Background
Washington voters approved Initiative 2066 in November 2024. The measure required certain utilities and municipalities to provide natural gas to eligible customers, restricted rate plans and building-code provisions that could discourage gas use, constrained local governments and air-pollution agencies, removed certain zero-emission goals, and amended portions of the Washington Decarbonization Act for Large Combination Utilities.
Climate Solutions, other organizations, local governments, and individuals challenged the initiative under article II, sections 19 and 37 of the Washington Constitution. The King County Superior Court granted them summary judgment and invalidated the entire initiative for embracing multiple subjects, failing to express its subjects in the title, and improperly amending existing laws without setting them out. The State and intervenors appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the judgment on the narrower ground that Initiative 2066 violated article II, section 19’s single-subject requirement. Although the initiative had a general title, its provisions lacked the required rational unity because they produced substantially distinct regulatory effects, including mandating access to natural gas, restricting local air-quality regulation, changing statewide building-code policy, and repealing the Decarbonization Act’s severability clause.
The court rejected the argument that Initiative 2066 qualified as comprehensive omnibus legislation addressing one problem. It also concluded that the provisions introducing distinct subjects could not be severed because the court could not determine whether voters would have approved the remaining measure independently. The initiative was therefore unconstitutional in its entirety. The court did not affirm on the trial court’s additional subject-in-title and amendment grounds.
Key Takeaways
- A general title does not cure a single-subject violation; an initiative’s provisions must have rational unity both with the title and with one another.
- Nominal connections to natural-gas access were insufficient where the provisions had distinct purposes and regulatory effects involving utilities, air quality, building codes, and severability.
- Because the distinct subjects were not severable, the court invalidated all of Initiative 2066 rather than preserving selected provisions.
Why It Matters
The decision prevents Initiative 2066’s restrictions on state and local efforts to discourage natural-gas use from taking effect. It also clarifies that Washington’s single-subject rule requires both “vertical” rational unity between each provision and the measure’s title and “horizontal” rational unity among the provisions themselves.
For initiative proponents and challengers, the ruling underscores the constitutional risk of combining broadly different regulatory mechanisms under a general policy label. Even voter-approved measures remain subject to the same structural constitutional limits that govern legislation enacted by the legislature.