Walsh v. Hobbs ( 2024 )

THIS OPINION WAS FILED
FILE
FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON
OCTOBER 24, 22024
IN CLERK’S OFFICE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
SARAH R. PENDLETON
OCTOBER 24, 2024 ACTING SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
JIM WALSH, DEANNA MARTINEZ,
AMBER GOLDADE and JOHN
GOLDADE,
Appellants, No. 103174-2
v.
EN BANC
STEVE HOBBS, in his official capacity
as Secretary of State of the State of
Washington, BOB FERGUSON, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of
the State of Washington, DAVID Filed: October 24, 2024
SCHUMACHER, in his official capacity
as Director of the Office of Financial
Management, NO ON 2109
COMMITTEE, NO ON 2117, and NO
ON 2124,
Respondents.
GONZÁLEZ, C.J.—In our state, the people have the power to propose laws
through the initiative process and, if the constitutional requirements are met, vote on
whether those laws should be enacted. Like any other law, initiatives often come with
budget impacts.
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
In recent years, the legislature concluded that voters should be told when an
initiative will affect the budget through, among other things, “public investment
impact disclosures.” RCW 29A.72.027. These disclosures are short ballot statements
that tell voters the initiative will increase or decrease the funding available for some
public service.
Proponents of three initiatives sued to prevent public investment impact
disclosures from appearing on the ballot. The trial court denied them relief and
dismissed their complaint. Because the election was fast approaching, we retained the
appeal, considered it on the merits at a special en banc conference, and affirmed by
order with opinion to follow. Today, we explain our decision.
BACKGROUND
After gathering voters’ signatures, appellant and sponsor Jim Walsh, a member
of the Washington State House of Representatives, submitted six initiatives to the
legislature at its 2024 session. The legislature enacted three of the initiatives. The
other three initiatives, I-2117, which would repeal the Washington Climate
Commitment Act, a cap and trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; I-2109, which would repeal the state’s capital gains tax; and I-2124, which
would make participation in the state’s “WA Cares” long-term care insurance
program optional rather than mandatory, will appear on the November 2024 general
election ballot for a vote of the people.
Initiatives, like any other piece of legislation, often have fiscal impacts. The
Office of Financial Management (OFM) has long been required to prepare a fiscal
impact statement on the expected impact of any legislative bill that may impact state
revenues or expenditures. RCW 43.88A.020. In recent years, the legislature has
2
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
extended that obligation to initiatives. RCW 29A.72.025. Now, OFM must prepare a
fiscal impact statement for every initiative measure appearing on the ballot,
“describ[ing] any projected increase or decrease in revenues, costs, expenditures, or
indebtedness that the state or local governments will experience if the ballot measure
were approved by state voters.” Id. These fiscal impact statements must be available
on the secretary of state’s website and be printed in the voter’s pamphlet. Id.
In addition, the attorney general must prepare a public investment impact
disclosure for any ballot measure that (1) “[r]epeals, levies, or modifies any tax or fee,
including changing the scope or application of an existing tax or fee,” and (2) “[h]as a
fiscal impact statement . . . that shows that adoption of the measure would cause a net
change in state revenue.” RCW 29A.72.027(1)(a), (b). A public investment impact
disclosure must appear on the ballot itself, briefly describing the public investments
that the measure will affect. RCW 29A.72.027(2). The attorney general must use
neutral language that cannot reasonably be expected to prejudice the vote. RCW
29A.72.027(4).
Representative Walsh, as primary sponsor of the initiatives, and Deanna
Martinez, a state resident and chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington
(collectively Representative Walsh), filed a complaint in Thurston County Superior
Court against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and
Director of OFM David Schumacher. Proponents and opponents of the initiatives
were allowed to intervene. Representative Walsh sought (1) a writ of prohibition
preventing the attorney general from preparing and the secretary of state from
certifying public investment impact disclosures for the three initiatives, (2) a writ of
mandamus compelling the secretary of state to instruct all county election officials to
3
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
print ballots without public investment impact disclosures for the three initiatives, and
(3) a writ of mandamus compelling the director of OFM to revise the fiscal impact
statement for I-2109 to state it will not cause a change in state revenue. In
Representative Walsh’s view, I-2109 will have no impact because the legislature
impliedly repealed the capital gains tax by enacting I-2111, which prohibits the state
from taxing personal income. He also argues that neither of the other two initiatives
exact a “tax or fee” within the meaning of the public investment impact disclosure
statute.
