In the past 20 years, there have been 10 Initiatives, written by conservatives, that have gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures, and won at the polls, only to be overturned by judges due to their failure to comply with various sections of the Washington State Constitution. In fact, in the past 20 years, there has only been one Conservative Initiative that survived a legal challenge (the Parents Rights Initiative in January 2025). In this article, we will explain what doomed each of these 10 challenged initiatives and why we must learn from these mistakes if we are to succeed in passing initiatives that become enduring laws over time.
Three steps for an Initiative to become an enduring law
For an Initiative to become a durable law, it needs to
Step #1 Have enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
Step #2 Be approved by a majority of the voters and
Step #3 Comply with the Washington State Constitution in order to survive a legal challenge.
The 3 sections of our state constitution that need to be complied with are:
Article 2, Section 19, of the Washington State Constitution also called the Single Subject Rule, which states: “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington Constitution also known as the Full Text rule states: "No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."
This means that the full text of the law or section of law being revised or amended by the Initiative must be included in the Initiative submitted to the Secretary of State and must be printed in full on the back of every petition. Failing to include the full text of the amendment can lead to the initiative being overturned.
Article 2, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution also known as the Simple Majority Rule which states in part: “a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.”
An initiative must comply with all three of the above provisions. Violating even one provision renders the entire initiative to be void. In addition, the Initiative can not amend any Constitutional provision.
Problems with 9 Eyman Initiatives
Tim Eyman filed 29 Initiatives in the past 25 years. 13 did not have signatures and never made it to the ballot. Of the 16 that made it to the ballot, only 11 were approved by the voters. Of the 11 approved by the voters, only 2 were accepted without a legal challenge. Of the 9 legally challenged, all 9 were rejected by the Washington State Supreme Court. Thus, Eyman was only able to get 2 of his 29 initiatives durably passed into law. Here we will look at each of the 9 Eyman Initiatives rejected by the Washington Supreme Court to see what went wrong.
The 9 Eyman Initiatives that violated our state constitution included:
1999 Initiative 695, 2000 Initiative 722, 2001 Initiative 747, 2002 Initiative 776, 2007 Initiative 960, 2010 Initiative 1053, 2012 Initiative 1185, 2015 Initiative 1366 and 2018 Initiative 976. We will briefly look at the problems of each of these 9 initiatives in chronological order.
1999 Initiative 695
On March 14, 2000, King County judge Robert Alsdorf issued a detailed 18 page opinion which can be read from this link:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wa-supreme-court/1023737.html
Here are quotes from this ruling:
“Initiatives may cover any legislative subject without any limitation as to subject matter except for the prohibition on amending the State Constitution by statute. Section 2 of the Initiative would establish a new Referendum which violates the Four Percent Rule. Article II, Section 1(b) of this State's Constitution explicitly provides that no referendum may be called except upon the signatures of four percent of the population voting for governor in the immediately preceding gubernatorial election: Section 2 of I-695 directly conflicts with this specific provision of the constitution by mandating an up-or-down vote even though there may be no public opposition to or controversy over a particular tax-related action of the agency in question and even without the four percent threshold being met.”
“Section 19 of Article II Single Subject Rule includes “Rational unity.” One must determine if there is rational unity… The courts, however, have not articulated a single test or set of rules for determining if there is rational unity. Three different tests have previously been applied by the courts of this State. Each will be examined here. An affirmative answer to any one will suffice.”
“(i) Is the Proposed Law A Comprehensive Redraft? Perhaps the simplest inquiry is whether a proposed statute or initiative is designed to be a comprehensive rewrite of a particular area of law. In that situation, a single term or concept can cover a wide variety of related topics and establish the requisite rational unity... Initiative 695 does not claim to be an all-encompassing redraft. There is no rational unity under the first test.”
“ii) Does the Law Cover a Single Subject? There is a second possible inquiry, which is largely a matter of logic or common sense. Does one provision naturally imply the other? Is either provision naturally included within or subsumed by the other? In Wash.Toll Bridge Auth. v. State, 49 Wn.2d 520, 523-6 (1956), the Supreme Court held an entire act to be unconstitutional where it was to have involved the following two subjects: a permanent agency to establish and operate toll roads, and the construction of a specific toll road from Tacoma to Everett. See also, State ex rel. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wn.2d 13, 27 (1948) (toll bridges and ferries are not a single subject even though both relate to a transportation system).”
“A law limiting the dollar amount of the State's portion of the car tab does not, standing alone, logically imply or include, let alone require, an overhaul of the manner of imposing or avoiding future tax changes at every other level and for every other function of local, county and State government. Likewise, if one starts the analysis from the point of view of Section 2, passing a law setting new standards for the holding of tax-related referenda does not logically imply, include or require either a $30 or any other particular limit on car tab fees or other specific tax.”
“The Initiative relates to two distinct and specific subjects, first the what of a single tax (the MVET), and second the how of every other future tax, fee and charge by state government… There is no rational unity under the second test.”
