Opinion ID: 2629223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Petition Method of Annexation Under Article I, Section 12

Text: For a violation of article I, section 12 to occur, the law, or its application, must confer a privilege to a class of citizens. The property owners contend that the petition method of annexation violates article I, section 12 of the state constitution by affording statutory authority to certain landowners to petition for annexation. They argue that the Washington State Constitution requires that changes in government be based on the consent of the governed, and that the petition method of annexation directly violates this fundamental principle by granting a special privilege that allows property owners to effect a change in government by commencing annexation without the consent of the governed. The property owners essentially contend that the right to petition the government for annexation is fundamental and is similar to the right to petition under article I, section 4 of the state constitution. The city of Yakima, however, claims that petitioning the city for annexation is not a fundamental right under the Washington State Constitution. The city further argues that the ability to invoke a particular procedural method of annexation is neither a privilege nor an immunity the existence of which is a prerequisite to a violation of article I, section 12. Unless the statutory right to petition for annexation is a privilege within the meaning of article I, section 12, no unconstitutionality may be found. There is settled law dictating that the statutory right to petition for annexation is not a privilege for purposes of article I, section 12. In this regard it must be remembered that not every statute authorizing a particular class to do or obtain something involves a privilege subject to article I, section 12. Instead, as this court made quite clear early in this State's history, the terms privileges and immunities pertain alone to those fundamental rights which belong to the citizens of the state by reason of such citizenship. These terms, as they are used in the constitution of the United States, secure in each state to the citizens of all states the right to remove to and carry on business therein; the right, by usual modes, to acquire and hold property, and to protect and defend the same in the law; the rights to the usual remedies to collect debts, and to enforce other personal rights; and the right to be exempt, in property or persons, from taxes or burdens which the property or persons of citizens of some other state are exempt from. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (6th ed.) 597. By analogy these words as used in the state constitution should receive a like definition and interpretation as that applied to them when interpreting the federal constitution. State v. Vance, 29 Wash. 435, 458, 70 P. 34 (1902); see also State ex rel. Cruikshank v. Baker, 2 Wash.2d 145, 150-51, 97 P.2d 638 (1940); Bussell v. Gill, 58 Wash. 468, 476, 108 P. 1080 (1910). The statutory authorization to landowners to commence annexation proceedings by petition does not involve a fundamental attribute of an individual's national or state citizenship. Instead, the legislature enjoys plenary power to adjust the boundaries of municipal corporations and may authorize annexation without the consent of the residents and even over their express protest. The sovereign power in a state to create, organize and classify cities includes the power to enlarge their limits by annexation. State ex rel. Bowen v. Kruegel, 67 Wash.2d 673, 679-80, 409 P.2d 458 (1965). While the State may delegate the power of annexation to the cities and prescribe the mode, method and conditions by and under which the delegated authority may be exercised by the cities[,]... the ultimate power of annexation ... rests exclusively in the state. Id. at 680, 409 P.2d 458; see also Port of Tacoma v. Parosa, 52 Wash.2d 181, 324 P.2d 438 (1958); Wheeler Sch. Dist. No. 152 v. Hawley, 18 Wash.2d 37, 137 P.2d 1010 (1943). The legislature, unless constrained by the constitution, may ... annex or authorize the annexation of contiguous or other territory without the consent and even against the remonstrance of the majority of persons in either the annexed territory or the corporation to which it is being joined. Bowen, 67 Wash.2d at 680, 409 P.2d 458 (emphasis added). See also Hunter, 207 U.S. at 179, 28 S.Ct. 40 (by implication, no fundamental right to seek annexation as attribute of national citizenship). Thus, the citizens of the State have no fundamental right of citizenship to seek annexation. Nor do they have any such right to prevent annexation. The power is entirely that of the legislature, which may delegate to the cities. Moreover, this court has held that a `right simply of recommendation' does not constitute a privilege within the meaning of article I, section 12it `is not, in its very nature, such a fundamental right of a citizen that it may be said to come within the prohibition of the constitution, or to have been had in mind by the framers of that organic law.' Bussell, 58 Wash. at 476-77, 108 P. 1080 (quoting Vance, 29 Wash. at 458, 70 P. 34). The authority granted to landowners to petition for annexation is advisory only. The landowners have no authority to determine whether annexation occurs. Instead, if property owners of the proper percentage of assessed valuation in the area proposed to be annexed sign the annexation petition, the question of annexation goes to the city's legislative body for its final decision as to whether to annex. RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval. RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. If, following the hearing, the legislative body decides to annex, it may annex all or any portion of the proposed area. RCW 35.13.150; RCW 35A.14.140. Thus, the legislative power to annex that has been constitutionally delegated to the city is in fact exercised by the city, not by the landowners. The landowners can only recommend annexation, demonstrated by signing a petition. The city may decline to annex, or may annex only a portion of the land recommended to be annexed. Thus, there is no privilege, i.e., fundamental right of state citizenship, at issue in this case, and the claim of a violation of article I, section 12 fails for this reason. The property owners argue, however, that the right to petition for annexation invokes the same constitutional ideals as the right to vote and the right to petition government in the sense that petitioning for annexation concerns the right of the governed to consent to their form of government. Thus, the property owners reason, the right to petition for annexation involves fundamental rights bringing article I, section 12 into play, and permitting landowners to commence an annexation process over the objections of the residents grants them this fundamental right while denying it to the residents. The argument is without merit. First, as we held in Grant County I, and not subject to reconsideration, the landowner direct petition method for annexation does not violate the right to vote under article I, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. Grant County I, 145 Wash.2d at 718, 42 P.3d 394 (no direct or indirect interference with the right to vote). We also found no infringement of the federal constitutional right to vote. Id. at 719-21, 42 P.3d 394. We further held in Grant County I, and the issue is not here on reconsideration, that the right to petition for annexation is not a fundamental right under the federal constitution. Id. at 721-22, 42 P.3d 394. This conclusion accords with Hunter, where the United States Supreme Court found no federal constitutional right related to annexation. Hunter, 207 U.S. at 179, 28 S.Ct. 40. Importantly, because there is no federal constitutional right at issue, Hunter also necessarily instructs that any right to petition for annexation plainly does not equate to the federal right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. See U.S. CONST. amend. I. This is significant because this court held, following a Gunwall analysis, that the state constitutional provision on the right to petition the government, article I, section 4 of the Washington State Constitution, is to be interpreted the same as the federal provision. Richmond v. Thompson, 130 Wash.2d 368, 380-81, 922 P.2d 1343 (1996). Accordingly, the right to petition government under article I, section 4, the parallel to the federal provision, does not involve any right to petition for annexation at all, much less a fundamental constitutional right to petition for annexation. The property owners have not established any right that constitutes a privilege within the meaning of the privileges and immunities clause.