Court Opinion

ID: 9631727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:47:47.371037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:59.961801
License: Public Domain

*830Finley, J.
(concurring)—Respondents urge that we affirm the judgment of the trial court and void initiative No. 5 involved in this appeal on three grounds as follows: (1) The initiative process can only be directed at legislative matters or actions, not at administrative matters or actions. Paget v. Logan, 78 Wn.2d 349, 474 P.2d 247 (1970). In other words, under the facts of the instant case the legislation stage has been passed; all that now remains to be done involves administration, which cannot by subjected to initiative. (2) Initiative No. 5 is, in fact, a referendum, not an initiative. Therefore, it is prohibited by an express provision of the King County charter. (3) Initiative No. 5 will impair the contract obligations of bonds issued to finance the stadium project, thus the proposed initiative is unpermissive constitutionally.
I do not think it is necessary for us to reach and discuss and rule definitively upon grounds (2) and (3) 'indicated above. In my judgment, ground number (1) indicated above appropriately supports and justifies affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. On this basis I concur in the result of the majority opinion.
Hale, C.J., and Wright, J., concur with Finley, J.