“(iii) Do the Law's Subsections Have a Single Purpose? Another uniting principle may be found if there is a common purpose for the various subdivisions of the law. Do they serve a common purpose?...”
“The purpose of the Section 2 referendum requirement is not reasonably read as being limited to that which is necessary to enforce the $30 license tab limitation. It is a far broader change. When the Court accepts the Campaign's reading of the word "tax" under Section 2 of the Initiative, it has no choice but to conclude that Section 2 of the Initiative does far more than prevent the State from making up for MVET reductions. Reading Section 2 in the broad manner sought by the Campaign prevents it from having rational unity with Section 1 and 3's new and specific limit on MVET funding. There is no rational unity under the third test. “
“When There Is No Rational Unity, Courts Cannot Arbitrarily Pick One Portion of the Law to Be Effective.”
“The inclusion of a voter referendum requirement in what everybody including the Campaign referred to simply as the $30 License Tab Initiative was fatal to the Initiative's constitutionality under the first clause of Article II, Section 19. If the Campaign had proposed two separate initiatives, the universal tax referendum proposal that is currently known as Section 2 of Initiative 695 would have had no impact on the $30 license tab limit under the single subject rule of Article II, Section 19. The Campaign sought too much for a single initiative.”
“This next challenge to the Initiative arises under the second clause of Article II, Section 19 of the State Constitution: No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. That second clause requires that the subject of the law be directly and clearly expressed in its title, so that citizens will know what they are voting for… Neither the official Ballot Title nor the Initiative's own wordier title gave the public fair notice that the Initiative's provisions were designed to establish universal referenda on all fees and charges and not just taxes. Using the Campaign's own definition, the Court must necessarily conclude that the subject of the initiative has not been properly set forth in its title. As a result, Section 2 of I-695 violates Article II, Section 19 of the Constitution and is void. “
The court ruled that Section 2 was not only a separate subject, but that it violated the Washington Constitution rule that any referendum requires petition signatures from 4% of the voters. Article II, Section 1(b)
“Does Section 3 of the Initiative Include Subjects Not Identified in the Ballot Title?”
““Section 3 of the Initiative lists a series of laws that are to be repealed. These Acts and portions of Acts were listed by RCW section number only... without the text of such sections being printed in the Initiative's text, there is no reasonable means by which a voter could readily understand those references or know specifically what is affected, modified or repealed… Those defects are constitutional defects, rendering unconstitutional the proposed repeal of the sections cited above…A Law Enacted by Initiative Must Set Forth the Text of All Laws that are to be Revised. Article II, Section 37 requires that the full text of any act or section being amended be set forth in full in order to avoid any confusion or ambiguity as to both the meaning of the new law and its impact on existing law, to identify the extent of revision contemplated or achieved by the amendment.
2000 Initiative 722
The next Eyman initiative to pass was 2000 Initiative 722 (I-722): “Shall certain 1999 tax and fee increases be nullified, vehicles exempted from property taxes, and property tax increases (except new construction) limited to 2% annually? Initiative 722 was challenged in a case called City of Burien v. Kiga. Here is a link to this Washington Supreme Court decision:
https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2001/70830-4-1.html
Here are quotes from this 2001 decision:
“Judge Pomeroy ruled I-722 unconstitutional on four separate constitutional grounds… We begin our analysis by determining whether I-722 violates the single subject clause of Wash. Const. art. II, § 19… In making the determination of whether an initiative violates the single subject clause, we first look to the ballot title to determine whether it is general or restrictive… I-722 contains a general title. “
“Once an initiative ballot title is identified as being general, we look to the body of the initiative to determine whether a rational unity among the matters addressed in the initiative exists. An initiative can embrace several incidental subjects or subdivisions and not violate article II, section 19, so long as they are related. In order to survive, however, rational unity must exist among all matters included within the measure and the general topic expressed in the title.”
“the existence of rational unity or not is determined by whether the matters within the body of the initiative are germane to the general title and whether they are germane to one another.. we find I-722 also embraces at least two purposes. First, section (1) seeks to nullify various 1999 tax increases and proposes a onetime refund of those taxes. Second, sections (3) through (7) seek to change the method of assessing property taxes, culminating in a 2 percent cap for property tax increases...We find the subjects in I-722 are not germane to one another… The kind of logrolling of unrelated measures embodied in I-722 violates the fundamental principle embedded in article II, section 19 and is unconstitutional. “
2001 Initiative 747
The next Eyman initiative to pass was 2001 Initiative 747 (I-747) which placed a one percent limit on property tax increases. On November 6, 2001, the voters approved I-747. The Washington Supreme Court ruled the Initiative unconstitutional in the case called Washington Citizens Action of Washington v. State. Here is a link to this case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2007/78844-8-1.html
Here are quotes from this opinion:
“Article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution *488 requires that amendatory laws set forth at full length the law to be amended… While the challengers also assert that I-747 violated article II, section 19 subject in title requirement, we need not address that argument in this case.”
