Cedar County Committee v Munro :: 134 Wn2d 377
Category: Bureaucracy and Documents
When presented a singular question, an activist judiciary will set out to create an entire body of law. Before the court is a simple writ of mandamus. This mandamus would compel the Secretary of State to certify the petitions for the formation of a new county as an election. There is nothing in the Constitution that would compel this, nor is there any body of law that would. That is all the court need say. Instead, the majority took the opportunity to define the terms and conditions they believed necessary in order for the Legislature to form new counties.
In their analysis, they conveniently overlooked the precedents established by the Legislature and the people during previous county formations. They then formulated new precedent out of thin air. Most of the precedent they set was dictum, which means that it is an opinion rather than the official holding of the court. However, once set, whether dictum or holding, this new precedent will weave itself into future case law and will be used to impede new county formations.
Justice Alexander concurred with the result, but disagreed with the liberties the court pursued. He wrote, “I agree with the majority that mandamus does not properly lie against the Secretary of State. . . . Because the holding entirely resolves the issue before this court, I take exception to the majority’s extensive foray into an issue that is not before us and which, it concedes, it is not ‘compelled’ to resolve. [at 387]. Justice Sanders and Durham agree with Justice Alexander’s analysis.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Sterling, Rhys | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Even, Jeffrey T | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil |