Clean v. State

Washington Supreme Court
928 P.2d 1054 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A legislative declaration that an act is an emergency necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety is conclusive and must be given effect by the courts unless the declaration is, on its face, obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation.

Facts:

The Seattle Mariners, a major league baseball team, played in the Kingdome but expressed concerns about its viability, stating a need for a new outdoor stadium to remain financially competitive.
In 1995, the Washington Legislature authorized King County to impose a sales tax to fund a new stadium, contingent on voter approval.
King County voters subsequently rejected the proposed tax increase in a referendum.
Following the electoral defeat, John Ellis, the Mariners' Chief Executive Officer, sent a letter stating the team would be 'offer[ed] for sale' after October 30, 1995, if a new stadium was not secured.
In response, Governor Mike Lowry called a special session of the Legislature for the sole purpose of addressing stadium financing.
During the special session, the Legislature passed Engrossed House Bill 2115 (the 'Stadium Act'), which created a new financing mechanism for a publicly owned baseball stadium in King County.
The Stadium Act contained an emergency clause, making it effective immediately upon the governor's signature.

Procedural Posture:

After the Governor signed the Stadium Act, Frank Ruano attempted to file a referendum petition with the Secretary of State, Ralph Munro.
Munro, the Secretary of State, rejected the petition, citing the act's emergency clause which he believed exempted it from the referendum process.
CLEAN filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in Thurston County Superior Court (a trial court) against the State of Washington, challenging the act's constitutionality.
Ruano filed a separate action in the same court against the State and Munro, also challenging the emergency clause and seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the processing of his referendum petition.
The Thurston County Superior Court joined the cases, heard cross-motions for summary judgment, and entered a single order dismissing all challenges to the Stadium Act.
CLEAN and Ruano, as appellants, sought and were granted direct review of the trial court's order by the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a legislative act that provides public financing for a professional sports stadium, and which includes an emergency clause that prevents a public referendum, violate the Washington Constitution's right to referendum when the legislature determines that immediate action is necessary to prevent the imminent departure of a major league sports franchise?

Opinions:

Majority - Alexander, J.

No. The Stadium Act's emergency clause does not violate the constitutionally protected right to referendum because the legislature's declaration of an emergency was not obviously false. The court must give substantial deference to the legislature's determination that an emergency exists. The legislature was faced with a clear and present danger that the Seattle Mariners would depart the state if prompt action was not taken, which it reasonably concluded would result in a loss of jobs, tax revenue, recreational opportunities, and a diminishment of the quality of life. The threat of the team being sold by the October 30 deadline constituted an emergency justifying immediate legislative action to accomplish its public purpose, and the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature when the question is debatable.

Concurring - Talmadge, J.

No. The Stadium Act's emergency clause is valid because the court must give considerable deference to the legislature's factual determination that an emergency exists. Legislative declarations of fact are conclusive unless they are 'obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation.' The appellants failed to meet this high burden. The record, including the governor's call for a special session and the impending deadline from the team's ownership, indicates that the legislature acted in good faith based on a perceived emergency, and there is no evidence the clause was a ruse to avoid a referendum.

Dissenting - Guy, J.

Yes. Although the Stadium Act is otherwise constitutional, its emergency clause is invalid. The state constitution assures the right of referendum unless legislation is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety. While a baseball team provides benefits, raising taxes to build a new stadium does not constitute an 'emergency' under this high constitutional standard. The Act provides no specific facts on which to base deference to the legislative decision, containing only standard, generic language. Therefore, the Secretary of State should be directed to accept the referendum petition.

Dissenting - Sanders, J.

Yes. The emergency clause violates the people's constitutionally reserved right to referendum. The majority's extreme deference effectively eliminates this right, appointing 'the fox to guard the henhouse.' The constitutional exception for emergencies is narrow and must be strictly construed; it applies to true perils like epidemics or catastrophes, not matters of 'mere public expediency or public convenience' like preventing a sports team's relocation. The statute contains no legislative findings of fact, only a boilerplate emergency clause tacked on to circumvent the will of the voters who had already rejected a similar tax measure. The court has a duty to independently review whether a true emergency exists, and the potential loss of a baseball team clearly does not qualify.

Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens the legislature's power to bypass the public's right to referendum through the use of emergency clauses. By reaffirming a standard of extreme judicial deference, the court makes it exceptionally difficult for citizens to challenge such legislative declarations. The ruling implies that a credible threat of economic loss, framed with a specific deadline, can constitute an 'emergency' sufficient to override the referendum power. This precedent narrows the practical scope of this direct democracy tool and may encourage future legislatures to use emergency clauses on politically controversial acts to shield them from a popular vote.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Clean v. State (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"