an invalid initiative 

on the ballot would result in an undue financial burden on the government.

 

City of Longview v. Wallin, 174 Wn. App. 763, 782, 301 P.3d 45 (2013). 

We recognize a ruling contrary to granting Global Neighborhood standing by 

Division One of this court in American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, 163 

Wn. App. 427, 260 P.2d 245 (2011). The court held a proposed initiative exceeded the 

scope of the local initiative power. The initiative sought to prohibit the use of automated 

traffic safety enforcement cameras. A state statute expressly delegated to the city 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

35

legislative authority the power to adopt such camera systems. Remarkably, the court 

refused to grant the initiative challengers injunctive relief to prevent a vote on the 

initiative. The court reasoned that the challengers were not injured by the adoption of the 

initiative because its adoption would be void. 

American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham may be distinguished from 

City of Longview v. Wallin in that the challenger in Wallin was the city who needed to 

incur the expense of the ballot election. Nevertheless, we consider American Traffic 

Solutions, Inc. contrary to other decisions and principles of standing. 

Free Speech

In response to Global Neighborhood’s lawsuit, Respect Washington argues that 

Global Neighborhood’s preelection action attempt to invalidate Proposition 1 breaches its 

and its members’ right to free speech and redress from the government as protected by 

both the United States and Washington Constitutions. Respect Washington relies on 

Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d 290, 119 P.3d 318 (2005) for the proposition that 

substantive preelection review may unduly infringe on free speech values. 

In Coppernoll v. Reed, our Supreme Court examined whether and under what 

circumstances preelection review of a statewide initiative violated article II, section 1(a) 

of the Washington Constitution, which provides the power of initiative to Washington 

citizens. In considering this issue, the court delineated three distinct and separate 

categories of preelection challenges. The Supreme Court categorized challenges to 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

36

statewide initiatives and then determined which categories suffice for a preelection 

challenge. In so doing, the court observed:

Because ballot measures are often used to express popular will and 

to send a message to elected representatives (regardless of potential 

subsequent invalidation of the measure), substantive preelection review 

may also unduly infringe on free speech values.

Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 298. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court announced no 

rule that proponents of initiatives hold a First Amendment right to the advancement of the 

initiative to the ballot box. Instead, the court recognized the validity of preelection 

challenges under some circumstances. 

In City of Longview v. Wallin, 174 Wn. App. 763 (2013), this court rejected a First 

Amendment argument identical to the one raised by Respect Washington in this appeal. 

Mike Wallin sponsored a local initiative proposing restrictions on the use of traffic safety 

cameras. The superior court granted the city’s declaratory judgment request to withhold 

the initiative from the ballot because the initiative exceeded the scope of the local 

initiative power. On appeal, Wallin argued the trial court’s ruling violated his First 

Amendment rights, and he similarly relied on the sentence from Coppernoll v. Reed for 

support. This court deemed Wallin’s reliance on Coppernoll unpersuasive, particularly 

because the initiative in Coppernoll was a statewide initiative, whereas the initiative 

sponsored by Wallin was a local initiative. The local initiative power does not derive 

from our state constitution; rather, a statute authorizes this power. The constitutional 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

37

preeminence of the right of initiative discussed in Coppernoll does not enjoy the same 

vigilant protection with respect to municipal initiatives. This court also limited Wallin’s 

First Amendment right to free speech to the gathering of signatures on his initiative 

petition. The right did not extend to placing the initiative on the ballot. 

In Port of Tacoma v. Save Tacoma Water, 4 Wn. App. 2d 562, 422 P.3d 917 

(2018), this court recently again addressed a First Amendment argument in favor of 

placing a local initiative on the ballot. The proponents of an initiative to limit the 

availability of a municipality’s water service contended that the removal of the initiative 

from the ballot violated its right to free speech under the First Amendment of the United 

States Constitution and article I, sections 4 and 5 of the Washington Constitution. This 

court observed that the United States Supreme Court held that the circulation of an 

initiative petition involves the type of interactive communication concerning political 

change that entails core political speech. Nevertheless, barring an initiative from the 

ballot does not violate the constitution when the initiative lies outside the scope of the 

local initiative’s power. 

Other courts have rejected a constitutional right to place an initiative or 

referendum on the ballot. Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012); State ex 

rel. Bolzenius v. Preisse, 2018-Ohio-3708, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Sept. 14, 2018). This 

rejection follows the principle that a state may entirely decline to grant a right to legislate 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

38

through ballot initiatives. Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa, 342 F.3d 1073, 

1077 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Validity of Proposition 1 

We move to the merits of the appeal and address the validity of Proposition 1. 

This appeal concerns a municipality’s proposed initiative. The law treats a statewide 

initiative different from a local government initiative. Protect Public Health v. Freed, 

No. 95134-9 (Wash. Dec. 6, 2018), http://www.courts.wa.gov/ Opinions/

pdf/951349.pdf; Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 297 (2005); City of Longview v. 

Wallin, 174 Wn. App. at 790 (2013); Philadelphia II v. Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d at 712 

(1996). The Seventh Amendment to the Washington State Constitution establishes the 

people’s right to statewide initiative, and the courts interpret this power broadly to favor 

this right. Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 297. 

Our constitution does not extend the initiative or referendum power to cities, but 

the legislature has enacted enabling legislation authorizing municipal initiatives and 

referenda. City of Longview v. Wallin, 174 Wn. App. at 791. The Washington 

Legislature granted charter cities the opportunity to afford city voters the initiative 

process. RCW 35.25.200. The City of Spokane exercised this privilege in sections 81 

and 82 of the Spokane City Charter. CITY OF SPOKANE CHARTER §§ 81, 82. 

Global Neighborhood filed suit before Spokane residents could vote on 

Proposition 1. The law disfavors judicial preelection review of initiatives. Protect 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

39

Public Health v. Freed, No. 95134-9 at 463; Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane 

Moves to Amend Constitution, 185 Wn.2d 97, 104, 369 P.3d 140 (2016). Courts will, 

however, review, before the election, a local initiative to determine whether the proposed 

law exceeds the scope of the initiative power. Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. 

Spokane Moves to Amend Constitution, 185 Wn.2d at 104. Washington courts more 

readily bar a local government initiative or referendum, than a state initiative or 

referendum, from the ballot box since the state constitution authorizes such state ballot 

measures. 

No constitutional or statutory provision expressly limits the scope of local 

government initiative in Washington State. Neither the Spokane City Charter nor the 

Spokane Municipal Code explicitly imposes restrictions on the subject of an initiative. 

Nevertheless, case law impresses at least three restraints on a local initiative. First, the 

initiative must be “legislative,” not “administrative,” in nature. Second, the initiative 

may not interfere with state or federal law. Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 297 

(2005). Third, the law must grant the municipality as a whole, rather than a board or 

council of the municipality, the power to adopt the provision. City of Sequim v. 

Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251, 261, 138 P.3d 943 (2006). With regard to these restrictions 

on citizen rights, a referendum is no different from an initiative, and we treat decisions 

involving referenda the same in our discussion. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

40

A court may strike the initiative from the ballot if the initiative violates any of the 

three limitations. Global Neighborhood relies on the first and second bases. We base our 

decision on the distinction between administrative and legislative measures. 

A city council or a county commission, unlike the state legislature, exercises

executive and quasi-judicial functions in addition to legislative functions. Margolis v. 

District Court, 638 P.2d 297, 303 (Colo. 1981). At the same time, the power of the 

people to enact ordinances by initiative or referendum implicates only the legislative 

power of the municipality. Thus, the majority American rule permits ballot initiatives or 

referenda only with regard to acts legislative in temperament. City of Aurora v. 

Zwerdlinger, 194 Colo. 192, 571 P.2d 1074, 1076 (1977). Otherwise ballot initiatives 

could bring the machinery of government to a halt. City of Aurora v. Zwerdlinger, 571 

P.2d at 1076.

The right to act directly through referendum or initiative is not an inherent power 

of the people. Ballasiotes v. Gardner, 97 Wn.2d 191, 195-96, 642 P.2d 397 (1982). 

Under our state constitution, municipal governments are not fully sovereign and derive 

their authority to utility the initiative process from statute, rather than the constitution. 

City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 8, 239 P.3d 589 (2010). 

RCW 35.22.200 declares, in part:

The legislative powers of a charter city shall be vested in a mayor 

and a city council, to consist of such number of members and to have such 

powers as may be provided for in its charter. The charter may provide for 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

41

direct legislation by the people through the initiative and referendum upon 

any matter within the scope of the powers, functions, or duties of the 

city. . . .

(Emphasis added.) In conformance with the statute, Washington case law limits the local 

initiative power to legislation or “legislative matters” within the authority of the city. 

Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend Constitution, 185 Wn.2d at 

107. In turn, the case law distinguishes between “legislative” and “administrative” 

measures and precludes administrative matters as the subject of an initiative or 

referendum. Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend Constitution, 

185 Wn.2d at 107. 

When drawing a distinction between administrative and legislative measures, the 

Washington Supreme Court, like other state high courts, has adopted two tests entailing 

various factors enumerated in the leading treatise, Eugene McQuillin’s The Law of 

Municipal Corporations. City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d at

11 (2010); Heider v. City of Seattle, 100 Wn.2d 874, 875-76, 675 P.2d 597 (1984); 

Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d at 347 

(1983); Ballasiotes v. Gardner, 97 Wn.2d at 195-96 (1982); Seattle Building &

Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740, 748, 620 P.2d 82 (1980); 

Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820, 823-24, 505 P.2d 447 (1973); Leonard v. City of 

Bothell, 87 Wn.2d at 850-51 (1976); Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 152-53, 

492 P.2d 547 (1972). The latest revision of the McQuillin treatise, from 2013, reads in 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

42

relevant part:

Actions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are 

usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a 

temporary and special character are regarded as administrative. In this 

connection an ordinance which shows an intent to form a permanent rule of 

government until repealed is one of permanent operation. Obviously, 

details which are essentially of a fluctuating sort, due to economic or other 

conditions, cannot be set up in and by an ordinance to be submitted to the 

vote of the people. 

