Court Opinion

ID: 9793322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:46:07.285461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:30.864927
License: Public Domain

Williams, C.J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the first portion of Justice Rosellini's dissent that the issue of the *249validity of Seattle's campaign financing ordinances is moot. I also agree with Justice Rosellini that this is not the type of situation, such as that presented by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) or Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d 51, 615 P.2d 440 (1980), that involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest which may escape effective appellate review. Although the purposes underlying the campaign financing ordinances are laudable, I believe we should refrain from rendering a wholly advisory opinion in this matter until we have a valid enactment before us that has been briefed and argued by the proper parties in interest, including representative citizens of the City of Seattle. I therefore agree with Justice Rosellini that it is both inappropriate and unwise to reach the merits of this case despite its mootness.
I wish to make it clear, however, that I do not join in Justice Rosellini's discussion on the invalidity of the Seattle campaign financing ordinances on the basis of Const, art. 8, § 7, pertaining to the prohibition on gifts of public funds to private individuals. I would reserve any ruling on the validity of future campaign financing measures until the issue is squarely before this court.
I dissent.
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Williams, C.J.