Island County v State :: 135 Wn2d 141
Category: Separation of Powers
The essence of this case is the constitutional mandate for separation of powers. It is the lawful purview of the judicial branch to strike down legislative enactments that violate the Constitution. In this case, the Legislature created a statute that authorized “community councils” (Councils). These councils, however, only applied to counties that were made up entirely of islands (as opposed to allowing all islands within any county) with a population of 30,000 or more. As it turned out, this legislation only applied to one county. This is “special legislation” in violation of art. II, sec. 28(6) and/or art. XI, sec. 10 [as determined by the superior court at 145].
What is interesting in this case is the analysis of the “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard used when a statute is challenged as unconstitutional” [at 147]. We have often noted our disagreement with the fiction that “A statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging it has the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Dixon, Maciolek, Spencer, etc]. Nonetheless, the majority explains their reasoning:
The reason for this high standard is based on our respect for the legislative branch of government as a co-equal branch of government, which, like the court, is sworn to uphold the [C]onstitution. We assume the Legislature considered the constitutionality of its enactments and afford some deference to that judgment. Additionally, the Legislature speaks for the people and we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the [C]onstitution. [at 147 cites omitted].
Rather than argue this premise point-by-point, we will defer to Justice Sanders’ argument against this in his concurring opinion:
I posit it is high time, if not past time, to challenge this bald assertion for exactly what it is: A statement of ideological preference which favors the legislative branch at the expense of the executive, the judicial, and, most importantly, the individual citizen.
Read the [C]onstitution, and read it once again, I find no textual support for the proposition that a usurping legislature may impose an unconstitutional, yet “doubtful” legislative act beyond the remedy of judicial review. . . . While the majority may justly claim “the Legislature speaks for the people,” it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.
By necessity any form of deference to the legislative branch, however slight, is a corresponding burden to the citizen who relies upon an independent and impartial judiciary to vindicate and protect his legal rights.
**** Presumptions clearly favor the party on whose side the presumption lies. . . . The end result is simply to place the Legislature above the Constitution. . . . The purpose of our constitutional system is the preservation of individual rights. But “there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Separation of powers was intended to balance governmental power against governmental power to prevent the abuse of that power held in any one set of hands. [at 155-64 cites, quotes from Founding Father, comments and footnotes omitted].
Justice Talmadge presented a special exception to Justice Sanders’ opinion, claiming that Sanders’ arguments were a “startling and unprecedented argument for judicial supremacy.” [at 170]. He charged that his views are outside the “mainstream” of jurisprudence [at 170] and that they promoted and activist judiciary cloaked in the Constitution. [at 173]. Talmadge went on to defend the supremacy of the legislative branch. We gave him a “pass” for his vote on the outcome of this case not for his views.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Casey, Paula | |
| pass | Dolliver, James | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Hawkins, William | |
| pass | Jamieson Jr, David | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| pass | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Collins, William B | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Majors, M Scott |