The test of what is a legislative and what is an administrative 

proposition, with respect to the initiative or referendum, has further 

been said to be whether the proposition is one to make new law or to 

execute law already in existence. The power to be exercised is 

legislative in its nature if it prescribes a new policy or plan; whereas, 

it is administrative in its nature if it merely pursues a plan already 

adopted by the legislative body itself, or some power superior to it. 

Similarly, an act or resolution constituting a declaration of public 

purpose and making provision for ways and means of its 

accomplishment is generally legislative as distinguished from an act 

or resolution which merely carries out the policy or purpose already 

declared by the legislative body. In applying the “legislative” versus 

“administrative” test distinguishing on the basis of “new policy or 

plan” versus “pursuit of plan already adopted,” the court will apply a 

liberal rule of construction so that, for example, a resolution 

approving an annexation has been construed as municipal legislation 

in that it was characterized as a new law to which referendum 

powers apply. The distinction between “legislative” and 

“administrative” matters is the distinction between making laws of 

general applicability and permanent nature, on the one hand, as 

opposed to decisions implementing such general rules, on the other.

. . . .

Whether a particular municipal activity is administrative or is 

legislation often depends not on the nature of the action but the 

nature of the legal framework in which the action occurs. 

5 EUGENE MCQUILLIN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 16.53 (3d ed. 2013)

(footnotes omitted). 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

43

This excerpt from § 16.53 begs several questions, some of which loom important 

in our analysis of the validity of Proposition 1. What if the subject of the initiative is 

permanent but limited, not general, in character? Where lies the dividing line between an 

action general in nature and specific in character? Is an act general in nature because it 

applies throughout the entire geographic boundaries of the municipality and limited when 

only applying to certain neighborhoods? Or is the act general in nature if it applies to all 

persons despite a limited geographical reach and limited if it applies only to a subset of 

persons? Is the act administrative in nature if it applies only to the conduct of municipal 

employees? If the initiative proposes to reverse recent law does it create new law? If the 

initiative proposes to reverse a recent ordinance does it create new law even if the initial 

ordinance was administrative in nature? What if the initiative has some characteristics of 

an administrative action and some attributes of a legislative act? 

Some principles announced in Washington cases partially answer these questions. 

In distinguishing between administrative and legislative proposals, we look at the 

fundamental and overriding purpose of the initiative, rather than mere incidentals to the 

overriding purpose. Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 302 (2005). An initiative is 

administrative in nature if it hinders or furthers a plan the local government, or some 

power superior to it, has previously adopted. City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our 

Choice!, 170 Wn.2d at 11. An initiative may be administrative in nature if it conflicts 

with state law’s directions to government employees or entities. Seattle Building & 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

44

Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d at 749 (1980). 

The most learned treatment of the difference between administrative and 

legislative municipal actions comes from the Kansas Supreme Court. City of Wichita v. 

Kansas Taxpayers Network, Inc., 255 Kan. 534, 874 P.2d 667 (1994); City of Lawrence 

v. McArdle, 214 Kan. 862, 522 P.2d 420 (1974). The Kansas high court recognizes that 

whether a proposed initiative is legislative or administrative is often a difficult question 

to answer in part because no single act of a governing body is solely legislative or 

administrative. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391, 212 P.3d 184, 193-94 

(2009). The question can be fact specific. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 194. 

No one factor necessarily controls over the others. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 

P.3d at 195. The court will give consideration to each factor before reaching a final 

decision. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 195. But in doing so, the weight 

given to any one factor may be enough under a particular factual situation to decide that a 

proposed ordinance intrudes too far into a city’s administrative arena and thereby 

becomes administrative in nature. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 195. 

In addition to the traditional factors of general or specific and creating or 

implementing policy, the Kansas high court added the technical nature of the proposal as 

another consideration. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 194. A decision that

requires specialized training and experience in municipal government and intimate 

knowledge of the fiscal and other affairs of a city in order to make a rational choice 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

45

should be deemed administrative, even though the choice may entail some characteristics 

of establishment of policy. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 194. 

The Washington Supreme Court, without expressly adopting the specialized 

complexion of a municipal ordinance or initiative as a factor, commented on the technical 

nature of a measure in Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847 (1976). The Supreme 

Court declared as administrative a proposed referendum on a municipal ordinance that

would rezone property from agricultural to community business and would modify the 

city’s comprehensive plan to allow a regional shopping center. The court observed: 

Amendments to the zoning code or rezone decisions require an 

informed and intelligent choice by individuals who possess the expertise to 

consider the total economic, social, and physical characteristics of the 

community. Respondent’s planning commission and city council normally 

possess the necessary expertise to make these difficult decisions. The State 

Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, emphasizes this 

need for carefully planned land-use decisions. . . . SEPA requires a 

sophisticated understanding of the environmental problems of the project. 

Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Wn.2d at 854. 

We now analyze the complexion of Proposition 1. In doing so, we consider 

Proposition 1 as repealing or modifying the earlier sections of the Spokane Municipal 

Code, former SMC 3.10.040, .050, which addressed the same subject matter, the 

questioning by police of an individual’s immigration and citizenship status. We 

recognize that current Spokane policy allows a law enforcement officer to question a 

suspect about his or her immigration status, but limits the circumstances under which a 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

46

police officer may question an individual as to the individual’s immigration status, 

citizenship status, or refugee status. The officer may question about status if the officer 

holds reasonable suspicion that the person was previously deported from the United 

States and is committing or has committed a felony. Current Spokane law and policy 

limits the circumstances under which a police officer should forward immigration status 

information to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. 

Proposition 1 removes any restrictions on any officer or other employee of Spokane to 

question one about his or her immigration status or to forward immigration status 

information to others. 

We recognize at least one characteristic of Proposition 1 in common with 

legislative acts. Proposition 1 adopts a rule of government permanent in nature. An 

initiative showing an intent to form a standing rule of government, until it is repealed, is 

one of permanent operation. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d at 196. 

Respect Washington argues that Proposition 1 is legislative in nature because of 

the additional feature that the initiative seeks to reverse or change city policy. Respect 

Washington also contends that, although the subject matter at issue originated as Spokane 

Police Department policy, the adoption of the policy by the Spokane City Council 

transformed the policy from administrative in nature to legislative in nature. 

Respect Washington analogizes to Citizens for Financially Responsible 

Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d at 347 (1983), in which citizens wished to 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

47

repeal a business tax after the city council enacted the tax. When conducting the 

administrative versus legislative analysis, the Washington Supreme Court analyzed 

whether the original ordinance, rather than the citizens’ referendum, was administrative. 

The court concluded that the city ordinance was legislative in nature and subject to 

referendum. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the city ordinance could not 

be viewed as an execution of policy already in existence. Rather, the tax ordinance set a 

new policy. The Supreme Court did not expressly avow that an initiative that revokes an 

ordinance legislative in nature also renders the initiative legislative in nature, the court 

ruling implies such. Thus, we agree with Respect Washington that Proposition 1, 

assuming the underlying former SMC 3.10.040 and .050 to be legislative, maintains some 

legislative character in that the initiative modifies, if not reverses in part, legislative 

policy established by the city council. 

Other characteristics of Proposition 1 share features in common with 

administrative acts. SMC 3.10.010(B)(1) delegates to the Spokane Police Department 

police chief authority to issue rules for the proper functioning of the police department. 

The Spokane City Council did not adopt former SMC 3.10.040 and .050 in a vacuum. 

The Spokane Police Department had already adopted standing policies with regard to 

questioning individuals about immigration and citizenship status. The Spokane City 

Council, when adopting former SMC 3.10.040 and .050, merely codified existing police 

department policy. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

48

We recognize the argument that, if the city council adopts a department’s 

administrative policy, the policy transforms into a legislative policy. Nevertheless, no 

case law supports that contention. If other actions by the city legislative body constitute 

administrative action, the adoption of a city department’s administrative regulations can

remain administrative in character. When analyzing the legislative or administrative 

nature of a municipal act, courts consider the framework of the action. Proposition 1 

challenges a Spokane policy, whose framework’s base consists of administrative building 

blocks. 

Proposition 1 interferes with Spokane Police Department policy to limit the 

circumstances under which law enforcement officers inquire about immigration and 

citizenship status. To repeat, an initiative is administrative in nature if it hinders or 

furthers a plan the local government previously adopted. City of Port Angeles v. Our 

Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d at 11. Proposition 1 hinders a policy previously adopted 

by the local government similarly to the proposed initiative that interfered in the building 

of the King County stadium in Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820 (1973). 

We recognize that the state Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Pike v. City of 

Bellingham, 183 Wash. 439, 48 P.2d 602 (1935), held the fixing of salaries of firefighters 

and police officers to be legislative in nature. One might argue that the decision suggests 

that administrative affairs of a police department may be legislative in nature. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

49

Nevertheless, the city of Bellingham measure did not directly impact how to administer 

services provided by the police department. 

We are unaware of any decision that expressly holds that directions to employees 

constitute administrative, not legislative, policy. Nevertheless, logic supports such a 

conclusion. Directions to government employees may come from a legislature but 

generally derive as administration actions by department heads. 

We observe that the language in former SMC 3.10.040 and .050, in their code 

section replacements at SMC 18.07.010 and .020, and in Proposition 1 lack any 

declaration of policy. McQullin on Municipal Corporations and impliedly Ballasiotes v. 

Gardner, 97 Wn.2d 191 (1982) state that a declaration of policy, or the lack of a 

declaration of policy, influences the action as being respectively legislative or 

administrative in nature. Since a declaration of policy generally functions as a formality, 

we deem this factor of limited assistance. Still, the lack of a declaration of policy in our 

operative ordinances and Proposition 1 bolsters our conclusion. 

