Court Opinion

ID: 9625045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:26:05.979805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:59.908594
License: Public Domain

Donworth, C. J.
(concurring in part) — I concur in the views expressed in the majority opinion through the first sentence of the paragraph on page 525, which reads as follows:
“Since we have held the entire act unconstitutional, it is *527unnecessary to discuss the constitutionality of the sever-able sections.”
As to the remainder of the opinion, I can find no authority for giving the legislature an advisory opinion as to how subsequent legislation should be drafted in order to obviate possible assertions that portions of a new toll road act are unconstitutional.
A somewhat analogous situation is presented by civil cases under the declaratory judgment act, where this court has repeatedly refused to render an advisory opinion. See Kitsap County v. Bremerton, 46 Wn. (2d) 362, 281 P. (2d) 841; Conaway v. Time Oil Co., 34 Wn. (2d) 884, 210 P. (2d) 1012, and cases cited.
The drafting and enactment of bills is solely a function of the legislature under our state constitution. The function of this court is limited to reviewing the constitution-' ality of legislation after it has been duly enacted in the event that such questions are properly brought before us in due course of litigation.
I, therefore, do not consider the remainder of the majority opinion and neither concur in, or dissent from, the views therein expressed.