Opinion ID: 2455414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Sound Transit's Flawed Argument

Text: ¶ 51 Like the majority's analysis, Sound Transit's argument is unavailing. Sound Transit argues that the expenditure authorized by section 204(3) does not violate article II, section 40 because the appropriation was to value the lanes to determine how much to repay the motor vehicle fund, not to fund any portion of the plan to construct light rail. Majority at 269. Constitutional prohibitions on the legislature's power to spend money equally apply to its power to lend money. The fact that Sound Transit claims an intention to reimburse the MVF for the expenditure provides no constitutional justification for the expenditure in the first place. ¶ 52 Consider an analogy from elsewhere in our constitution. Like article II, section 40's prohibition on the expenditure of MVF moneys for nonhighway purposes, article IX, section 2 of the Washington Constitution requires that common school funds `shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.' Mitchell v. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 201, 17 Wash.2d 61, 65, 135 P.2d 79 (1943) (emphasis omitted) (quoting WASH. CONST. art. IX, § 2). Suppose the legislature appropriated common school funds to value school property for later transfer to Sound Transit? Could Sound Transit (or the legislature) render such an appropriation constitutional by a simple agreement to later reimburse the common school fund? ¶ 53 The answer is obviously no, and I am confident the majority (and the public) would quickly dismiss such flawed reasoning in the context of public education. Unfortunately, the disparate treatment of these two constitutional prohibitions does not stem from the constitutional text. While diverting funds from public education is a serious matter, apparently diverting funds from the constitutional state highway fund is not. This distinction does not arise from the constitution or law but simply arises from value judgmentsan invalid basis on which to decide cases if our state is to be governed by a government of laws not of men.  Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 177, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Douglas, J., concurring).