Opinion ID: 1191734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Other substantive constitutional challenges premature before referendum

Text: Given my conclusion that this Act is subject to the referendum process, I will not consider CLEAN's other claims that the act is substantively unconstitutional. ( See State ex rel. O'Connell v. Kramer, 73 Wash.2d 85, 86-87, 436 P.2d 786 (1968) and State ex rel. Donahue v. Coe, 49 Wash.2d 410, 418, 302 P.2d 202 (1956)). James D. Gordon III & David B. Magleby, Pre-Electixm Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums, 64 Notre Dame L.Rev. 298, 320 (1989) ([C]ourts should not conduct pre-election review of a measure's substantive validity because it involves issuing an advisory opinion, violates ripeness requirements and the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and interferes with a legislative process.).