In addition to relying on Proposition 1 countering a Spokane Police Department 

policy, we emphasize the need for expertise on the challenging and charged question of 

whether local government agents should question individuals about immigration or 

citizenship status. United States legislative policy dictates the removal of those illegally 

in the United States, and the federal government operates an agency and a separate court 

system to fulfill this dictate. If and when a local law enforcement agency seeks to 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

50

question an individual as to his or her legal status inside the nation’s borders involves a 

different query. Case law and literature recognizes the need to weigh conflicting goals 

before establishing a policy of asking or withholding questioning regarding one’s 

citizenship status. Local law enforcement agencies must also navigate constitutional 

protections afforded residents before asking for information on one’s status. These 

factors implicate the success of law enforcement efforts and thus questioning should be 

reserved to the expertise of law enforcement administrators. 

We discern from its name that Respect Washington seeks respect for all law, 

including immigration laws and laws demanding deportation of those unlawfully within 

the United States, including within the city of Spokane. Respect for all law is a noble 

standard and deporting those unlawfully in the nation a legitimate end to this principle. 

But a law enforcement agency that allows officers free reign in questioning anyone as to 

his or her citizenship status, such as proposed in Proposition 1, can encounter negative

side effects from such a policy. 

Proposition 1 allows city of Spokane employees to collect information on 

immigration status. The collection of data assumes the right to question individuals of 

their status. Proposition 1 provides no limits on when a law enforcement officer, or for 

that matter any employee of the city of Spokane, can question others about citizenship 

status. Spokane Police Department policy and Spokane city ordinances already allow 

police officers to question those reasonably suspected to be committing a crime by 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

51

returning to the United States unlawfully after being deported. If law enforcement 

officers can already question those for whom probable cause of this federal felony exists, 

one wonders under what circumstances city employees will seek information from other 

city residents about their status when no probable cause exists. We do not expect law 

officers to ask everyone encountered as to his or her status. Our extensive reading of 

literature and case law teaches, however, that, without any guidelines, some officers will 

inevitably target those persons who look foreign or speak a different language, regardless 

of citizenship, for questioning. The practice of questioning some and not others leads to 

racial profiling. During oral argument, Respect Washington agreed that asking one his or 

her immigration status or citizenship status can be racial profiling under some 

circumstances. Wash. Court of Appeals oral argument, Global Neighborhood v. Respect 

Washington, No. 35528-4-III (Oct. 23, 2018), 34.55 to 35.15 (on file with court). 

As noted in Parada v. Anoka County, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (D. Minn. 2018): 

A substantial number of Latinos−both U.S. citizens and foreign-born 

residents—are less likely to contact the police or report crimes, even when 

they are victims, because they fear that police will inquire about their 

immigration status. While the U.S. immigrant population is extremely 

vulnerable to crime, police mistrust is common within immigrant 

communities. In Minnesota, law-enforcement agencies fear that the 

immigrant community’s distrust of police results in increased crime against 

immigrants and decreased reporting of such crimes.

332 F. Supp. 3d at 1235-36 (footnotes omitted) (citing NIK THEODORE, INSECURE 

COMMUNITIES: LATINO PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN IMMIGRATION 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

52

ENFORCEMENT 5-6 (2013); Mai Thi Nguyen & Hannah Gill, Interior Immigration 

Enforcement: The Impacts of Expanding Local Law Enforcement Authority, 53 URB.

STUD. 14-16 (Feb. 2016); Jill T. Messing, et al., Latinas’ Perception of Law 

Enforcement: Fear of Deportation, Crime Reporting, and Trust in the System, 30 J. 

Women & Soc’y. 328, 330 (2015); INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE,

POLICE CHIEFS GUIDE TO IMMIGRATION ISSUES 28 (2007); Sam Torres & Ronald E. 

Vogel, Pre and Post-Test Differences Between Vietnamese and Latino Residents Involved 

in a Community Policing Experiment: Reducing Fear of Crime and Improving Attitudes 

Towards the Police, 24 POLICING: INTERNATIONAL J. POLICE STRAT. & MGMT. 40, 53 

(2001)). 

A police chief or sheriff deputy deserves the opportunity to adopt administrative 

policies deemed best for his or her jurisdiction in combatting crime, protecting victims, 

and allocating limited law enforcement resources. One city police department, in 

furtherance of an administrative policy of strict enforcement of all law, may liberally 

direct its officers to question about immigration status. Another city police department, 

pursuant to other legitimate law enforcement concerns, may direct its line officers to 

strictly limit questioning of citizenship status. The populace and law enforcement 

sometimes criticize persnickety courts and the legislature for micromanaging methods of 

law enforcement. Proposition 1 would further micromanagement. 

Washington case law recognizes as a separate exception to the power of a local 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

53

government, to adopt an initiative, a proposal that conflicts with federal or state law. 

Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend Constitution, 185 Wn.2d at 

108; Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 299; Seattle Building & Construction Trades 

Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d at 746 (1980). This rule fulfills the principle of 

primacy of federal and state over local law. Nevertheless, sometimes the separation 

between this exception borne of conflict of law blurs with the exception based on 

administrative measures or policies. Administrative acts include acts that result from 

governmental powers properly assigned to the executive department and necessary to 

carry out legislative policies and purposes already devolved on a municipal body by the 

law of the state. In re Referendum Petition to Repeal Ordinance 04-75, 388 N.J. Super. 

405, 908 A.2d 846, 850 (2006), aff’d [and judgment modified], 192 N.J. 446, 931 A.2d 

595 (2007). When a municipal government complies with and places into execution a 

state or local legislative mandate in adopting an ordinance, the municipality exercises a 

ministerial and administrative function not subject to referendum. In re Referendum 

Petition to Repeal Ordinance 04-75, 908 A.2d at 851. Therefore, if a proposed initiative 

covers a direction from state law but conflicts with that direction, the initiative might also 

be considered administrative in nature. 

As indicated in the opening of the factual section, RCW 43.101.410 precludes law 

enforcement agencies from racial profiling. Racial profiling of any kind is anathema to 

our criminal justice system. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635 (7th Cir. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

54

2001). Global Neighborhood also forwards RCW 10.40.200(1), which prohibits the 

collection and dissemination of immigration information during the plea stage of a 

criminal proceeding. Proposition 1 would place city employees, such as city prosecutors 

and public defenders, in a situation that conflicts with the statute. 

The current Spokane Police Department policy limiting questioning of individuals 

about immigration status and citizenship status also fulfills strictures of federal law. 

Under federal constitutional law, an officer may not rely solely on the appearance of an 

individual in questioning about immigration status. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 

208 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000). Instead questioning must be based on individual 

suspicion. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d at 1133. Proposition 1 would 

allow an officer to approach anyone of his or her choosing on the street and ask the 

person as to his or her immigration or citizenship status. 

A law enforcement officer does not breach the Fourth Amendment when the 

officer’s questioning of a detainee’s immigration status does not prolong the stop. 

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101, 125 S. Ct. 1465, 161 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2005). 

Nevertheless, a law enforcement officer violates one’s rights by delaying one’s release 

from a stop in order to ascertain the detainee’s immigration status. Illinois v. Caballes,

543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005). One wonders how a law 

enforcement officer can inquire about one’s immigration status without prolonging the 

stop when inquiring about the status necessarily prolongs the detainment. 
No. 35528-4-III 

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington 

An individual's race, standing alone, is not an appropriate factor for assessing 

reasonable suspicion in the immigration enforcement setting. United States v. Salinas, 

940 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir. 1991). An individual's difficulty in speaking English also 

does not constitute a valid race-neutral basis for initiating an immigration investigation. 

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 539 

(6th Cir. 2002). The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a police officer from selecting one 

for a consensual interview solely on the basis of the person's race. Farm Labor 

Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F .3d at 539. 

CONCLUSION 

We affirm the superior court's grant of an injunction precluding the placement of 

Proposition 1 on the ballot for a vote by Spokane voters. 

Fea~4?~' 

WE CONCUR: 

cfn4Lowu I~• 

oway,J. # -tJ55 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

56

APPENDIX

We list in reverse chronological order and tersely discuss Washington cases that 

address the validity of an initiative and that inform our decision. 

In Protect Public Health v. Freed, No. 95134-9 (Wash. Dec. 6, 2018), the 

Supreme Court held that a proposed initiative to ban public funding for community health 

engagement sites went beyond the scope of the local initiative power. The sites would 

afford a safe location for injecting drugs. The initiative interfered with the budgetary 

authority of the King County Council. RCW 36.40.080 and .250 granted to the county 

council the authority to fix each item of the budget. RCW 70.12.025 directed each 

county legislative authority to annually budget and appropriate sums for public health. 

In Port of Tacoma v. Save Tacoma Water, 4 Wn. App. 2d 562 (2018), a political 

committee submitted two initiative petitions. One initiative proposed an amendment to 

the Tacoma City Charter and the other sought to enact a new municipal ordinance. The 

two initiatives contained similar text that would require a vote of Tacoma residents 

before the city extended water service to applicants seeking at least one million gallons of 

water daily. Corporations that violated the provisions would be deemed nonpersons. The 

Court of Appeals denied the measure a vote on the basis that the proposition was 

administrative and conflicted with state law. The Tacoma Municipal Code already 

outlined a process for applications for water service. The initiative would impose 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

57

additional application requirements on certain large users. A state statute required that a 

municipal water supplier provide retail water service under certain conditions. The 

initiative would deny service to some potential customers under additional circumstances. 

In Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend Constitution, 185 

Wn.2d 97 at 101, 110 (2016), the state high court held a local measure that would require 

any proposed zoning changes involving large developments to be approved by voters to 

be contrary to established water rights system and thus administrative. The court 

declared the initiative invalid. 

