City of Seattle v. McKenna (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
City of Seattle v. McKenna Concurrence by Alexander, J. No. 84483-6 ALEXANDER, J. (concurring) I agree with the majority that the attorney general has statutory authority to challenge the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal health-care statute on behalf of the State of Washington. I also acquiesce in the majority s decision to assume, without deciding, that the city of Seattle has standing to pursue the present action. Majority at 4. I write separately simply to express my view that if we had addressed the standing issue, I am doubtful that Seattle could have established standing to maintain this action under any of the four doctrines that could have provided it with authority to bring this suit: traditional, representational, liberalized, or taxpayer. Seattle s assertion that it has taxpayer standing is a particular stretch. I say that because in order to bring a taxpayer suit, the complaint must allege both a taxpayer s cause of action and facts supporting taxpayer status. Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 132 Wn.2d 267, 299, 937 P.2d 1082 (1997) (Sanders, J., dissenting) (quoting Dick Enters., Inc. v. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572-73, 922 P.2d 184 (1996)). Seattle has not pleaded taxpayer status here nor can any support for such standing be found in any submitted No. 84483-6 documents. Furthermore, it is questionable if a municipal corporation, like Seattle, can claim taxpayer status.1 Even if it can claim such status, Seattle concedes that it failed to make a demand on Attorney General McKenna to cease participation in the healthcare litigation before it brought suit against him. Such a demand is a condition precedent to the maintenance of a taxpayer s suite. Reiter v. Wallgren, 28 Wn.2d 872, 184 P.2d 571 (1947). While Seattle asserts that such a demand would have been a useless gesture, I doubt that we would have indulged a presumption that the attorney general would not give appropriate consideration to such a demand if it had been properly made. 1 Seattle contends that we can take judicial notice that the city is a taxpayer under WAC 458-20-189. This regulation discusses the business and occupation (B&O), retail sales, use, and public utility tax applications to sales made to and by the state of Washington, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and fire districts. WAC 458-20-189(1). 2 No. 84483-6 AUTHOR: Justice Gerry L. Alexander WE CONCUR: Justice James M. Johnson 3
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.
