Opinion ID: 1186233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: constitutionality of 1992 amendments

Text: There is no dispute that the 1992 amendments limited the right to sue to Plan I members only. [70] Accordingly, if the 1992 amendments are valid, Respondent Fray would be barred from bringing suit against Petitioners. [71] Respondent, however, argued the 1992 amendments were unconstitutional under article II, sections 19 and 37 of the Washington State Constitution. [72] The Court of Appeals agreed with him and held the law unconstitutional. [73] Washington Constitution article II, section 19 provides No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. The 1992 amendment is titled in its entirety as: AN ACT Relating to making technical corrections to chapter 35, Laws of 1991; amending RCW 41.26.005, 41.26.075, 41.32.005, 41.32.215, 41.32.755, 41.40.005, 41.40.145, and 41.50.210; reenacting RCW 41.32.310; adding a new section to chapter 41.26 RCW; creating a new section; recodifying RCW 41.26.058, 41.26.052, and 41.26.054; and repealing RCW 41.26.405, 41.32.610, 41.32.620, 41.32.630, 41.32.700, and 41.40.605.[ [74] ] In concluding the 1992 amendments are unconstitutional under Constitution article II, section 19, the Court of Appeals stated: The question is whether a reader of this title would be led to an inquiry into the body of the act, or the title would indicate the scope and purpose of the law. We believe that the title here accomplishes neither purpose. It suggests rather that the changes are technical corrections to chapter 35 of the 1991 laws. It does not give fair notice that by recodifying the right to sue provision, Plan II members no longer have the right to sue their employers, a right the Legislature had given and reaffirmed through four previous amendments.[ [75] ] Petitioners do not question the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. [76] They simply argue the constitutional provisions are inapplicable to the 1992 amendments because the amendments made no substantive changes. [77] Petitioners contend Constitution article II, section 19 is intended to prevent harm to individuals for not being properly apprised of substantive changes in the law. [78] It is true the purpose of article II, section 19 is to fairly apprise the Legislature and the public of proposed new laws. [79] This Court need not consider whether this provision applies only to substantive changes. The crux of Petitioners' claim is that the 1992 amendments intended only a technical correction stated in the title, rectifying the drafting error of 1991 which placed the right to sue provision under the section applicable to both Plan I and Plan II members. [80] They contend Plan II members were stripped of the right to sue in the 1977 amendments when they were made eligible for industrial insurance, and the 1991 amendments placing the right to sue provision in the section applicable to all members were the result of a non-substantive drafting error. [81] Petitioners' argument is essentially that Plan II members lost their right to sue in 1977 and never regained that right; and when the 1991 amendment granted that right by express statutory authority, it was a mere drafting error which the 1992 amendments corrected. [82] Petitioners claim section 1(1)(e) of Laws of 1991, chapter 35 support their interpretation. That section states: The legislature intends to reorganize chapter 41.26 RCW. The goals of this reorganization are to: ... recodify administrative provisions. The legislature does not intend to make substantive changes in the meaning, interpretation, court construction, or constitutionality of any provision of chapter 41.26 RCW or other statutory provisions or rules adopted under those provisions.... This position is dependent upon two factors: (1) a finding that the right of Plan II members to sue was in fact extinguished in the 1977 amendments, and (2) a finding that the Legislature did in fact commit a drafting error in the 1991 amendments. It has already been established that Plan II members retained the right to sue until the 1992 amendments. It is more logical to conclude the Legislature did not commit a drafting error in 1991, but, as stated in section 1(1)(e), intended to make no substantive changes and intended merely to reorganize the statutory provisions placing the right to sue provision under the section applicable to all members. [83] The 1992 amendments are not merely technical corrections, but constitute substantive changes to LEOFF by taking away the right of Plan II members to sue, a right they had until the 1992 amendments. The question now becomes whether the title to the 1992 amendments fairly apprises the Legislature and the public of that substantive consequence. The Court of Appeals correctly determined it did not. Washington Constitution article II, section 19 requires the subject of a bill to be expressed in the title. This is to assure that the members of the legislature and the public are generally aware of what is contained in proposed new laws. [84] Generally, article II, section 19 should be liberally construed in favor of the validity of the legislation. [85] The title to a bill need not be an index to its contents; nor is the title expected to give the details contained in the bill. [86] A title is in compliance with the section if it provides notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the law. [87] However, a mere reference to a section in the title of an act does not state a subject. [88] The title of the 1992 amendments does not express the subject of the act. [89] It merely states AN ACT Relating to making technical corrections without referring to the substance of those corrections. [90] Readers of this title would not be led to an inquiry into the body of the act nor would they be apprised of the scope and purpose of the law. [91] Instead, readers would be misled into thinking the amendments propose mere technical corrections, when in fact they made a substantive change in LEOFF by depriving Plan II members of the right to suea right they had since 1971. [92] Accordingly, the bill is unconstitutional under article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution, and the members of LEOFF Plan II retain their right to sue as provided in the 1971 amendments and reaffirmed through four successive amendments. Because we conclude the 1992 law is unconstitutional under article II, section 19, We need not reach the constitutionality of the amendment under article II, section 37.