成人X站

The Washington State Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that held Spokane鈥檚 so-called “Hansen Initiative” exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. The initiative, overwhelmingly supported by voters, added a new “never-camp” zone in much of downtown Spokane in order to address homeless encampments. It prohibited encampments within 1,000 feet of schools, day care facilities, and parks.

The Washington Supreme Court concluded that the initiative was administrative鈥攊t 鈥渁dminister(ed) the details鈥� of an existing, comprehensive city policy on homeless encampments鈥攔ather than legislative in nature, which alone is permissible for local initiatives.

Because the initiative merely tinkered with implementation steps already adopted by the city of Spokane, it fell outside the people鈥檚 power to legislate directly at the local level. The decision was 6-3.

Implications of the decision

Bothell-based attorney Mark Lamb argued you can’t understate the implications of this ruling, in an exclusive interview on “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. He concurs with the dissent that this “decision effectively guts the local initiative power in Washington state.”

“What they’re really saying is that if a city takes a policy position and stakes it out with any kind of enforcement or administrative mechanism, the voters can’t do anything about that,” Lamb explained. “That is antithetical to everything that we understand about our state constitution. It’s everything that we understand about being a state where we want to have the people involved. Candidly, it’s deeply troubling in an era when we’re lectured about democracy being under attack, that 75% of the voters of the City of Spokane made a policy choice and made a policy choice that I think the dissent correctly identified was well within the rights to do it, and the majority simply discards it.”

What the majority argued

Under state law, the Washington Supreme Court said that a local initiative is only valid when it declares a new policy. But it is invalid if it executes or amends a plan already in place.

Lamb, who represented the respondent Brian Hansen, countered the claim that his client’s initiative was administrative in nature. He argued a camping ban falls under the city’s general police power, not zoning. He also noted that the initiative established a new public-safety policy meant to protect children.

The Court of Appeals sided with Hansen, saying the initiative was not in conflict with state law. But the Washington Supreme Court disagreed.

Dissent raises alarms

In the dissent, the Washington State Supreme Court justices argued that the Hansen Initiative “does not simply amend one small provision” of existing law.

“Instead, it represents a significant shift in the core policy expressed by the ordinance. The majority acknowledges this, observing that the Hansen Initiative ‘greatly expanded Spokane鈥檚 criminalization of camping’ and ‘effectively reverses Spokane鈥檚 comprehensive homeless camping policy,'” the dissent reads.

The dissent argues that, “It is well within the local initiative power for the people of Spokane to pass measures that take a different policy direction from the legislative enactments of the
city council.” It says the majority “effectively eliminates the local initiative power altogether.”

Regardless of the Washington Supreme Court decision, the Spokane City Council can choose to turn the initiative into legislation if it chooses. Lamb hopes they opt to do just that.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on聽,听,听, and聽.