City of Longview v. Wallin, 174 Wn. App. 763 (2013), the city brought an action 

for a declaration that the ballot initiative proposing restrictions on the use of traffic safety 

cameras was beyond the scope of the local initiative power. This court agreed. A state 

statute expressly delegated to the city legislative authority, rather than the city as a whole, 

the power to adopt such camera systems. 

In American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, 163 Wn. App. 427

(2011), this court held a proposed initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative 

power. The initiative sought to prohibit the use of automated traffic safety enforcement 

cameras. A state statute expressly delegated to the city legislative authority the power to 

adopt such camera systems. Remarkably, the court refused to grant the initiative 

challengers injunctive relief to prevent a vote on the initiative. The court reasoned that 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

58

the challengers were not injured by the adoption of the initiative because its adoption 

would be void. This decision might be distinguished from City of Longview v. Wallin in 

that the challenger in Wallin was the city who needed to incur the expense of the ballot 

election. 

In City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1 (2010), the 

Supreme Court declared an initiative attempting to reverse implementation of a city water 

fluoridation program to be administrative. The court emphasized that the city council’s 

decision to fluoridate potable water was made pursuant to an existing water management 

plan and detailed state administrative regulations governing water. Both state and federal 

government promulgated water regulations. 

In Futurewise v. Reed, 161 Wn.2d 407, 166 P.3d 708 (2007), challengers sought 

declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the Washington Secretary of State from 

placing, on the general election ballot, Initiative 960 (I-960), which if enacted would 

amend state statutes to require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for the 

raising of taxes. The initiative would also require advisory votes on tax increases enacted 

without voter approval. The Supreme Court denied relief. A unanimous court held that 

the initiative was not subject to preelection review on the ground that, if enacted, it would 

conflict with, and therefore improperly “amend,” the state constitution without complying 

with procedures for amending the state constitution. 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

59

In City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251 (2006), the Supreme Court 

precluded placement on the ballot an initiative that would impose additional requirements 

on revenue bonds. The pertinent statutory scheme assigned authorization for issuing 

revenue bonds to the city council. 

In Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d at 293 (2005), the Supreme Court addressed a 

statewide initiative that would restrict noneconomic damages in claims for negligent 

healthcare to $350,000, shorten time limits for filing suit, and limit attorney fees for 

claimants. Challengers to the initiative claimed the initiative to be unconstitutional under 

settled Washington law. The court refused to address the constitutionality of the 

initiative. The court also deemed the initiative to be within legislative powers in that it 

addressed a general subject matter that being causes of action and the practice of law. 

In Maleng v. King County Corrections Guild, 150 Wn.2d 325, 76 P.3d 727 (2003), 

the King County prosecutor filed suit to enjoin the placement on the ballot of a proposed 

initiative to reduce the size of the county council. The court held the process of 

amending a city charter to be legislative in character and thus subject to an initiative. 

In Priorities First v. City of Spokane, 93 Wn. App. 406, 968 P.2d 431 (1998), a 

political action committee petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the city of 

Spokane to place on the ballot an initiative that would require the city to obtain voter 

approval before pledging parking meter revenue to fund a parking garage. This court 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

60

denied relief because the initiative conflicted with the authority delegated by state statute 

to a city’s legislative body.

In Snohomish County v. Anderson, 123 Wn.2d 151, 868 P.2d 116 (1994), the court 

stopped an initiative that would impact a county’s planning scheme. The court observed 

that RCW 36.70A.210(2) authorized the county legislative authority to adopt countywide 

planning policy. 

In Heider v. City of Seattle, 100 Wn.2d at 876 (1984), the Supreme Court held a 

proposed change of a city street name to be administrative in nature and thus not a proper 

subject for an initiative. The court deemed the first test of legislative versus 

administrative helped little since a street name change is of a permanent character and not 

general in character. Also, the change could be deemed as “‘special’” but not 

“‘temporary.’” The second test helped, however. The name change ordinance merely 

amended Seattle’s comprehensive street names ordinance. Therefore, the ordinance 

should be characterized as administrative, since it was enacted pursuant to a plan already 

adopted by the legislative body itself. 

In Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 

339 (1983), the city passed an ordinance enacting a business and occupation tax. 

Through a referendum, city citizens sought repeal of the tax. When conducting the 

administrative versus legislative analysis, the court analyzed whether the original 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

61

ordinance enacting the tax was administrative. The court did not analyze, as most other 

case law does, whether the citizens’ referendum was administrative in nature. The court 

ultimately concluded that the city ordinance was legislative in nature and subject to 

referendum. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted the city ordinance could not be 

viewed as an execution of policy already in existence. Rather, the court viewed the 

ordinance as setting a new policy. The ordinance never referenced a policy already in 

existence. 

In Ballasiotes v. Gardner, 97 Wn.2d 191 (1982), Pierce County adopted an 

ordinance that converted the existing lever machine voting equipment to punch card and 

computer tabulating voting equipment. The ordinance affirmed a previous decision made 

by the executive power of the county to change to a punch card system. Nevertheless, the 

county council ordinance declared it to be the policy of the county to implement the 

punch card system. Citizens sought a referendum to return the county to the lever 

machine system. The Supreme Court held the measure to implement a punch card voting 

system to be “legislative” in character and referendable. Affirming an executive decision 

did not render the decision administrative. The court also held that the act of funding the 

new punch card system was legislative in character. 

In Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 

740 (1980), the Supreme Court held that a proposed city initiative that sought to prohibit 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

62

expansion of Interstate 90 facilities on a lake went beyond the scope of the initiative 

power. A state statute declared the interstate highway a state route. The State held title 

to the highway and assumed full jurisdiction, responsibility, and control of the roadway. 

A city held power over a state highway only to the extent authorized by the state 

legislature. Thus, any such powers constituted administrative powers. 

In Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847 (1976), citizens sought to compel a 

referendum election on a municipal ordinance that would rezone property from 

agricultural to community business and would modify the city’s comprehensive plan to 

allow a regional shopping center. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was 

administrative in nature and not subject to referendum election. The municipality acts in 

a legislative capacity when adopting a zoning code and a comprehensive plan, but in an 

administrative capacity when enacting amendments to the zoning code or rezones and 

amendments to the comprehensive plan because the municipality then implements the 

earlier plans. Also, a rezone is quasi-judicial in character and thus not subject to a 

referendum. Finally, under statute the legislature granted to the city council, not the 

municipality as a whole, the power to adopt and implement zoning. 

In Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d at 825 (1973), the King County Council voted to 

build a county stadium and sold bonds to finance the construction. Citizens filed an 

initiative to repeal the resolution authorizing the project, to revoke the bonds to finance it,
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

63

and to prohibit spending funds for further development. The Supreme Court noted that, 

while the original decision to build the stadium was legislative, all that remained was for 

the county and its agents to execute an already adopted legislative determination. Under 

these facts, the court held only administrative decisions remained in connection with the 

stadium project, decisions not subject to the initiative process.

In State ex rel. Guthrie v. City of Richland, 80 Wn.2d 382, 494 P.2d 990 (1972), 

the city of Richland adopted an ordinance that extended its water and sewer system to 

annexed land and issued bonds to pay for the extension of the system. Citizens then 

sought a referendum to overturn the ordinance, but the city clerk refused to validate the 

petitions for the referendum. The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus directing 

the city to submit the referendum to a vote. The court held that an ordinance providing 

for additions, betterments, and extensions to a municipally owned waterworks, financed 

by revenue bonds, was not subject to a referendum vote. A statute delegated to the 

governing body of the city the authority to construct and finance a sewer and water 

works. 

In Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139 (1972), the King County Council 

granted companies an unclassified use permit with conditions for a tract of land. 

Thereafter, the council decided to submit the issuance of the permit to the voters in a 

referendum. The Supreme Court held the issuance of a use permit to be administrative 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

64

primarily because the Washington Constitution and King County Charter delegated the 

power to issue the permits to the county council. 

In Paget v. Logan, 78 Wn.2d 349, 474 P.2d 247 (1970), the Supreme Court held 

the selection of a public stadium site constituted a legislative rather than administrative or 

executive act. The court emphasized that a statute declared the acts of locating, 

financing, constructing, and operating public stadium facilities to be for public purposes

and another statute conferred the power of eminent domain on the county to accomplish 

the public purpose. Significant and inherently legislative problems revolving about 

streets, traffic, parking, public transportation, utilities, and service facilities become 

necessarily entwined and interrelated with the choice of any given site. Challengers to 

the initiative argued that rendering the stadium site selection a legislative rather than an 

administrative function would frustrate the efficiency of government and promote endless 

debate and indecision with respect to finalizing any chosen site. The court qualified its 

ruling by noting that, at some point in time, a proposed stadium project might progress to 

a point when only administrative decisions will remain to complete the project such that 

any initiative measures concerning site selection would be inappropriate. 

In State ex rel. Linn v. Superior Court for King County, 20 Wn.2d 138, 146 P.2d 

543 (1944), the court adopted the rule that amending a city charter is legislative in 

character and may be the subject of a referendum. The court, however, denied the 
No. 35528-4-III

Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington

Appendix

65

proponents of the initiative a writ directing the county to place the initiative on the ballot 

since the proponents had not followed the correct process. 

In State ex rel. Payne v. City of Spokane, 17 Wn.2d 22, 134 P.2d 950 (1943), the 

city of Spokane fire chief sued to compel city commissioners to submit to voters a 

proposed initiative to increase the pay of members of the fire department. The Supreme 

Court held the fixing of salaries to be a legislative function and subject to an initiative. 

The city charter placed the fixing of salaries under an article devoted to “Administration

of City Affairs.” This classification was not controlling because the courts, not the city, 

determine the nature of the task. 

In State ex rel. Pike v. City of Bellingham, 183 Wash. 439 (1935), the Supreme 

Court held the fixing of salaries of firefighters and police officers to be legislative in 

nature. Thus, an initiative could establish those salaries.