OLYMPIA—Washington State Supreme Court justices unanimously rejected two cases on Friday, August 9, by progressive groups—Defend Washington and Washington Conservation Action Education Fund—against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs that aimed to invalidate all seven citizen-initiated initiatives of which three were passed by the legislature into law earlier this year in March, and four to be voted on by residents this November.

Let’s Go Washington, a conservative advocacy group founded by Redmond businessman Brian Heywood, turned in a total of 2,662,310 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office between late November through December 28, in 2023, to qualify six landmark initiatives for the legislature to consider.

“Defend Washington and Washington Conservation Education Action Fund, funded by Nick Hanauer, the SEIU and WEA, are afraid of Washington State voters,” Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood provided in a statement. “Their latest move is a blatant attempt to silence the 1.2 million [unique] voters who said they want choice on the ballot this November. Hanauer and friends are afraid if the voters have a chance to vote this November, it would disrupt the special interest profiteering pipeline they have created… Vote Yes, Pay Less, and let’s fix what’s broken.” 

Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), sponsors of Initiative 2066 to protect natural gas as an energy choice that will be on the ballot this November released the following statement on the ruling.

“These frivolous attempts to keep the voters from having a voice when it comes to energy choice are undemocratic and nothing short of voter suppression,” said Greg Lane, Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Washington.

He added, “We’re pleased the over half a million people who signed our petition to stop gas bans in Washington will have the opportunity to vote on this in November.”

The other three initiatives being considered by voters this fall include initiative 2109, which would repeal Capital Gains Tax, initiative 2124, opting out of long-term care coverage, and initiative 2117 dealing with a so called “hidden gas tax,” prohibiting state agencies from imposing any type of carbon tax credit trading, including “cap and trade” or “cap and tax” programs, regardless of whether the resulting increased costs are imposed on fuel recipients or fuel suppliers.

The case brought by Defend Washington, No. 102996-9, “challenged the certification of signatures” in accordance with RCW 29A.72.240 by the Secretary of States Office led by Steve Hobbs. The signatures in question were those submitted by Let’s Go Washington.

“At issue in the appeal is whether the secretary permissibly certified the signatures on the sole basis that the signatures matched those found in the voter rolls,” Chief Justice Steven C. González wrote. “Petitioners also move for expedited consideration or for an injunction against certifying the initiatives for placement on the ballot.”

The Justices unanimously ruled that “In verifying the signatures on the initiative petitions, the secretary of state complied with the requirements of RCW 29A.72.230 and applicable regulations, consistent with article II, section 1(a) of the Washington Constitution.”

Heywood and his team were blindsided by the case on Friday which the Secretary of State and Attorney General offices knew about for months as they defended these in lower courts, political commentator Brandi Kruse announced on an impromptu podcast late Friday evening.

Heywood alleges that no one from both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General offices contacted him nor the advocacy group’s attorney.

“Nick Hanauer and his rich cronies at Defend Washington teamed up with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer who funded No on 2117 to try to execute a secretive attempt to invalidate the initiative process,” Heywood told Kruse in a statement. “The Supreme Court rules unanimously against them exposing the anti-democratic tactics of these two groups. We will fight at the ballot boxes where the citizens’ voices will be heard.”

Let’s Go Washington and team found out about the case when Washington State Standard reporter Jerry Cornfield contacted Heywood on Friday for a statement just hours before the hearing. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp dismissed Defend Washington’s claims in April which they appealed leading to Friday’s ruling in the Supreme Court.

“While we continue to have concerns, we accept the court’s decision today that the Secretary of State’s processes conform to current Washington law,” a statement provided to Washington State Standard from Defend Washington reads. “Still, we urge elected leaders in Olympia to consider the issues we brought to light in our suit, and revise validation procedures accordingly.”

The second case brought by the Washington Conservation Action Education Fund, No. 103260-9, were demanding that the court order “Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to cease counting signatures for ballot initiative 2066 using present signature verification procedures” alleging that his office failed due diligence in its process.

“Principally at issue is whether the secretary’s verification based solely on matching petition signatures to signatures found in the voter rolls is insufficient, and whether the secretary must also verify signers’ addresses,” Chief Justice González wrote.

The Washington Conservation Action Education Fund also sought “an injunction against certifying the initiatives for placement on the ballot without verifying addresses and for accelerated review.”

Initiative 2066 is sponsored by the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW).

The Justices unanimously ruled to dismiss the case and Chief Justice González wrote in the ruling that “the relief the petitioners seek must be sought in superior court under RCW 29A.72.240, the more specific statute applicable to signature challenges, not in this court under RCW 29A.68.013.”

For both cases, the plaintiffs’ motions for an injunction were denied on Friday and Justice Owens was not present for the ruling.

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, alleges that Steve Hobbs and Bob Ferguson were complicit in disenfranchising millions of voters.

