Wash. Ass'n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State (Concurrence/Dissent)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Wash. Ass n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State No. 87188-4 CHAMBERS, J. (concurring in part and concurring in dissent in part) I join the dissenting opinion in part. Initiative Measure 1183 violates the subject-intitle rule of article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution because a reference to license fees based on sales in the initiative title is insufficient to alert voters to the fact that the bill contains a new tax. I write separately because I also agree with the majority that there is a rational unity between liquor regulation and public safety and that the appellants other arguments asserting a violation of article II, section 19 s single-subject rule are meritless. But the violation of the subject-intitle rule is sufficient to invalidate the initiative, and I concur with the dissent s ultimate disposition that the initiative is unconstitutional. Wash. Ass n for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State, No. 87188-4 AUTHOR: Justice Tom Chambers WE CONCUR:

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.