“The initiative claimed to reduce the general property tax levy limit from two percent to one percent, but in reality it reduced the limit from six percent to one percent. “
The law being amended was RCW 84.55 RCW LIMITATIONS UPON REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES which states in part:
1997 law stated: "It is the intent of sections 201 through 207 of this act to lower the one hundred six percent limit while still allowing taxing districts to raise revenues in excess of the limit if approved by a majority of the voters.”
A later law changed this to: ‘Upon a finding of substantial need, the legislative authority of a taxing district other than the state may provide for the use of a limit factor under this chapter of one hundred one percent or less. In districts with legislative authorities of four members or less, two-thirds of the members must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. In districts with more than four members, a majority plus one vote must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. The new limit factor shall be effective for taxes collected in the following year only.’
2002 Initiative 776 Son of $30 car tabs
The next Eyman initiative to pass was 2002 Initiative 776 (I-776) which lowered car tabs to $30 and repealed other transportation fees. The Washington Supreme Court ruled the Initiative unconstitutional in the 2003 case called Pierce County. v. State. Here is a link to this ruling:
https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2003/73607-3-1.html
Here are quotes from this ruling:
“Having determined that I-776 has only one subject (limiting license tab fees on cars and light trucks), this court must consider the second requirement of article II, section 19 that the subject be expressed in the ballot title… To be constitutionally adequate, "the title need not be an index to the contents, nor must it provide details of the measure."
“By statute, the ballot title for an initiative to the people has three parts: "(a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question."
“Moreover, the statute puts a 10-word limit on the "statement of the subject" and a 30-word limit on the "concise description."
The Washington Supreme Court found the Initiative complied with the Single Subject rule. But on remand, another issue came up leading to 2006 Pierce County II. v. State. Here is a link to this case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2006/76534-1-1.html
Here are quotes from this case: “The issue in this case is whether Initiative Measure No. 776 (I-776) impairs bonds issued by Sound Transit. Section 6 of I-776 repealed Sound Transit's authority to collect the MVET… the contract clause of our state constitution guarantees that "No . . . law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed." WASH CONST. art. I, § 23.”
2007 -2012 Initiatives 960, 1053 and 1185 Super-majority tax increases
The next Eyman initiatives to pass were 2007 to 2012 Initiative 960 (I-960), 1053 (I-1053), and 1185 (I-1185) — all three addressed the same super-majority requirement for tax increases, and all three were struck down in League of Education Voters v. State. The key constitutional issue was whether the super-majority requirement was at odds with Article II, § 22: “No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage . . . a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.
Here is a link to this decision.
https://cases.justia.com/washington/supreme-court/87425-5-1.pdf?ts=1396151908
Here is a quote from this decision: “The Super-majority Requirement violates article II, section 22 by requiring certain legislation to receive a two-thirds vote.”
In plain English, one can not amend the Constitution through an Initiative. The only way to amend the Constitution is through a Constitutional Amendment.
2015 Initiative 1366
Initiative 1366 attempted to blackmail the legislature by decreasing the sales tax rate unless the legislature refers to voters a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval to raise taxes, and legislative approval for fee increases.” The measure passed with 52% of the vote. It was then challenged in King County, where Judge William Downing held that it violated Article II, § 19.
Judge Downing wrote, “It is impossible to determine how many people voted for this initiative because they desired adoption of the constitutional amendment at its heart and how many voted for it because they desired the short-term relief of the immediate reduction in the sales tax. The Washington Supreme Court agreed in the case called Lee v. State.
Here is a link to this 27 page decision:
https://cases.justia.com/washington/supreme-court/2016-92708-1.pdf?ts=1464275851
Here are quotes from this decision:
“This is the kind of log rolling of unrelated measures article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution was adopted to prevent… A reduction to the sales tax rate is unrelated to both a constitutional amendment, which would impact future legislatures, and to the way that future taxes and fees are approved… In its essence, I-1366 mirrors I-695 and I-722.”
“The key inquiry is whether the subjects are so unrelated that "it is impossible for the court to assess whether either subject would have received majority support if voted on separately."
“I-1366 contains two unrelated operative provisions but only one will go into effect. The fact that the initiative does not enact both provisions does not save it from violating article II, section 19. It is still impossible to determine how many people voted for one provision and how many for the other.”
“A constitutional amendment may not be proposed or enacted through initiative… "an initiative must propose the enactment of a law and not the amendment of the constitution."
“A reduction in the current sales tax rate is not necessary to implement a constitutional amendment or a change to the method for approving all future taxes and fees; quite the opposite, in fact, since one subject actually voids implementation of the other subject. “
2018 Initiative 976
Eyman presented $30 car tabs issue one more time with 2019 Initiative 976 (I-976). The Initiative passed but was challenged in the case called Garfield County v. State Here is a link to this 36 page decision:
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/983208.PDF
Here are quotes from this decision with the legal citations omitted:
“Initiative Measure 976 (I-976) contains more than one subject, and its subject is not accurately expressed in its title. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional.”
