Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Full Text
1,792 charsof an initiative we recently upheld in Washington Ass 'nfor Substance Abuse &
Violence Prevention. 174 Wn.2d at 665. The ballot title in that case indicated:
"Initiative Measure No. 1183 concerns liquor: beer, wine, and spirits
(hard liquor).
"This measure would close state liquor stores and sell their assets;
license private parties to sell and distribute spirits; set license fees based
on sales; regulate licensees; and change regulation of wine distribution.
"Should this measure be enacted into law?"
Id. at 647 (quoting State ofWashington Voters' Pamphlet, General Election 19 (Nov.
8, 2011)). In addition to these specific provisions, the measure earmarked a portion of
revenue raised from liquor license fees for the funding of public safety programs,
including police, fire, and emergency services. !d. at 650. Like the structure of
8
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9
Proposition 1, Initiative Measure No. 1183 indicated a general topic and then listed
some but not all of its substantive measures. Despite these more specific details, we
found the title was general, pertaining "to the broad subject of liquor." !d. at 655.
And, although the public safety earmark's connection with the measure's liquor
privatization provisions was arguably tenuous, we found the earmark to be germane to
liquor privatization given the enforcement burdens the measure places on local
governments, and given the legislature's past recognition of the relationship between
liquor regulation and public welfare. !d. at 657-58.
We similarly find that Proposition 1 satisfies the single-subject rule. Although
the title lists various provisions, it also states that Proposition 1 generally "concerns