Arthur West v. Rob Mckenna ( 2013 )

FIL'. .
LD
OUPT OF APP AL S
OIV! IOP4IT
S
2013 APR 30 AH 0: 3-
0
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF W
DIVISION II
ARTHUR WEST, No. 421
Appellant,
V.
ROB McKENNA, STATE OF
WASHINGTON; TIM EYMAN; UNPUBLISHED OPINION
AND CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE
SPENDING,
WORSWICK, C. . —
J Arthur West filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate
I 1053, an initiative measure requiring a two -
- thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. The
trial court dismissed the action after ruling that West lacked standing and that the action was not
justiciable. West appeals, arguing that ( ) has standing to sue and (2)
1 he alternatively, the issues
raised in this action warrant an advisory opinion. We stayed West's appeal pending our Supreme
Court's decision in League of Education Voters v. State, _ Wn. d —,295 P. d 743 (2013).Our
2 3
Supreme Court's decision in League ofEducation Voters renders West's case moot.
FACTS
In the 2010 election, the voters approved an initiative measure known as I 1053. LAWS
-
OF 2011, ch. 1. I 1053 renewed a statutory requirement that any legislative act raising taxes must
-
No. 42125 9 II
- -
pass each house of the legislature with a thirds
two - supermajority. LAWS of 2011, ch. 1, §2
codified at former RCW 43. 35.2011)).
034 (
1
After the initiative measure took effect,Arthur West filed a complaint seeking a
declaration that 1 1053 violates the Washington Constitution. On March 3,2011, West filed a
-
motion for summary judgment.
On March 4,2011, the State filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that
West's declaratory judgment action failed to present a justiciable controversy and that West
lacked standing. At the State's request, the trial court issued an order scheduling a hearing on
the State's motion before a subsequent hearing on West's motion. The trial court granted the
State's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case on April 15, 2011. West
appeals.
In a separate declaratory judgment action filed in July 2011, a group of education policy
advocates and individuals, including twelve state legislators, challenged I- s supermajority
1053'
requirement. League of Educ. Voters, 295 P. d at 746, ¶7.
3 Like West,the group alleged that
I- s supermajority requirement violates Washington's constitutional requirement that all
1053'
legislative acts must receive a majority vote in each house. League ofEduc. Voters, 295 P. d at
3
745, ¶¶1 -2.
The superior court granted summary judgment to the group, ruling that I- s
1053'
supermajority requirement violated Washington's Constitution. League ofEduc. Voters, 295
1 In 2012, the voters renewed this requirement again and amended RCW 43. 35.but the
034,
1
amendment does not affect this analysis. LAWS OF
. 2013, ch. 1, § (effective Dec. 6,2012).
2
NA
No. 42125 9 II
- -
P. d at 747, ¶8.
3 The State then sought direct review in our Supreme Court, which accepted the
case. League of Educ. Voters, 295 P. d at 747, ¶9.
3
We stayed West's appeal pending our Supreme Court's decision in League ofEducation
Voters. Order Staying Appeal, West v. McKenna, No.42125 9 II Wn.App. Jan. 29, 2013).On
- - (
February 28,2013, our Supreme Court filed its decision in that case. League ofEduc. Voters,
295 P. d 743. The decision held that ( ) group's challenge to I- s supermajority
3 1 the 1053'
requirement was justiciable and ( ) supermajority requirement violates Washington's
2 the
Constitution. League of Educ. Voters, 295 - 2.
P. d at 745 46, ¶
3
Our Supreme Court issued a mandate on March 26,2013. On March 29 we lifted our
stay. Order Lifting Stay, West v. McKenna, No.42125 9 II Wn.App. Mar. 29, 2013).We now
- - (
dismiss West's appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
A case is moot if it involves only purely academic or abstract propositions, if the
substantial questions presented to the trial court have ceased to exist, or if a court cannot provide
effective relief. Spokane Research & Def.Fund v.City ofSpokane; 155 Wn. d 89, 99, 17 P. d
2 1 3
1117 (2005);
State v. Turner, 98 Wn. d 731, 733, 658 P. d 658 (1983).Here,the substantial
2 2
question presented to the trial court has ceased to exist. West's complaint presented only one
substantial question: whether I- s supermajority requirement is invalid because it violates
1053'
the Washington Constitution. In League ofEducation Voters, our Supreme Court answered that
question in the affirmative. 295 P. d at 745 46,
3 - ¶ Thus, even if West were to prevail on the
2.
issues raised in this appeal, West's complaint would present no substantial questions to the trial
court. Accordingly,this case is moot. See Spokane Research, 155 Wn. d at 99.
2
3
No. 42125 9 II
- -
We must dismiss a moot appeal, unless it presents an issue of continuing and substantial
public interest. West v. Reed, 170 Wn. d 680, 682, 246 P. d 548 (2010).No issue of continuing
2 3
and substantial interest is presented here. Therefore we dismiss West's appeal.
Worswick, C.
We concur:
M