“In 1996, voters in the counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish approved a transportation proposal and a funding plan secured by local taxes and fees, including local motor vehicle excise taxes. Based on that vote, Sound Transit issued bonds secured by these local funding sources.”
“In our state, the people have a constitutional power to propose and pass legislation. WASH. CONST . art. II, § 1(a). When acting in this legislative capacity, the people are subject to the constraints laid out in our constitution… Under our constitution, “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” WASH. CONST . art. II, § 19.”
Article II, section 19 serves three purposes. First, it prevents “logrolling,” where a popular measure is attached to an unpopular one to ensure passage of the unpopular measure. Second, it “enlightens the members of the legislature [and voters considering initiatives] against provisions in bills of which the titles give no intimation. Third, it informs the public… about the subjects being considered. Initiatives that contain more than one subject are void in their entirety.”
“We agree that section 12, which requires Sound Transit to retire, defease, or refinance bonds, is not germane to limiting vehicle taxes and fees, and the provisions of the initiative that carry out that subject. Thus, section 12 is an unconstitutional second subject… Section 12 is a specific directive to retire, defease, or refinance existing bonds, if possible. This is a separate subject from “limiting vehicle taxes and fees.” Accordingly, I-976 violates article II, section 19’s single subject rule.”
“We have regularly found two subjects in violation of article II, section 19 when a measure both contained a one-time required action and a broader systematic change in the law… We also found two subjects when an initiative set car tabs at $30 and required voter approval for tax increases…”
“The initiative violates the subject-in-title rule because it is deceptive and misleading since the average informed lay voter would conclude voter approved taxes – such as those used to fund local transportation projects across our state – would remain… We hold that that I-976 violates article II, section 19 because it contains multiple subjects and an inaccurate ballot title.”
Summary of Supreme Court 976 Ruling
In plain English, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that the requirement in Section 12 that Sound Transit retire its Transportation bonds was not related to the requirements in the rest of the Initiative to reduce car tabs fees. This was similar to past Eyman Initiatives where they found he combined a popular issue like reducing specific taxes with an unrelated – and even unconstitutional issue – like amending the constitution to require a two thirds vote on all tax increases. In political circles, this strategy is called “log rolling” which is the main thing that the Single Subject rule in our State Constitution is intended to prevent. The solution to writing a “Constitutionally sound” Initiative is to limit the Initiative to the single subject of $30 car tabs – and simply not include Section 12. If you want to change the way Sound Transit is financed, then do that in a separate Initiative.
Eyman disagrees with the Supreme Court 976 Ruling
Sadly, instead of complying with our State Constitution by following the Single Subject Rule, Eyman has spent the past 6 years “protesting” the Supreme Court decision by refusing to renew his car tabs. Here are quotes from a fund raising email Eyman sent to his supporters on July 3, 2025:
“It's been 6 years and I refuse to renew. For me, it's worth it. Here's why: We, the people, passed a law (for the 3rd time!) that made vehicle taxes and fees above $30 unlawful. We voted to have that law take effect on December 5, 2019. But Jay Inslee blocked it, saying voters were "confused." The initiative was crystal clear. Every "yes voter" and every "no voter" knew exactly what it did. But WA's governmental system refused to respect our vote. When they did, they took our democracy away from us.”
“This is about an election and a decision made by the people. It’s about the basic principle of one person, one vote. There was a campaign, there was an election, there was a vote. 1.05 million voters voted yes, far fewer voted no. The people – sovereign citizens – decided. In a democratic vote, the side that receives the most votes wins… But here in our state, that principle was corrupted. They've ordered us to comply — we should not. If we do — if we roll over and pay government charges that we voted to make unlawful (for the 3rd time), then we will have lost much more than an unlikely ticket for expired tabs. This is a crisis that demands action, not subservience. We refuse to comply, to cooperate, to bow, to grovel for our right to have our vote count.”
Are Eyman’s Complaints Accurate?
To me, Eyman appears to be stubbornly and repeatedly ignoring our State Constitution. He writes Initiatives that make all kinds of popular promises – which is why people often vote in favor of his Initiatives. But his promises are ultimately contrary to our State Constitution. He then gets mad when the Supreme Court rules in favor of upholding our State Constitution. It is true that he tried three times to pass $30 car tabs. But each time, he wrote the Initiatives in a way that violated our State Constitution. Instead of learning from his past mistakes – by more carefully writing his Initiatives in a way that complies with the Single Subject Rule – he just keeps making the same mistake over and over again – and expecting a different result.
Having now read all of the Supreme Court decisions overturning the Eyman Initiatives, I think it is not accurate to claim that the Supreme Court argued that the “voters were confused.” Instead, they based their rulings on the fact that Eyman repeatedly included unrelated subjects in all of his Initiatives that they overturned.
The confusion has to do with the difference between a “subject” and a “topic.” Bills or Initiatives can only include one broad Subject, such as the subject tax reform. But as long as the subject is broadly stated, it can include many topics -provided that the topics are all related to the subject and are all rationally related to each other.
