Court Decisions -
Home Rule Charter Form of Government

• Whatcom County v. Brisbane, 125 Wn.2d 345, 884 P.2d 1326 (1994)

  Holding that county home rule charter rights are subordinate to express statutory requirements affecting matters of more than local concern and that county ordinances enacted to implement the county's Growth Management Act comprehensive land use plan under chapter 36.70A RCW are not subject to being amended by the referendum power granted to the people in the county charter.

• Snohomish County v. Anderson, 123 Wn.2d 151, 869 P.2d 116 (1994)

  Holding that county home rule charter rights are subordinate to express statutory requirements affecting matters of more than local concern and that county ordinances to implement the Growth Management Act's requirement to adopt county-wide planning policies (RCW 36.70A.210) are not subject to the referendum rights found in the county home rule charter.

• Henry v. Thorne, 92 Wn.2d 878, 602 P.2d 354 (1979)

  Holding Clallam County's home rule charter can provide for greater restrictions on the timing of elections to fill vacancies in county elective offices than those set forth in the state constitution or general laws because a home rule charter can alter matters of purely local concern (here, the filling of vacancies in county elective offices).

• State ex rel. Carroll v. King County, 78 Wn.2d 452, 474 P.2d 877 (1970)

  Holding county home rule charter can provide for elections in odd-numbered years rather than even-numbered years as provided in state constitution because a home rule charter can alter matters of purely local concern (here, the timing of elections of county officials).