I-695 Motions for Summary Judgment

Municipal Research has obtained copies of the motions and arguments for summary judgment filed in the lawsuits challenging I-695. A listing of the lawsuits and the arguments made by the plaintiffs follow. As the hearing on the motions will not occur until March 6, the responses of the defendants have not been made or reviewed. Municipal Research will endeavor to summarize the defense arguments when they are received.

• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 - Plaintiffs argue that Initiative 695 is unconstitutional because:

  1. it embraces more than one subject, in violation of art. II, section 19 of the state constitution;

  2. by requiring voter approval of all tax increases imposed by the state, it is either an unlawful mandatory referendum on tax legislation or an unauthorized mechanism for direct legislation, contrary to art. II, section 1 of the constitution; and

  3. it revises and amends numerous state code provisions without setting them out at full length, as required by art. II, section 37 of the constitution.

  The Amalgamated lawsuit seeks to have the court declare Initiative 695 unconstitutional and invalidate its provisions in their entirety.

• Vashon-Maury Island Community Council - Plaintiffs seek to have Initiative 695 invalidated in its entirety and incorporates, by reference, all of the arguments put forth in the Amalgamated lawsuit, referenced above.

• Cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, and Lakewood - Plaintiffs argue the initiative is unconstitutional for the following reasons:

  1. It fails to set out the statutes it seeks to amend or repeal at full length, contrary to art. II, section 37 of the state constitution;

  2. The initiative covers more than a single subject and its title does not adequately describe its scope, contrary to art. II, section 19;

  3. It conflicts with "substantive" sections of the constitution, namely: it tries to change the structure of government and conflicts with art. VII section 1, art. II section 22, art. II section 1, article XI section 12, art. VIII section 1(f), and art. I section 23; and

  4. The initiative's requirement that voters approve all tax increases is unconstitutionally vague.

  The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the initiative in its entirety or, alternatively, have the court declare that its provisions do not apply to the charges made by cities for goods and proprietary services.

• Ports of Whitman County, Tacoma, Skagit County, Seattle, Longview, Kennewick, Friday Harbor, and Bellingham - Plaintiffs ask that the court decide whether the initiative applies to charges imposed by the ports acting in a proprietary capacity.

  The Ports argue:

  1. A "tax" is limited to involuntary assessments made to support governmental activities;

  2. The charges imposed by the Ports are voluntary and they support proprietary activities and therefore fall outside the scope of the initiative;

  3. The conclusion that the Ports' charges are not "taxes" is consistent with the legislative history of I-695;

  4. Limiting the term "tax" to governmental exactions avoids an absurd result and constitutional problems (one-subject rule and chapter 53 RCW statutory scheme).

  The Ports ask that the court rule that the initiative does not apply to their proprietary charges.

• Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish Co unty - Seeks declarations regarding the application of Initiative 695; the District argues:

  1. The initiative does not apply to the establishment and collection of rates and charges made by PUDs for electric, water and wastewater utility related services because: they are collected in a proprietary capacity and are not "taxes" within the meaning of the initiative; the scope of "any monetary charge by government" is limited by the list of government exactions preceding it; a narrow interpretation harmonizes the various sections of the initiative; an expansive reading would create an irrEconcilable conflict with the statutes governing the establishment of rates and charges; and if the initiative were to apply to rates and charges, it would produce unreasonable and absurd results.

  2. It was not the intent of the voters to apply the initiative to the establishment and collection of PUD utility rates and charges; and

  3. A narrow interpretation avoids any constitutional infirmity under the contract clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

  4. The initiative does not apply to other monetary charges by PUDs not commonly understood to be taxes; for example, cost to install water or electricity conservation equipment, joint payment of employee benefits, maintenance of on-site sewerage system, etc.

  5. I-695 does not apply to imposition of special assessments (e.g., LIDs).

• Tacoma Water, Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utility District, Seattle Public Utilities and E. E. (Ted) Coates - Requests declaratory judgment that the "tax" provisions of I-695 do not apply to the following types of water rates and charges: water rates, ULID charges, and contractual charges. In seeking this relief, the utilities argue:

  1. The use of the term "tax" in I-695 should not be construed to include water rates and charges. The court should avoid absurd results and constitutional difficulties. The term "tax" contemplates the use of the proceeds for funding government without any required connection between money charged and benefits received. The voters, as a whole, did not intend to include water rates and charges as a tax.

  2. To apply the tax requirements to the water rates and charges would be unconstitutional: the initiative does not identify the statutes to be amended, as is required by art. II, section 37; the initiative violates the "single subject" rule; the initiative violates the subject-in-title rule of art. II, section 19 of the constitution. The initiative also has these additional problems: would result in gift of public property; creates a new referendum process; amends the delegation of taxing power provisions of Art. VII section1; and violates taxing power vested in municipal authorities by Art. XI section 12.

Since the above motions and arguments are not in electronic format, Municipal Research has not posted them at this Web site. However, persons wishing to review the actual documents may do so by contacting Pat Mason at (206) 625-1300 or at pmason@mrsc.org. The documents are available on a loan basis from the Municipal Research library.

The Attorney General's office issued its arguments in opposition to the plaintiffs' motions on February 9; those arguments, which are in electronic format, are available at the Attorney General's Web site , or from the Municipal Research Library.

The Attorney General provides the following arguments, summarized from the table of contents to the brief:

1. The court should interpret I-695 consistent with the voters' intent: the voter approval requirements apply to taxes and fees, as those terms are ordinarily understood, that is, compulsory charges imposed for the support of government, and not for sales of goods and services of a commercial nature nor for utility rates and charges nor for LID and ULID assessments.

2. I-695 contains one subject, the limitation of taxation, and it therefor conforms with article 2, section 19 of the state constitution. The initiative's title has a general, single subject, with multiple sub-issues which share a "rational unity" with the subject.

3. The initiative is a complete act which fully complies with article 2, section 37. The constitution does not prohibit a statute from impacting another statute without being set out in full. The initiative sets out a complete provision: the limition of taxes by setting reduced license tab fees. The initiative establishes a new requirement for voter approval without altering or amending any existing statutes; and the sections repealed by the initiative are outside the requirements of article 2, section 37.

4. I-695 does not infringe upon the constitutional processes for enacting laws; it is not an unlawful referendum in violation or article 2, section 1 of the constitution. The initiative does not unconstitutionally change the "structure of government."

5. The initiative does not impair any obligations of contract. (It has not been demonstrated that any obligation of contract has been impaired; there is no evidence of any impairment of any city obligation to its bondholders). Given the uncertainty as to the effect of I-695, any argument regarding the impairment of contract is premature. Even if the court were to determine there was an unconstitutional impairment, the ruling would not invalidate the initiative.

6. I-695 does not unconstitutionally surrender, suspend, or contract away the taxing power in violation of article 7, section 1 of the state constitution.

7. I-695 does not infringe upon the local taxing authority in violation of 11, section 12.

8. I-695 does not constitute, require, or authorize an unconstitutional gift of public funds in violation of article 7, section 7 of the state constitution.

9. The voter approval requirement in I-695 is not unconstitutionally vague.

10. I-695 does not conflict with article 8, section 1(f) of the state constitution.

11. In the event the court determines that some portion of I-695 violates a provision of the state constitution, the court should hold that provision severable and uphold the remainder of I-695.