Summary of Rulings on the Single Subject Rule
Even if Eyman refuses to learn from his past mistakes, at the very least, the rest of us should pay close attention to what the Supreme Court says about complying with the Single Subject Rule. Below is a summary of their position on this subject.
“This court cannot interpret the initiative in such a manner that it deprives the people of acting in their legislative capacity. Legislation should be construed to preserve its constitutionality where possible… This constitutional provision (the single subject rule) is liberally construed in favor of upholding legislation… “
“Our single subject analysis is framed differently depending on whether the ballot title is general or restrictive. The parties agree that I-976 has a general title. In such cases, all that is required is “‘rational unity between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions…. The existence of rational unity is determined by whether the matters within the body of the initiative are germane to the general title and whether they are germane to one another.”
“The subject-in-title rule does not require absolute clarity. Ballot titles need not be “‘an index to its contents; nor is the title expected to give the details contained in the bill.’” . A title complies with the constitution if it provides notice leading to inquiry into the body of the act. that terms are broadened in the body of the act.”
In plain English, the Washington Supreme Court divided Initiatives and legislative bills into two categories. One category is bills with specific titles requiring narrowly defined specific actions. The second category is bills with broad general titles which provide a comprehensive set of policy changes. In addition, if the content of the bill or initiative broadens or clarifies terms, the title of the bill or initiative must provide notice in the title that inquiring minds should look in the bill to learn how these terms have been broadened or clarified.
Therefore an Initiative that:
#1 has a broad title
#2 includes subjects related to that title
#3 includes a notice that it broadens and clarifies terms will comply with the single subject rule and
#4 has a title that is not deceptive or misleading
– will be upheld as complying with the single subject rule .
2024 Natural Gas Initiative 2066
The Natural Gas Initiative was overturned in part because it did not include the full text of several state laws it altered. On May 9, 2025, a King County court granted Summary Judgement to Climate Solutions. On May 27, the Washington State Attorney General and BIAW filed a 51 page appeal of the ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court. You can download the appeal at this link:
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65565b1bdfa204c7e86303ad/68363fff17c2e100b037975c_5.27.25%20Intervenor-Defendants%27%20Notice%20of%20Appeal%20to%20Supreme%20Court.pdf
The BIAW Appeal includes the King County Court’s May 9 Order as well as the full text of the Initiative. Before quoting from the May 9 Order, I want to make a few comments about it. I have routinely criticized King County judges for making political and even downright unconstitutional decisions. But having read several Supreme Court decisions on the Single Subject Rule as well as well as the text of I 1066, I believe that this King County judge is at least partially right and will likely be upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. In short, I think that I-1066 was not well written. We should read the following comments carefully and make sure we comply with these rules when writing Initiatives in the future.
Here are quotes from the King County May 9 decision:
“The following subjects are among the many contained in the 20-plus pages of Initiative 2066: (1) providing natural gas to homes and businesses, (2) limiting the authority of agencies to control air pollution, and (3) changing building energy efficiency standards. Because these different subjects are not related to each other, I-2066 is unconstitutional under Section 19.”
“The Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 37, provides: “No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length.” The Washington Supreme Court has held that under Section 37, an initiative must directly set forth the laws that the initiative changes in order for the initiative to be constitutional. In other words, the initiative cannot silently amend state laws without warning the voter. Here, Initiative 2066 silently amends a host of state laws.”
“Under current law: (1) the Department of Commerce makes energy efficiency recommendations to the Building Code Council; (2) energy conservation in the design of public facilities is required; (3) low cost and long term financing, and other incentives, are available for commercial property owners; and (4) local governments are required to develop comprehensive plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These laws are all silently undone by Initiative 2066. Initiative 2066 is unconstitutional because it silently amends state laws without notice to the voter.”
“Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment arguing that I-2066 is unconstitutional on three separate grounds: (1) that it violates the “single subject” clause of Wash. Const. Art. I, § 19, by including sections that are not “germane” to one another; (2) that it violates the “subject in title” rule of Wash. Const. Art. IJ, § 19, by not properly conveying the essence of the measure through the title; and (3) that it violates Wash. Const. Art. II, § 37 by silently amending other laws.”
“In deciding whether an initiative violates the single subject clause, a court must first determine if the ballot title is general or restrictive. Here, the parties agree that I-2066 has a general title. After establishing that the initiative has a general title, the Court must determine the “general subject” of the initiative. This is a difficult task in the present case because the 20-plus pages of the initiative are so broad and free-ranging that it is extremely difficult to say with precision what the general subject is. That said, the Court concludes that the general subject is both protecting and promoting access to natural gas, and regulating access to gas and electrification services.”
“When an initiative has a general title, such as here, it “may embrace several incidental subjects so long as there is a rational unity between the operative provisions themselves as well as the general subject.”
