Opinion ID: 2629223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gunwall Factor Four

Text: Factor four of the Gunwall analysis directs examination of preexisting state law, which may be responsive to concerns of its citizens long before they are addressed by analogous constitutional claims. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d at 62, 720 P.2d 808. This factor requires us to consider the degree of protection that Washington State has historically given in similar situations. Id. at 61-62, 720 P.2d 808. The limitation on government to grant special privileges to certain individuals or groups was recognized prior to the adoption of the Washington Constitution in 1889. The Organic Act as revised provided that legislative assemblies of the several Territories shall not grant private charters or especial privileges. U.S.REV.STAT. tit. 23, § 1889, at 333 (2d ed. 1878) (enacted by 43d Cong., 1st Sess. 1873-74). In Hays v. Territory of Wash., 2 Wash. Terr. 286, 288, 5 P. 927 (1884), the Washington Territorial Court upheld a statute that restricted hunting in five counties against an attack under the Organic Act provision because the statute [fell] without distinction upon all inhabitants of the Territory. Id. at 288. Likewise, in several early cases, this court interpreted article I, section 12 independently from the federal provision and in a manner that focused on the award of special privileges rather than the denial of equal protection. See, e.g., N. Springs Water Co. v. City of Tacoma, 21 Wash. 517, 58 P. 773 (1899) (holding that franchise agreement between water utility and city council did not prevent city from building its own waterworks); In re Application of Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 P. 547 (1905) (invalidating ordinance that exempted farmers from ordinance forbidding anyone from peddling fruits and vegetables within city). In 1936, this court distinguished between the prohibition of undue favor (drawn from the state provision) and hostile discrimination (drawn from the Fourteenth Amendment): The aim and purpose of the special privileges and immunities provision of Art. I, § 12, of the state constitution and of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal constitution is to secure equality of treatment of all persons, without undue favor on the one hand or hostile discrimination on the other. State ex rel. Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wash. 75, 80, 59 P.2d 1101 (1936), overruled on other grounds by Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, 92 Wash.2d 939, 603 P.2d 819 (1979). See also Cotten v. Wilson, 27 Wash.2d 314, 178 P.2d 287 (1947) (adhering to distinction articulated in Huse when invalidating law that required plaintiff to prove gross rather than ordinary negligence against owner or operator of victory motor vehicle). Therefore, preexisting law seems to favor a separate analysis of article I, section 12.