The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-08-24
Commissioners District Mixed.

The following, from one of the lead
ing attorneys of Seattle, is of interest
to every county in the state:
Editor Press-Times: By your in
quiry of July 2Sth you have submit
ted to me three questions, to-wit:
l. Has the legislature of Washing
ton power to make the Office of county
commissioner a district office, instead
of a county office. as it was prior to
the passage of the act of March 3,
1898?
2. What effect has section 2 of
the last named act on commissioners
districts Nos one, two and three, as
they existed at the last general cleo
ton?
3. In what district does the COM
missioner to be elected this fall hold
for term of four years?
The discussion of the last two ques-
tions propounded necessarily involves
the discussion of the act of February
%, 1891, section l of which is as fol-
lows:
"The county mmissioners to be
elected at the next general election
after the taking effect of this act, in
each of the organized counties of this
state, shall be elected for the follow
ing terms of Office. to-wit: The COM
missioner elected from district num-
Der shall serve four years, and the
commissioners elected from districts
Nos. 2 and 3 shall serve two years
each"
Under the further provision of this
act the commissioner elected this fall
from district No. 2, would serve four
years, but the legislature of 1893, by
amending the law of 1891, dividing
the county into three districts and
designating them as districts Nos. l, 2
and 3, does not provide for the exis-
tence of districts l, 2 and 3 in terms,
but required the county commission
ers to re-district the county. If they
did so, and I presume they did, I am
OF opinion that the amendment of
1898 would still leave the three COM
missioners' districts distinct entities,
although the lines thereof may have
been changed in redistricting. There
fore, If this reasoning be correct, the
long term would fall to the commits
sioner elected from the territory COM
prised in what was formerly designat-
ed according to the terms of the sta
tute as district No. 2.
There is some doubt upon the pro-
position of the power of the legisla-
ture to make county commissioner a
district office under the peculiar
phraseology of article XII, section 5,
of the constitution. In nv iudg-
ment, however, the legislature had
such power.
The power of the legislature to fix
the term of office of county commits
sloner at four years in rotation, if con-
ceeded, would logically involve the
power to make the term of office of
each one tour years, as the permanent
) term, and therefore it would follow
that the term of each officer might, at
the legislative will, be extended to
tour years, or six years, or eight years,
or what not. This would follow from
the language of article XII, section 5,
OF the constitution, unless the power
OF the legislature as to the term of
Office of county and district officers is
necessarily limited by article vi, Sec
ton 8, of the constitution, which pro-
vldes that all elections for such officers
snail be held biennially. There is in
my Judgment, good reason for holding
that this is limitation on the power
OF the legislature to increase the term
OF office of such officers beyond two
years, although the above is merely an
outline of the considerations involved
IN the decision of the questions which
have been raised. Very respectfully,
l
CHAs. F. FIsHBAcK.