Opinion ID: 2564099
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Delegation to the Legislative Authority Precludes Referenda

Text: ¶ 84 The trial court's decision is also erroneous because it disregarded our precedent recognizing the legislature may grant authority exclusively to the local legislative body simply by saying so. Here, for example, the statute could have read: a county council shall adopt . . . regulations. The majority repeats the trial court's error. ¶ 85 This court has repeatedly recognized the distinction between a grant of authority by the legislature to a city as a corporate entity and to its legislative and other corporate authorities. State ex rel. Haas v. Pomeroy, 50 Wash.2d 23, 25, 308 P.2d 684 (1957). [T]he general rule that where a statute vests a power in the city as a corporate entity, it may be exercised by the people through the initiative or referendum process. State ex rel. Guthrie v. Richland, 80 Wash.2d 382, 384, 494 P.2d 990 (1972). ¶ 86 Thus, under our cases (and principles of construction), the specific wording of the statute is crucial to our determination. Here, the statute authorizing and mandating adoption of the critical areas ordinance is RCW 36.70A.060. Subsection (2) specifies that [e]ach county and city shall adopt development regulations that protect critical areas. Id. ¶ 87 The statute does not refer to the legislative authority of each city and county. The language is similar for inclusion of best available science. RCW 36.70A.172(1) (counties and cities shall include the best available science). This language does not limit delegated authority to the King County Council. If the legislature intended to preclude local referenda, it could have simply stated this intent. (For example: referenda shall not be available for such actions.) ¶ 88 In contrast to Brisbane, 125 Wash.2d 345, 884 P.2d 1326 (discussed below), prior court decisions have restricted initiative powers only where power was expressly or exclusively granted to a legislative body. See, e.g., Guthrie, 80 Wash.2d 382, 494 P.2d 990; Lince v. City of Bremerton, 25 Wash.App. 309, 607 P.2d 329 (1980). We should adhere to these prior decisions, not Brisbane. ¶ 89 The majority decries laser focus on the words `legislative authority.' Majority at 622-23. This is because focus on the actual words of the legislature would permit referenda. Statutory use of the term legislative authority in this context would suggest intent to preclude referenda. Those words were not chosen by the legislature. Nothing about the GMA's framework or our constitutional system suggests referenda be precluded.