Opinion ID: 1191734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Judicial review of emergency clauses liberally prefers referendum

Text: The majority claims: The dissent would have us sweep aside the declaration of emergency, apparently believing that this court should substitute its judgment on that score for that of the Legislature. Majority at 1069. Apparently the majority believes the Legislature should be free to act without independent judicial review of the constitutionality of its actions. This is an interesting debating point, however, it was rejected in the Federalist Papers [7] and again in Marbury v. Madison [8] To the contrary, since the popular ratification of the referendum amendment, our courts have repeatedly considered suits brought by citizens daiming that various legislative acts should face a referendum despite dubious legislative claims that the law was necessary to remedy some alleged emergency. Over the years our court has enforced a delicate balance between preserving the people's right to referendum while allowing the Legislature to pass immediately effective laws in response to true emergencies. State ex rel. Humiston v. Meyers, 61 Wash.2d 772, 777, 380 P.2d 735 (1963). To aid this inquiry, we have adopted and followed a set of judgemade rules. The purpose of these rules is to aid enforcement of the constitution; it certainly is not to defeat it. As a preliminary matter, this court has always held that it is our solemn constitutional duty to substantively review legislative declarations of emergency as a judicial question. Id. at 777, 380 P.2d 735 (emphasis added). [9] We have held that to allow the Legislature to define emergency without review is to write this reservation out of the Constitution. State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath, 84 Wash. 302, 311, 147 P. 11 (1915). Additionally, we have held that the referendum and initiative clauses should be liberally construed to favor upholding the people's right to referendum and initiative. Sudduth v. Chapman, 88 Wash.2d 247, 251, 558 P.2d 806, 559 P.2d 1351 (1977); State ex rel Howell v. Superior Court, 97 Wash. 569, 577, 166 P. 1126 (1917); State ex rel. Case v. Superior Court, 81 Wash. 623, 632, 143 P. 461 (1914). But this is precisely opposite from what the majority does here.