Home · Politics · Sep 20 archive
Washington Supreme Court Invalidates Voter-Approved Natural Gas Initiative
Confirmed
In Short: The Washington Supreme Court has struck down Initiative 2066, which sought to protect access to natural gas, ruling it violated the state Constitution by combining multiple subjects.
The Washington Supreme Court has struck down Initiative 2066, which sought to protect access to natural gas, ruling it violated the state Constitution by combining multiple subjects into a single initiative.
In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the court identified four separate subjects within the initiative: protecting access to natural gas, restricting local air-quality authorities, changing statewide building-code requirements, and repealing the severability provision of the state’s Decarbonization Act.
Initiative 2066, approved by 51% of voters in November 2024, aimed to block regulators from approving utility rate plans that ended or restricted natural gas service, and removed several zero-emission goals from state law.
The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Mary McFarland Stephens, stated, “Article II, section 19 forbids combining separate subjects in a single bill or initiative, requiring instead that distinct subjects be enacted separately to protect against unconstitutional logrolling and to ensure transparency in the legislative process.”
Justice Charles Wiggins Mungia, in his dissent, argued that the initiative’s various provisions were rationally connected to the goal of protecting consumers’ access to natural gas.
Mungia wrote, “Although, as members of the judiciary, we at times may not agree with the policies behind an initiative, it is our job to maintain and uphold the law.” He contended that the unconstitutional portions could be severed, allowing the initiative to remain valid.
The Building Industry Association of Washington drafted the initiative and partnered with Let’s Go Washington, a conservative political committee, to collect the necessary signatures.
The initiative was challenged in court by Climate Solutions, Front and Centered, Washington Conservation Action, the City of Seattle, and King County, who argued it violated the state’s single-subject rule.
In his dissent, Mungia said the central purpose of I-2066 was protecting Washingtonians’ access to natural gas, and that the initiative’s various provisions were rationally connected to that goal.
The court did not rule on every constitutional challenge raised against the initiative, leaving some questions unresolved.
The decision highlights the ongoing tension between voter initiatives and constitutional requirements, particularly in the context of environmental and energy policy.
Initiative 2066 would have rolled back changes to the state energy code that give builders permitting incentives for installing electric heat pumps instead of natural gas furnaces, and repealed portions of a 2024 state law designed to accelerate Puget Sound Energy’s transition away from natural gas.
What's confirmed
- The Washington Supreme Court has struck down Initiative 2066, which sought to protect access to natural gas, ruling it violated the state Constitution by combining multiple subjects into a single initiative.
- In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the court identified four separate subjects within the initiative: protecting access to natural gas, restricting local air-quality authorities, changing statewide building-code requirements, and repealing the severability provision of the state’s Decarbonization Act.
- Initiative 2066, approved by 51% of voters in November 2024, aimed to block regulators from approving utility rate plans that ended or restricted natural gas service, and removed several zero-emission goals from state law.
- Justice Charles Wiggins Mungia, in his dissent, argued that the initiative’s various provisions were rationally connected to the goal of protecting consumers’ access to natural gas.
- Mungia wrote, “Although, as members of the judiciary, we at times may not agree with the policies behind an initiative, it is our job to maintain and uphold the law.” He contended that the unconstitutional portions could be severed, allowing the initiative to remain valid.
- The Building Industry Association of Washington drafted the initiative and partnered with Let’s Go Washington, a conservative political committee, to collect the necessary signatures.
- The initiative was challenged in court by Climate Solutions, Front and Centered, Washington Conservation Action, the City of Seattle, and King County, who argued it violated the state’s single-subject rule.
- In his dissent, Mungia said the central purpose of I-2066 was protecting Washingtonians’ access to natural gas, and that the initiative’s various provisions were rationally connected to that goal.
- The court did not rule on every constitutional challenge raised against the initiative, leaving some questions unresolved.
- The decision highlights the ongoing tension between voter initiatives and constitutional requirements, particularly in the context of environmental and energy policy.
- Initiative 2066 would have rolled back changes to the state energy code that give builders permitting incentives for installing electric heat pumps instead of natural gas furnaces, and repealed portions of a 2024 state law designed to accelerate Puget Sound Energy’s transition away from natural gas.
What's still developing
- Mungia wrote that Washington courts are required to presume initiatives are constitutional and interpret them in a way that preserves their validity when possible.
- Mungia ultimately wrote that courts should not strike down an initiative based simply on incidental effects or policy changes.
- “I think that the court has really stepped into the legislative process and changed it,” Lane told The Washington State Standard.
- Lane told The Washington State Standard his group considered how the initiative aligned with past rulings on the single-subject rule by the Supreme Court and that he felt their measure addressed consumers’ protections broadly — along with their choice to use natural gas.
- In one, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an order issued by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, left in place a Missouri Supreme Court ruling from last week that said the map could not be used while a ballot initiative that could lead to voters rejecting the newly drawn district lines moves forward.
- The Missouri Supreme Court found that Hoskins should not have rejected the plan, unanimously concluding there is nothing in state law that says redistricting plans are exempt from the referendum process.
- The referendum petition was “legal, sufficient and timely,” the court found.
- The court also said any confusion caused by its ruling was a result of Hoskins’ delay in deciding whether the referendum could move forward.
- The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in a redistricting case from North Carolina in 2023.
- Hoskins’ lawyers told the justices that the state court ruling had created chaos because the new map was used in this year’s primary election.