“An initiative can embrace several incidental subjects and not violate the single subject clause if the underlying matters are related through “rational unity.” Rational unity does not exist when the subjects are so unrelated that the court cannot tell which subject was favored by the voters. Another indicator of rational unity is whether the subjects of the legislation have previously been considered together in the same legislative act. “
“The Washington Supreme Court in ATU, supra, declared unconstitutional Initiative 695, which set license tab fees at a specific amount and provided a continuing method of approving future tax increases. The Court found that the subjects were not germane to each other, noting that neither purpose was necessary for the implementation of the other. I-2066, however, is not a broad omnibus bill that comprehensively “addresses a larger subject area.”
I-2066’s various provisions — including those limiting the authority of the government to regulate natural gas air pollutants and amending building efficiency standards and decarbonization requirements (which apply to energy sources other than natural gas) — do not relate to each other... It is abundantly clear that I-2066’s multiple subjects are not germane to each other. Sections 2 and 3 of I-2066 require certain utility companies, cities, and towns to furnish natural gas to eligible customers. By contrast, Section 11 of I-2066 provides that air pollution control agencies under the Clean Air Act may not “prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.” These provisions are unrelated and not germane to one another. A voter may very well want to have access to natural gas, but at the same time, want the government to regulate natural gas air pollution. In addition, limiting the authority of air pollution control agencies is not necessary to requiring the provision of natural gas by local governments. Furthermore, there is no legislative precedent for addressing all of the subjects covered by I-2066 in a single piece of legislation. There is “no legislatively recognized connection” between the various subjects at issue in the initiative.”
“In addition to internal rational unity, an initiative’s subjects must also be germane to its “general title,” also referred to as the “general subject” of the initiative. “
“The Court has determined that I-2066’s general subject is both protecting and promoting access to natural gas, and regulating access to gas and electrification services.”
“As with the previous analysis, I-2066’s myriad subjects are not germane to even this expansive general subject. For example, I-2066’s changes to the Decarbonization Act are not germane to requiring that natural gas be provided to eligible customers.”
“The fact that the initiative would undermine Washington’s Clean Air Act and prohibit local authorities from taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases also is not germane to the general subject of the initiative. “
“The purpose of the subject-in-title rule of Art. II, § 19 is “to notify members of the legislature and the public of the subject matter of a measure.” Courts have recognized the particular importance of this requirement for initiatives, noting that “often voters will not reach the text of a measure or the explanatory statement, but may instead cast their votes based upon the ballot title.”
“The title of an initiative does not have to provide a “detailed index” to the initiative’s contents. A measure’s title can be broad and general but “the material representations in the title must not be misleading or false, which would thwart the underlying purpose of ensuring that no person may be deceived as to what matters are being legislated upon. A title which is misleading or false is not constitutionally framed.”
“Any objections to the title “must be grave and the conflict between it and the constitution palpable” before a court will hold an act unconstitutional on this basis. A title must give notice “that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the law. The words in a title are construed in their ordinary manner (unless specified otherwise in the title). “
“The question before the court is whether I-2066’s ballot title gives the public proper notice of its contents. I-2066’s title does not apprise a reasonably informed voter of the initiative’s contents. For example, the title does not provide sufficient notice that a voter would inquire whether it limits the ability of agencies to regulate air pollution. Nor does it indicate that I-2066 seeks to roll back energy efficiency standards for buildings (affecting all fossil fuels, not just natural gas). “
“The title does not suggest that building code standards pertaining to gas appliances, particularly appliances other than natural gas, may be impacted. Because I-2066’s title does not mention these subjects, nor prompt inquiry into them, it violates the subject-in-title requirement of article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution.”
“Article II, § 37 provides that, “No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length.” The purpose of Art. II, § 37 is to disclose the effect of new legislation and its impact on existing laws.”
“An act is “not complete” if it “refers to a prior statute which is changed but not repealed by the new act,” because then people are “required to read both statutes before the full declaration of the legislative will on the subject can be ascertained.”
“If the legislation is complete, the fact that other statutes will be modified or repealed can be determined from the act itself without having to specify which laws would be impacted. It is permissible for an initiative to have undeclared incidental effects on other statutes, provided the other statutes are not modified by implication. “
“I-2066 is not a complete act because its effects cannot be determined just by reading the initiative. (Also) I-2066 renders a straightforward reading of many existing laws erroneous or untenable. A straightforward reading of RCW 19.27A.150 is no longer possible under I-2066. Yet, RCW 19.27A.150 is not mentioned in I-2066. In other words, it is silently amended by I-2066.
“Chapter 39.35 RCW is not mentioned in I-2066 and is therefore silently amended by it. I-2066 does not reference chapter 36.165 RCW.”
“A straightforward interpretation of the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.070(9) is no longer possible under I-2066.”
“RCW 80.28.460 conflicts with Section 4 of I-2066. Although I-2066 references a different subsection of chapter 80.28 RCW, it does not address this one. I-2066 also creates a conflict among provisions of the Clean Air Act, Chapter 70A.15 RCW ,which renders a straightforward understanding of this law erroneous. In sum, I-2066 violates Art. IT, § 37 by silently amending existing state laws.”
