(The Center Square) – A Washington state appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could impact the Climate Commitment Act and taxpayers.
The case was originally filed in July 2023 by a private citizen and Oak Harbor Freight Lines in Thurston County Superior Court against a state transportation revenue bill passed in 2022. The plaintiffs argued the $17 billion transportation package in the form of Senate Bill 5974 violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement.
Under Article 2 Section 19, the state constitution stipulates that “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
In Sept. 2023 a Thurston County Superior Court judge upheld the 2022 law, citing prior court rulings that set precedent for the constitutional provision in which it should be “liberally construed in favor of the legislation.”
Plaintiffs had asked that the Washington Supreme Court hear the appeal.
On Tuesday the plaintiffs, represented by the Citizen Action Defense Fund, argued an appeal of that ruling before three members of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II, in Tacoma.
“The acts vague title related to transportation resources does not give adequate notice to the public or legislators who were voting on it,” CADF attorney Callie Castillo argued.
Castillo was quickly interrupted by one of the judges who noted that if all of the issues in the bill are related to transportation, then it may be considered single-issue legislation and thus does not violation the state constitution.
Castillo said the bill is related to transportation, but also includes fiscal impacts on things unrelated to transportation per se.
“This act both increases driver’s license fees as well as license plate fees, while also changing the structure of local tax jurisdictions to gain more revenue,” she argued. “This Legislature overreached its constitutional authority in combining all these myriad provisions in what is actually a classic case of logrolling.”
“Logrolling” refers to the trading of favors, or quid pro quo, such as vote trading by lawmakers to obtain passage of actions of interest to each legislative member.
Alicia Young, deputy solicitor general for the Attorney General’s Office, argued in defense of the legislation.
“The Legislature enacted SB 5974 for a single purpose, to facilitate Washington’s multi-billion dollar, multi modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation system,” Young in her opening statement.
Acting Chief Judge Bernard F. Veljacic interrupted her with a question almost immediately based on briefs filed with the court ahead of Tuesday’s arguments.
“It seems your position implies that a law that is unconstitutional can suddenly become constitutional just because programs created by that law are underway?” asked Veljacic.
Young responded by saying the goal of the legislation addressed many policy priorities and projects that are underway.
“There’s nothing wrong with a piece of legislation that advances multiple policy goals, so long as it’s done for a singular purpose,” Young explained. “No one was misled about the breadth of the bill.”
The arguments concluded with no ruling from the bench.
Just after the hearing concluded, CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard told The Center Square he believes precedent favors his side.
“I think the court has a problem here in that there is a pretty extensive line of cases going back several years in which the state Supreme Court has struck down transportation-related legislation that had exactly some of the same problems that are present in this case,” he said.
He added, “We call this one the Christmas tree bill because everybody got to put something on it. This was the junk drawer of legislation where everything gets thrown in and all of it is unrelated and that’s why it violated the constitution.”
Maynard spoke to the potential impact on the 2021 CCA, which established the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“If this legislation is void because the Legislature acted unconstitutionally in passing it, then there is no rule making authority for the Climate Commitment Act,” he said. “Arguably that should go away.”
Maynard also speculated driver’s license fees would go down and the ban on new gas-powered automobiles sold in Washington after 2030, which is spelled out in the legislation, would be void if the appeals court rules against the SB 5974.
