Opinion ID: 2600008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the formation of the LID violate article I, section 19's guaranty of free and equal elections?

Text: ¶ 39 Article I, section 19 of the Washington Constitution provides, in relevant part, that [a]ll Elections shall be free and equal. Invoking this guaranty, plaintiffs bring a facial attack on RCW 87.03.485, arguing that RCW 87.03.485 cannot be construed in a manner that is free and equal. Br. of Appellants at 30. Plaintiffs note that RCW 87.03.485's implied-consent procedure can result in silence outweighing vocal dissentowners who file written objections to the add lands petition can be outnumbered by the owners who do nothingand thus impliedly consent. Plaintiffs argue this result is unequal because the nonvotes can override the votes, and therefore the formation of the LID pursuant to RCW 87.03.485 was constitutionally deficient. But the express terms of article I, section 19 limit its application to Elections, a term which is not defined in our state constitution and which we have yet to construe. The threshold question, therefore, is whether the LID-formation procedures set forth in RCW 87.03.485 call for an election within the meaning of article I, section 19. ¶ 40 We presume that a statute is constitutional, and plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of the legislation beyond a reasonable doubt. Brower v. State, 137 Wash.2d 44, 52, 969 P.2d 42 (1998). Article I, section 19 provides procedural safeguards when there is an election, but it does not grant the substantive right to hold elections on all topics. The provision does not mean that voters may go to the polls at any time and vote on any question they see fit. State v. Wilson, 137 Wash. 125, 132, 241 P. 970 (1925). Our cases recognize the principle that the right to free and equal elections arises only at the stated times provided by the statutes relating to elections. Id. at 132, 241 P. 970. ¶ 41 When the legislature has wanted irrigation districts to conduct elections, the legislature has said so expressly, as indicated by many provisions of chapter 87.03 RCW. When a petition for a new irrigation district is submitted properly to the county board of commissioners, RCW 87.03.020 requires the county board to order that an election be held ... for the purpose of determining whether or not the district shall be organized under the provisions of this act and for the purpose of electing directors. (Emphasis added.) Once formed, an irrigation district must be governed by a board of directors, RCW 87.03.020(4), and RCW 87.03.080 requires that [a]n election of directors in an irrigation district shall be held on the second Tuesday of December of each year. (Emphasis added.) In the add lands process, if a person objects to a petition to add lands, the board may adopt a resolution deeming the boundary change to be in the best interest of the district, and then the board shall order that an election be held within said district, to determine whether the boundaries of the district shall be changed as mentioned in said resolution. RCW 87.03.590. ¶ 42 Unlike in these statutes, the implied-consent provision of RCW 87.03.485 says nothing about an election. Rather, it requires the board resolution proposing an LID to state that unless a majority of the holders of title or of evidence of title to lands within the proposed local improvement district file their written protest at or before said hearing, consent to the improvement will be implied. RCW 87.03.485. The lack of an election label does not necessarily mean, of course, that this implied-consent procedure is not an election. But in substance, as in name, the procedure does not share the features of the irrigation district elections described elsewhere in chapter 87.03 RCW. There are two primary features of an election in an irrigation district. The first is the use of ballots. See RCW 87.03.075 (Voting in an irrigation district shall be by ballot.). Second, the voters make the final decision on the issue put to an election. [8] In the add lands process, for example, a district board has discretion to accept or reject a petition to add lands, depending on whether the board believes the district's best interests will be served. See RCW 87.03.580. But if an add lands petition is put to a vote, the board must abide by the decision of the majority of voters. See RCW 87.03.595. ¶ 43 RCW 87.03.485 does not provide for an election. The implied-consent provision simply requires that the irrigation district board hold a public hearing after giving adequate notice to allow affected landowners to weigh in with their comments. There is no mention of an election. There is no discussion of ballots. While RCW 87.03.485 does permit a majority of affected landowners to object to the formation of the LID in writing, this statute does not specify expressly that the number of consenting or objecting landowners is determinative of the final outcome. Although this is a close question, we conclude RCW 87.03.485 does not call for an election. Thus, article I, section 19 does not apply to RCW 87.03.485.