“At no point does the attorney [AG Bob Ferguson] and the person subject to that suit [SOS Steve Hobbs] notified the individuals who backed these initiatives [Let’s Go Washington] to get assistance in defending this suit,” Kirk said in his podcast late Friday evening.

“I can assure you that if any other attorney general had been in that spot, and absolutely and positively wanted to make sure the will of the Washington voter was properly defended, they would have got Let’s Go Washington involved in it,” Kirk added.

Kirk’s sentiment was echoed by Jackson Maynard, executive director and counsel of the Citizen Action Defense Fund, in a statement to The Center Square.

“In 22 years of legal practice, I’ve never seen a case progress this far without all necessary parties being before the court or at least being given the courtesy of a phone call about litigation as important as this,” he told The Center Square. “Participation in the initiative process is a fundamental right, and the idea that the state Supreme Court with the stroke of a pen could’ve eliminated the voices of the millions who signed the petitions in this case without even hearing from all impacted parties is really troubling.”

Response from Attorney General’s Office to Lynnwood Times Questions

Brionna Aho, Communications Director at the Washington State Attorney General’s Office clarified that their role in the Washington State Supreme Court case of DEFEND WASHINGTON v. SECRETARY OF STATE STEVE HOBBS “was as legal counsel to the defendant, the Secretary of State’s Office.”

Aho shared that “generally, the party bringing the motion [Defend Washington] has the responsibility to notify the relevant parties [Let’s Go Washington]” which the official case’s response by Secretary Hobbs clearly argued.

“Because Defend Washington failed to provide reasonable notice of its requests to affected persons (such as the sponsor of the initiatives), this Court should decline to consider Defend Washington’s emergency motion,” stated in the Introduction to the response.

The AG’s Office, representing Hobbs, argued that court rules require petitioners to take reasonable steps to “give notice to persons who would be affected by the ruling sought.”

“The only notice Defend Washington identifies is an email sent to the Secretary’s counsel 20 minutes before filing the motion,” attorneys representing the Secretary of State’s Office wrote in its first of three arguments requesting that the Supreme Court reject Defend Washington’s request for an expedited injunction. “Defend Washington could obviously have provided earlier notice. Further, the Secretary is not the only person who ‘would be affected by the ruling sought[.]’ RAP 17.4(b). The injunction would affect voters throughout the state. At a minimum, reasonable notice should require notice to the sponsor of the initiatives that the injunctive relief would exclude from the ballot.”

Aho in her statement to the Lynnwood Times wrote that the AG’s Office successfully argued that the signatures are valid, and that the initiatives should remain on the ballot.

“Let’s Go Washington’s press release is misleading and frankly absurd,” Aho wrote. “Our office successfully defended voters’ right to make to their voices heard at the ballot box.”

From its 27-page response to Defend Washington’s appeal, the AG’s Office successfully argued the following positions to the Supreme Court:

1. That the Court decline Defend Washington’s request for injunctive relief because it is not in compliance with Section 17.4 of Washington State Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) – specifically sections (a) and (b). These sections define the conditions for notification and expedition of motions.
2. Due to Defend Washington’s delays, there is not sufficient time for “courts from granting effective relief” as the August 23 federal and state ballot-mailing deadlines approach.
3. Nothing in Washington’s Constitution nor the canvassing statute says anything about verifying voters’ registration addresses as Defend Washington suggests “in direct conflict with well-settled rules of statutory interpretation that courts ‘must not add words [to a statute] where the legislature has chosen not to include them.’”

The state further argued that Defend Washington “has unclean hands” and that part of its “litigation strategy” were to create its own “emergency” by delaying the case which would be used in the future by nefarious actors to seek injunctions to “effectively defeat an initiative without having to prove the merits of its challenge.”

“Defend Washington, however, did nothing to expedite its case before the superior court and only belatedly sought to expedite its appeal after the parties completed briefing under an ordinary schedule,” the AG’s Office wrote.

Defend Washington filed its notice of appeal with the Washington State Supreme Count on July 11, almost three months after the Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp dismissed the case on April 17, 2024.

“An injunction would also interfere with the people’s exercise of the constitutional power to legislate by initiative… Under the proposed injunctive relief, an election on Initiatives 2109, 2117, and 2124 would be postponed until the 2025 general election,” the state further argued winning the case.

Response from Secretary of State’s Office to Lynnwood Times Questions

Derrick Nunnally, Deputy Director of External Affairs provided the following response to the Lynnwood Times’ question of why the agency did not notify Let’s Go Washington of the Washington State Supreme Court case of DEFEND WASHINGTON v. SECRETARY OF STATE STEVE HOBBS:

“The Office of the Secretary of State fulfilled all obligations in defending its signature review process in this public court proceeding, and remains confident the process stands on solid legal ground.”

EDITOR’S NOTE:

• Article updated 12:08 p.m., August 12, 2024, with the Secretary of State’s Office response.
• Article updated 3:52 p.m., August 10, 2024, with the AG’s Office response.