Court Opinion

ID: 9615877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:41:26.310727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:52.983640
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — The majority limits its consideration to the facts surrounding the January 1982 amendment to WAC 260-70-100 and concludes that:
The record unequivocally demonstrates that the amen-datory sections in question were not underlined at the time notice was sent to the interested parties, or when notice was filed with the code reviser. Therefore, the intended amendment to WAC 260-70-100 did not comply with RCW 34.04.058(1).
Majority opinion, at 91-92. I believe, however, that a more thorough analysis of the events leading up to the 1982 amendment shows that the Horse Racing Commission had complied with these provisions, and that therefore, the January 1982 amendment was valid. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court's decision upholding forfeiture of the purse money pursuant to WAC 260-70-100. My decision is based on an analogy between the facts of this case, and the doctrine we have always followed in this state, the enrolled bill doctrine.
WAC 260-70-100 deals with the penalties for improper drug use in horse races. In 1980, the Horse Racing Commission amended this provision to include a purse forfeiture sanction. Although this 1980 amendment was challenged, and King County Superior Court ruled that it did not meet the notice requirements of RCW 34.04.025 or the underlining provisions of RCW 34.04.058(1), the code reviser nevertheless accepted the erroneous amendment and published it in the Washington State Register. The State Register did not state that this amendment was ineffectual, despite the clear requirement in RCW 34.04.058(3) mandating such a description. Therefore, people consulting the Washington Administrative Code after 1980 would conclude the purse forfeiture provision was valid. Furthermore, *95any underlining of that forfeiture would appear deceptive and misleading, because at the time of amendment in 1982, the forfeiture provision appeared to be a duly enacted regulation.
Therefore, in January 1982, before any declaration of the invalidity of the 1980 amendment, the Horse Racing Commission had no alternative concerning underlining when it decided to revise WAC 260-70-100 to add another prohibited drug. It had to leave the 1980 amendment without underlining, and underline only that section pertaining to a new prohibited drug, because the State Register, rightly or wrongly, indicated that the 1980 amendment was a duly enacted, valid rule.
The rationale for this can be best seen by comparing this situation to the enrolled bill doctrine. This doctrine provides that a duly signed enrolled bill appearing on file in the Secretary of State's office is conclusive evidence that the bill was properly enacted in accordance with the procedures established for valid legislation. State ex rel. Reed v. Jones, 6 Wash. 452, 34 P. 201 (1893); Citizens Coun. Against Crime v. Bjork, 84 Wn.2d 891, 529 P.2d 1072 (1975). One reason for this doctrine is that the public must be able to rely on the statutes appearing in the Secretary of State's office as the properly enacted laws. To do otherwise "would render it absolutely impossible for the average citizen to ascertain that of which he must at his peril take notice." Bjork, at 897 n.1.
This same reasoning applies to the rules made pursuant to RCW 34.04.010 et seq. While the more informal nature of administrative rulemaking allows for challenges to the procedure by which a rule is enacted, the public must still be able to rely on the provisions printed in the State Register. When revising a code section, it would be deceptive and misleading to underline sections of the rule which already appear as duly enacted in the State Register. While I believe these rules appearing in the State Register can be challenged for improper notice or other such reasons, I do not believe a subsequent amendment of a rule appearing in *96the State Register can be challenged for procedural errors arising from earlier revisions.
Accordingly, I would hold that WAC 260-70-100 did not violate RCW 34.04.058(1). The 1980 amendment including purse forfeiture already appeared in the State Register, and therefore, the 1982 amendment should not have had the 1980 revision underlined.
I would affirm the trial court's order declaring the purse forfeiture valid.
Goodloe, J., concurs with Dore, J.