Arthur West, Appellant V. Rob Mckenna, Et Al., Respondents (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIL'. . LD OUPT OF APP AL S OIV! IOP4IT S 2013 APR 30 AH 0: 30 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF W DIVISION II No. 421 ARTHUR WEST, Appellant, V. ROB McKENNA, STATE OF WASHINGTON; TIM EYMAN; UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SPENDING, J WORSWICK, C. . Arthur West filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate I 1053, an initiative measure requiring a two thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. The trial court dismissed the action after ruling that West lacked standing and that the action was not justiciable. West appeals, arguing that ( ) has standing to sue and (2) 1 he alternatively, the issues raised in this action warrant an advisory opinion. We stayed West's appeal pending our Supreme Court's decision in League of Education Voters v. 2 3 State, _ Wn. d ,295 P. d 743 (2013).Our Supreme Court's decision in League ofEducation Voters renders West's case moot. FACTS In the 2010 election, the voters approved an initiative measure known as I 1053. LAWS - OF 2011, ch. 1. I 1053 renewed a statutory requirement that any legislative act raising taxes must - No. 42125 9 II - - pass each house of the legislature with a two thirds supermajority. LAWS of 2 2011, ch. 1, § codified at former RCW 43. 35.2011)). 034 ( 1 After the initiative measure took effect,Arthur West filed a complaint seeking a declaration that 1 1053 violates the Washington Constitution. On March 3,2011, West filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 4,2011, the State filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West's declaratory judgment action failed to present a justiciable controversy and that West lacked standing. At the State's request, the trial court issued an order scheduling a hearing on the State's motion before a subsequent hearing on West's motion. The trial court granted the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case on April 15, 2011. West appeals. In a separate declaratory judgment action filed in July 2011, a group of education policy advocates and individuals, including twelve state legislators, challenged I- s supermajority 1053' requirement. League of Educ. Voters, 295 P. d at 746, ¶7. 3 Like West,the group alleged that I- s supermajority requirement violates Washington's constitutional requirement that all 1053' legislative acts must receive a majority vote in each house. League ofEduc. Voters, 295 P. d at 3 745, ¶¶1 -2. The superior court granted summary judgment to the group, ruling that I- s 1053' supermajority requirement violated Washington's Constitution. League ofEduc. Voters, 295 1 In 2012, the voters renewed this requirement again and amended RCW 43. 35.but the 034, 1 amendment does not affect this analysis. LAWS OF . NA 2013, ch. 1, § (effective Dec. 6,2012). 2 No. 42125 9 II - - P. d at 747, ¶8. 3 case. The State then sought direct review in our Supreme Court, which accepted the League of Educ. Voters, 295 P. d at 747, ¶9. 3 We stayed West's appeal pending our Supreme Court's decision in League ofEducation Voters. Order Staying Appeal, West v. McKenna, No.42125 9 II Wn.App. Jan. 29, 2013).On - - ( February 28,2013, our Supreme Court filed its decision in that case. League ofEduc. Voters, 295 P. d 743. The decision held that ( ) group's challenge to I- s supermajority 3 1 the 1053' requirement was justiciable and ( ) supermajority requirement violates Washington's 2 the Constitution. League of Educ. Voters, 295 2. P. d at 745 46, ¶ 3 - Our Supreme Court issued a mandate on March 26,2013. On March 29 we lifted our stay. Order Lifting Stay, West v. McKenna, No.42125 9 II Wn.App. Mar. 29, 2013).We now - - ( dismiss West's appeal as moot. DISCUSSION A case is moot if it involves only purely academic or abstract propositions, if the substantial questions presented to the trial court have ceased to exist, or if a court cannot provide effective relief. 2 1 3 Spokane Research & Def.Fund v.City ofSpokane; 155 Wn. d 89, 99, 17 P. d 1117 (2005); State v. Turner, 98 Wn. d 731, 733, 658 P. d 658 (1983).Here,the substantial 2 2 question presented to the trial court has ceased to exist. West's complaint presented only one substantial question: whether I- s supermajority requirement is invalid because it violates 1053' the Washington Constitution. In League ofEducation Voters, our Supreme Court answered that question 3 in the affirmative. 295 P. d at 745 46, 2. ¶ Thus, even if West were to prevail on the issues raised in this appeal, West's complaint would present no substantial questions to the trial court. Accordingly,this case is moot. See Spokane Research, 155 Wn. d at 99. 2 3 No. 42125 9 II - - We must dismiss a moot appeal, unless it presents an issue of continuing and substantial public interest. West v. Reed, 170 Wn. d 680, 682, 246 P. d 548 (2010).No issue of continuing 2 3 and substantial interest is presented here. Therefore we dismiss West's appeal. Worswick, C. We concur: M
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