Problems with the 2026 Parents Rights and Girls Rights Initiatives
Why both Initiatives violate Article II Section 37 of the Washington State Constitution
Article II, Section 37, commonly called the Full Text provision, requires that, if an initiative conflicts with or “silently amends” existing related state laws, without explicitly showing those changes, it violates Article II, Section 37. The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down poorly written Initiatives that "silently" conflicted with existing state laws. One example was a 2007 Initiative changing property tax levy limits without updating the actual text of the law, as seen in a case called Washington Citizens Action v. State. Another more recent example of this “Full Text” provision was the 2024 Natural Gas Ban Initiative 2066 wherein a King County Superior Court judge overturned the initiative, in part because it silently amended existing state laws without setting forth those changes their full text.
The Washington Supreme Court has created one and only one exception to this rule of not silently amending existing state laws. The exception is called “Harmonization.” Washington courts will try, if possible, to "harmonize" a new Initiative with existing Washington state laws. This means that judges will attempt to interpret both the old law and the new initiative in a way that allows both to exist if possible. However, if it is not possible to harmonize the new Initiative with the existing laws, the Initiative will likely to be declared to be invalid because the voters were not fully informed about what the Initiatives actually did.
The problem with both the 2026 Parents Rights and Girls Rights Initiatives is that both silently amend a series of “Gender Identity” laws passed in our state in recent years. These laws designated “gender identity” as a “protected class” in our state. Being a protected class gave these individuals certain controversial rights which have been mandated as Washington School Policy 3211-P. Both Initiatives, by ignoring these “gender identity” laws and policies, silently conflict with several current laws and are therefore likely to be ruled unconstitutional should they be approved by the voters and then challenged in court. This sad result would be a huge set back for both Parents Rights and Girls Rights.
Those in favor of the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative claim that it was ruled to be “Good Law” by a King County Judge in January 2025. What they fail to understand is, even if it was good law in January 2025, that ruling was before House Bill 1296, was passed by the Legislature in April 2025. House Bill 1296 clarified several of the Gender Rights laws and thereby created a clearer conflict with the Parents Rights Initiative. House Bill 1296 amended 17 laws and the new Parents Rights Initiative only amended 1 of these 17 laws. It is the 16 other recently clarified laws in House Bill 1296 that created conflicts that were not addressed by the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative.
As just one example of the Initiative silently conflicting with existing laws, Section 203 of House Bill 1296 amends RCW 28A.230. The amendment a “Student Bill of Rights.” Right (iii) states: “The right to access an academic environment free of discrimination according to the provisions established in chapters 28A.640, 28A.642, and 49.60 RCW. “
Section 103 of House Bill 1296 amends RCW 28A.642.010. The amendment prohibits “discrimination in Washington public schools on the basis of… gender identity.”
This change makes Gender Identity a Protected Class in Washington state which in turn requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to “develop rules and guidelines to eliminate discrimination… as it applies to public school employment, counseling and guidance services to students, recreational and athletic activities for students.” Gender identity means that if a boy claims he thinks he is a girl, then he must be treated as a girl and protected from discrimination based on his gender identity. This is the legal basis for Policy 3211-P which in turn requires school employees to hide the identity of the student from anyone – including from his parents (see below for more details).
The 2026 Girls Rights Initiative suffers from the exact same problem. It amends only 2 of several laws. But it ignores the underlying “Gender Identity” Protected class laws.
Examples of how the 2026 Initiatives conflict with existing State laws
Here is a link to Washington Policy 3211-P. And here are some sections of this policy that conflict with the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative (parts in bold are clear conflicts):
Communication and Use of Names and Pronouns
An appropriate school employee will privately ask known transgender or gender-expansive students how they would like to be addressed in class, in correspondence to the home, and at conferences with the student’s parent/guardian. That information will be included in the electronic student record system along with the student’s legal name in order to inform teachers and staff of the name and pronoun by which to address the student… When appropriate or necessary, this information will be communicated directly with staff to facilitate the use of proper names and pronouns. A student is not required to change their official records... as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity…
Before communicating with parents of transgender or gender expansive students, it’s important to ask the student how school employees should refer to the student when talking with their parents and guardians.
For parents who are not supportive, or who are not aware of the student’s transition at school, referring to their name and pronoun could be very dangerous. The district will not condone the intentional or persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity or gender expression, or inappropriate release of information regarding a student’s transgender or gender-expansive status.
Official Records
The standardized high school transcript is the only official record that requires a student’s legal name. School staff should adopt practices to avoid the inadvertent disclosure of the student’s transgender or gender-expansive status… The school must use the name and gender by which the student identifies on all other records...
Here are the section of Policy 3211-P that directly conflict with the 2026 Girls Rights Initiative:
Sports and Physical Education Classes
The District will provide all students, including transgender and gender-expansive students, the opportunity to participate in physical education and athletic programs/opportunities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity.
