Background
UFCW Local 367 and other sponsors submitted roughly 10,000 signatures for Tacoma’s proposed Workers Bill of Rights initiative in June 2025. The Pierce County Auditor verified enough signatures on July 9, and the City Clerk validated the petition the next day. Tacoma’s charter gave the City Council 30 days to enact or reject a validated initiative; if it rejected the measure or did not act, the charter required submission to voters at the next municipal or general election at least 90 days after validation.
The City Council held three study sessions and, on August 8, rejected the initiative and adopted a resolution seeking a November 2025 special election. But the statutory deadline to submit a measure for that ballot was August 5. The auditor declined to place the initiative on the November ballot. The trial court ordered a February 2026 special election, reasoning that the City had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and the Court of Appeals stayed that order.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act did not authorize relief based on claims that the auditor or City Council unreasonably administered the initiative process. It also rejected the sponsors’ claims that the one-day City Clerk validation was preempted or that state election deadlines required the Council to shorten the charter’s 30-day review period.
But the court held that the charter’s requirement that the City Council “submit the proposal to the people” required more than passing an ineffective resolution for an election that could no longer legally occur. Properly construed, the charter required the Council to take steps to place the rejected initiative on the next legally available election ballot. The court reversed the trial court’s due-process ruling because it concerned administration of the charter rather than its construction, and remanded for the trial court to determine appropriate further relief under the declaratory-judgment statute.
Key Takeaways
- A city cannot satisfy its charter duty to submit a rejected initiative to voters merely by requesting placement on an unavailable ballot.
- Declaratory-judgment actions may construe a municipal charter, but generally cannot supervise discretionary administration of it.
- A county auditor may call a special election only upon a resolution from the city’s governing body.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the initiative sponsors’ ability to seek an effective remedy while making clear that the remedy must follow Washington’s election procedures. It also distinguishes between judicial interpretation of an initiative charter provision and judicial review of officials’ discretionary handling of the process.