The superior court denied Representative Walsh’s petition for writs of
mandamus and prohibition and dismissed the complaint after a hearing. That court
rejected Representative Walsh’s argument that the legislature impliedly repealed the
capital gains tax by enacting I-2111. Without that implied repeal, it is undisputed that
repealing the capital gains tax will reduce state revenues, requiring a fiscal impact
statement and public investment impact disclosure. The court also determined that the
other two initiatives each repeal or modify a “tax or fee” within the meaning of the
public investment impact disclosure statute, requiring public investment impact
disclosures.1
Representative Walsh appealed directly to this court. We retained the appeal
and after a special en banc conference on August 9, 2024, issued an order with
opinion to follow affirming the superior court’s judgment in result. 2
1
Representative Walsh concedes that passing I-2117 and I-2124 would affect state
revenues.
2
In our order, we also denied a motion by Tim Eyman to file an amicus curiae brief in
support of the appeal. Under RAP 10.6(a), only attorneys may file amicus briefs. Eyman is
not an attorney. In addition, the court will grant leave to file an amicus brief only if all parties
consent or the amicus briefs will assist the court. See RAP 10.6(a). The State and intervenor
respondents inform us they did not consent to filing this brief. Finally, Eyman’s brief almost
entirely concerns the constitutionality of the public investment impact disclosure statute. As
this is outside the scope of the issues properly before this court, his brief does not assist us.
4
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
ANALYSIS
This case came before the superior court as a petition for writs of prohibition
and mandamus. Both writs are ancient, rare, and extraordinary vehicles for relief,
available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of legal proceedings. Riddle v. Elofson, 193 Wn.2d 423, 428, 430, 439 P.3d
647 (2019) (plurality opinion) (prohibition); Judges of Benton & Franklin Counties
Super. Ct. v. Killian, 195 Wn.2d 350, 356-57, 459 P.3d 1082 (2020) (mandamus). The
writ of prohibition is a drastic and limited remedy intended to prevent officials from
exceeding their jurisdiction and enlarging the powers of their positions. Riddle, 193
Wn.2d at 428-29. The writ exists to prevent “execution of a future, specific act and
not to undo an action already performed.” Id. at 429; accord RCW 7.16.290. A
person seeking such a writ must establish an absence of jurisdiction and show that
there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of legal
proceedings, among other things. Riddle, 193 Wn.2d at 430; Skagit County Pub.
Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 177 Wn.2d 718, 722-23,
305 P.3d 1079 (2013); Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 838, 766 P.2d 438(1989).
Like prohibition, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. While courts have the
power to direct officers of the other branches of government to take actions mandated
by law, courts must be respectful of “the historical and constitutional rights” of the
other branches. Walker v. Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402, 407, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). A
petitioner seeking mandamus relief must show that the official who is the subject of
the petition has a mandatory, ministerial duty to perform an act required by law as part
of that official’s duties. Id. at 408-10. If the law does not require an official to take a
5
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
specific action, neither may a writ of mandamus. See id. at 10. Mandamus is
appropriate only where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with
such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or
judgment. Id. Like prohibition, mandamus relief is available only if there is no plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Judges, 195 Wn.2d at
356-57; King County v. Sorensen, 200 Wn.2d 252, 263, 516 P.3d 388 (2022).
Representative Walsh sought a writ of mandamus requiring OFM to “correct”
the fiscal impact statement it prepared for I-2109, which, if passed, would repeal the
state’s capital gains tax. He argues that the legislature effectively repealed the capital
gains tax by enacting I-2111, which bars personal income taxes. Since, he reasons,
enacting I-2109 would have no effect on state revenues, one of the prerequisites for
preparing a public investment impact disclosure for I-2109 is not met: a fiscal impact
statement showing that the measure would cause a net change in state revenue. He
also sought both prohibition and mandamus preventing the attorney general from
preparing and the secretary of state from certifying public investment impact
disclosures for I-2117 and I-2124, arguing that neither of those measures would repeal
or modify a “tax or fee” within the meaning of RCW 29A.72.027(1).
The superior court addressed the merits of these arguments and concluded,
first, that I-2111 did not repeal the capital gains tax because the capital gains tax is an
excise tax, not an income tax, and, second, that I-2117 and I-2124 would repeal or
modify a “tax or fee” within the meaning of RCW 29A.72.027, requiring public
investment impact disclosures to be prepared for all of these measures.
We conclude that this is not a case for which relief by prohibition is
appropriate. The attorney general is affirmatively empowered (and required) by
6
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
RCW 29A.72.027 to prepare public investment impact disclosures for initiative
measures repealing or modifying taxes or fees for which fiscal impact statements have
been prepared indicating an effect on state revenues. There is no argument before us
that the attorney general is acting outside his jurisdiction in following the law.
Reduced to its essence, Representative Walsh’s argument is that the attorney general
erred in concluding that he was required to prepare public investment impact
disclosures. Even if the attorney general erred on this point, prohibition is not a
vehicle to prevent or correct error. Riddle, 193 Wn.2d at 429. Similarly, the law
requires the secretary of state to certify public investment impact disclosures that the
attorney general has submitted and to forward the disclosures to county election
officials. RCW 29A.72.027(6). The secretary does not act in excess of jurisdiction
simply by carrying out the secretary’s statutory obligation without second-guessing
the attorney general.
Representative Walsh has also made no effort to show that he lacks a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of legal proceedings, such as a
declaratory or injunctive action. Declaratory or injunctive relief are adequate legal
remedies when seeking to prevent an action or determine its legality. Riddle, 193
Wn.2d at 436-37. A remedy is not inadequate merely because it imposes delay,
expense, annoyance, or some hardship. Judges, 195 Wn.2d at 356. A writ of
prohibition is not available.
Representative Walsh also sought writs of mandamus compelling the director
of OFM to correct its fiscal impact statement for I-2109 and compelling the secretary
of state to instruct county election officials to print ballots without public investment
impact disclosures for the three initiatives. But Representative Walsh has not shown
7
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
that the director of OFM has failed to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty dictated
by law. Relevantly, OFM is required to “prepare a fiscal impact statement for . . . [a]n
initiative to the people that is certified to the ballot” that “describe[s] any projected
increase or decrease in revenues, costs, expenditures, or indebtedness that the state or
local governments will experience if the ballot measure were approved by state
voters” including “both a summary of not to exceed one hundred words and a more
detailed statement that includes the assumptions that were made to develop the fiscal
impacts.” RCW 29A.72.025. Nothing in the briefing suggests that OFM failed to
follow either of these dictates. Instead, Representative Walsh disagrees with OFM’s
conclusions about what the fiscal impact of I-2109 will be. But those conclusions
involve the exercise of judgment within the director’s discretion and are not subject to
mandamus relief.
Similarly, once a public investment impact disclosure is filed with the secretary
of state, the secretary’s only obligation is to certify and transmit it to county election
officials for inclusion on the ballot. RCW 29A.72.027(6). The secretary has no
ministerial duty to decline to certify and transmit a public investment impact
disclosure based on someone’s disagreement with its the necessity.
Finally, as with prohibition, an action for declaratory relief challenging the
legality of an action or seeking to determine an official’s legal duties is an adequate
remedy. Sorenson, 200 Wn.2d at 263. If in such an action a court finds the existence
of a duty, but the official still fails to fulfill that duty, mandamus would then be an
appropriate remedy. Judges, 195 Wn.2d at 356-57. There has been no showing that
declaratory or injunctive relief is inadequate.
8
Walsh v. Hobbs, No. 103174-2
CONCLUSION
Mandamus and prohibition are available in highly limited circumstances that
have not been shown here. We affirm the trial court’s denial of prohibition and
mandamus relief and dismissal of this case.
____________________________
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________ ____________________________
_____________________________ ____________________________
_____________________________ ____________________________
_____________________________
9