Opinion ID: 1191239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: title of initiative

Text: January 4, 1974, six days before oral argument in the instant case, the Supreme Court filed its opinion in Fritz v. Gorton, 83 Wn.2d 275, 517 P.2d 911 (1974), an action challenging the constitutionality of initiative measure 276, the public disclosure act. The Fritz decision was called to our attention by additional authorities filed the day of argument. Nowise does the Fritz decision affect our consideration. We did notice in our conference and consideration, however, one facet of the Fritz opinion  the discussion of whether our constitution, article 2, section 19, providing: No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. applied to initiative measures. In Gilman v. State Tax Comm'n, 32 Wn.2d 480, 489, 202 P.2d 443 (1949) (the veterans bond issue initiative measure 169), the court remarked: a majority of the court is also of the opinion that the ballot title was not sufficiently broad to make the bonds, if they had been constitutional, a general obligation of the state of Washington. (Italics ours.) Two years later, without mentioning Gilman, in Senior Citizens League, Inc. v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn. 142, 173, 228 P.2d 478 (1951), the court held that this constitutional provision does not apply to initiative measures. Now, the Fritz opinion throws some doubt upon the efficacy of Senior Citizens. [2] With this we have no concern. Under any criteria, we are of the opinion that the title of initiative measure 282, quoted supra, meets this constitutional provision. It gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure; it does not present an argument; nor is it likely to create prejudice either for or against the measure. It is sufficient.