Court Opinion

ID: 9618475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:12:58.539823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:13.403241
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — The argument contained in my dissent in Hallin v. Trent, 94 Wn.2d 671, 619 P.2d 357 (1980), is equally applicable to this case. In my opinion, the legislature did provide for the initial election rather than the initial appointment of the additional King County judges. As in Hallin, this was accomplished without the portion of the statute vetoed by the Governor. Thus, as in Hallin, there is no need to determine the validity of the veto under Const, art. 3, § 12.
I dissent.