Why the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative does not restore Parents Rights
Even if the Washington Supreme Court decided that the Initiatives could somehow be “harmonized” with existing state gender-identity protected class laws, we would still face serious and ongoing violations of Parents Rights and Girls Rights here in Washington state.
For example, the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative can be easily subverted by school districts, who could continue to comply with Policy 3211-P by taking advantage of “loopholes” in FERPA. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. §1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, is a federal law protecting the privacy of student education records, applying to all educational institutions receiving U.S. Department of Education funds. It grants parents rights to inspect records, seek amendments, and control disclosure. However,, in Washington state, FERPA is subverted by a “Double Book Keeping” process which deliberately hides information from parents by having “official educational records” parents get to see and then unofficial records that only teachers and staff get to see and parents do not get to see. Part 99 of FERPA states: “Records” do not include records that are kept in the sole possession of the maker, are used only as a personal memory aid, and are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a temporary substitute for the maker of the record.”
Equally bad, FERPA Part 99.5 states: Rights of Students...The Act and this part do not prevent educational agencies or institutions from giving students rights in addition to those given to parents.
Also bad are all of the Anti-parent laws passed by the legislature that harms the Parent-Child relationship in a variety of ways. Teachers would still be allowed to tell young children to not trust their parents.
And teachers would still be allowed to lie to young children by telling them that boys could become girls simply by changing their names and pronouns:
And young children would still be exposed to “sexualization” due to the state’s Sex Ed for Kinders policy”:
In short, the 2026 Parents Rights Initiative is nothing more than placing a useless band-aid on a problem that requires open heart surgery!
Problems with IL26-638 aka the Fairness in Girls Sports Initiative
Ballot Title: Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. This measure would prohibit students it defines as “biologically male” from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers.
Ballot Measure Summary: This measure would require policies prohibiting students it defines as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain inter-school athletic activities that are intended for female students only. Students who choose to participate in such activities must provide a statement from the student’s healthcare provider verifying the student’s biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. These requirements would apply to individual or team athletic competitions.
Here is a link to the 7 page text of this Initiative.
The Initiative is contrary to several other sections of Washington state law which are not clearly spelled out in this Initiative. In particular, it is contrary to the laws designating gender identity and gender orientation as protected classes as well as laws leading to School Board Model Policies 3211 and 3211P. Again, Article 2, Section 37 of the Washington constitution also known as the Full Text rule states:
"No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."
This means that the full text of EVERY law being revised or amended by the Initiative must be included in the Initiative submitted to the Secretary of State and must be printed in full on the back of every petition. Failing to include the full text of the law or section of law being amended can lead to the initiative being overturned.
Why the 2026 Girls Rights Initiative does not restore Girls Rights
Equally bad, the 2026 Girls Rights Initiative only keeps boys from competing in Girls Sports. It does nothing to keep boys out of girls bathrooms or locker rooms. Here are quotes from Washington Policy 3211-P about three policies that would still be in effect even if the Girls Rights Initiative was passed by the voters and approved by the Washington Supreme Court:
Restroom Accessibility
Students will be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds to the gender identity they assert at school. No student will be required to use a restroom that conflicts with their gender identity.
Locker Room Accessibility
The district will take an approach that conforms with OSPI ‘s guidelines. In most cases, the district should provide the student access to the locker room that corresponds to the gender identity they assert at school.
Other School Activities
In any school activity or other circumstance involving separation by gender (i.e., field trips, and overnight trips), students will be permitted to participate in accordance with the gender identity they assert at school.
Not only does it still allow this extremely harmful practice, but it would still allow teachers to shame girls into accepting boys into their girls bathrooms – an outrageous crime that leads to girls suffering from anxiety, depression and low self esteem:
How to Make Sure that an Initiative complies with the State Constitution
The solution to all of these problems is to have Initiatives written by a committee to assure compliance with all of the provisions of the Washington State Constitution.
The Family Rights Initiative uses a broad title and addresses the same topics as House Bill 1296 – but in a way that actually protects the rights of students and parents. The Family Rights Initiative clarifies and broadens the rights of all family members including the rights of students and parents. Like House Bill 1296, the Family Rights Initiative also clarifies the rights and responsibilities of teachers and school board members – because the actions of both teachers and school board members can infringe on the rights of students and parents. In short, nearly anything that happens at school can be related to student and parent rights and therefore the Family Rights Initiative complies with the single subject rule – as long as the full title specifies that the Initiative broadens and clarifies the rights of students, parents, teachers and school board members. Folks are then alerted that if they want to know how these rights are clarified, they should read the actual text of the Initiative.
Our Family Rights Initiative is carefully written to comply not only with the “single subject” provision of the Washington State Constitution, but also to comply with the guidance of the Washington Supreme Court on how they determine whether an Act of the Legislature or Initiative to the People complies with the Single Subject Rule.
As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed. Director,
Washington Parents Network