My 12 Questions and Legal Essay Sent to the Prosecuting Attorneys Office

 Honorable Prosecuting Attorneys;

     My name is Bradley Branham, and I currently serve on the committee responsible for preparing the opposition statement for Amendment 25 (formerly 26‑08), concerning supermajority taxation.

     During the Clark County Council’s council time meeting on June 17, 2026, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Smith and Councilor Little discussed the availability of legal information related to potential Clark County Charter amendments appearing on the upcoming ballot. In that discussion, CDPA Smith stated that voters could “sleuth it out.”

     In that spirit, I am interested in all public information you can provide me concerning the legal analysis of Amendment 25  ( formerly 26-08). My focused questions:

1. What is the legal basis for the Clark County Council’s taxing authority under RCW 36.32.120(4), and how does that authority apply to a home‑rule charter county?
2. Does a county charter amendment have the legal capacity to modify, condition, or restrict the taxing authority granted to the county legislative authority by state statute?
3. Under Washington law, is the taxing authority in RCW 36.32.120(4) vested in the legislative body as a whole, or may it be reassigned or re‑weighted through a charter provision?

4. Does Article XI, Section 4 of the Washington Constitution permit a charter county to adopt a provision that effectively reallocates or limits statutory taxing authority to less than a majority of the county legislative body?
5. Would a charter amendment requiring a supermajority vote for taxation constitute an impermissible interference with powers granted by state law?

6. Is there any legal precedent in Washington allowing a minority of a county legislative authority to exercise veto‑like control over taxation or other statutory powers?

7. Would a supermajority requirement for taxation create a “minority veto,” and if so, has Washington case law addressed whether such a structure is permissible under county home‑rule authority?

8. Are there Washington Supreme Court decisions, Court of Appeals decisions, or Attorney General Opinions that address whether charter counties may impose supermajority requirements on statutory powers such as taxation?
9. Has any Washington court ruled on whether county charters may alter the voting thresholds for powers explicitly granted by statute to the county legislative authority?

10. Has the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office conducted a legal analysis of Amendment 25 (formerly 26‑08) regarding its consistency with state law and constitutional limits on charter authority?
11. If such an analysis exists, does it conclude that Amendment 25 is legally permissible, legally questionable, or legally invalid under Washington law?
12. Has the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office identified any litigation risk or potential for judicial challenge if Amendment 25 is adopted?

 Respectfully submitted,

Bradley Branham

My Quasi Legal Essay

---

I. INTRODUCTION & PRIMARY TAKEAWAY

    The primary issue in this matter is whether a home rule county charter can force a local county council to achieve a supermajority vote to pass or increase local taxes. A county charter cannot impose a supermajority requirement for taxation because a charter cannot alter the state's bedrock constitutional structure of simple majority rule, meaning such restrictions create an unauthorized "tyranny of the minority". Under Washington law, a county charter is a tool for internal administrative organization under Article XI, Section 4 of the Washington Constitution. It cannot be used to rewrite general legislative processes or restrict the delegated taxing powers granted to the county council by the State Legislature through the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Because the state constitution frames legislative action around simple majority voting, a local charter provision creating a supermajority hurdle is an ultra vires act that is unconstitutional and void.

---

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Does a county home rule charter have the constitutional authority to change the voting threshold of a local legislative body from a simple majority to a supermajority for tax legislation?
2. Does the state supreme court’s binding rejection of legislative supermajority mandates in League of Education Voters v. State apply equally to county legislative branches?
3. Does a charter-enacted supermajority requirement create an unlawful "tyranny of the minority" that subverts democratic governance?

---

III. CASE LAW COMPARSION & LEGAL PRECEDENT

To evaluate the constitutionality of the charter's tax restriction, the court must review how Washington state courts treat supermajority mandates and local tax restrictions:

Precedent Case	Legal Finding	Rule of Law Applied to This Dispute
League of Education Voters v. State, 176 Wash. 2d 808 (2013)	Struck down voter-enacted supermajority mandates for state tax increases.	Restricting a legislative body via a supermajority rule unconstitutionally enables a "tyranny of the minority".
King County v. City of Algona, 101 Wash. 2d 789 (1984)	Ruled that municipalities have zero inherent power to alter or create tax mechanisms.	Local tax powers are strictly governed by the RCW, not by local charter modifications or structural hurdles.

---

IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. The "Tyranny of the Minority" Principle Invalidates Supermajority Hurdles

    The charter provision at issue requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of the County Council to pass any revenue-generating measure. This structural roadblock mirrors the exact constitutional violation struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court in League of Education Voters v. State, 176 Wash. 2d 808, 295 P.3d 728 (2013).

    Writing for the landmark 6–3 majority, Justice Susan Owens held that forcing a legislative body to secure a supermajority to pass tax legislation fundamentally alters the traditional system of republican government. The court explicitly warned that such a rule:

"...substantially alters our system of government, thus enabling a tyranny of the minority."

    When a charter allows a mere 34% minority of a county council to block tax ordinances, it strips the majority of its ability to govern. The League of Education Voters precedent establishes that under the Washington Constitution, legislative decisions are intended to be made by a simple majority vote unless the constitution explicitly states otherwise. A local county charter cannot override this foundational principle.

B. County Charters Cannot Limit What the State Legislature Has Delegated Via the RCW

    A home rule county charter is subordinate to the general laws of the state. Under Article XI, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution, the state legislature holds the exclusive power to vest taxing authority in counties through the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).

    The state legislature has delegated specific taxing powers to county legislative authorities through statutes such as RCW 82.14.030 (sales taxes) and RCW 84.52.043 (property taxes). In these statutes, the legislature vests the power to tax in the "county legislative authority" (the county council).

    Under Dillon's Rule, a county charter cannot step in and alter, diminish, or hamstring the powers that the state legislature has explicitly delegated. By forcing a supermajority vote, the charter places a structural restriction on the council that the RCW does not authorize. As established in King County v. City of Algona, local governments cannot modify tax administration rules independently; they must follow the exact statutory delegation carved out by the state.

C. Structural Autonomy Does Not Extend to Restricting Statutory Tax Capabilities

 

    Washington Policy Center argues that Article XI, Section 4 authorizes a charter county to draft a constitution "for its own government," thereby permitting it to set its own internal voting rules. This argument conflates internal structural administration with substantive legislative authority. Unfortunately, it has guided many Washington jurisdictions to operate in a constitutional grey area.

    While a charter can decide how many council members exist or how districts are drawn, it cannot alter the fundamental nature of legislative power. It is not a sovereign county independent of the state. Passing a tax is an exercise of state sovereign power delegated down to the local council. Because it is a delegated state power, the process must mirror the simple-majority democratic framework of the state. A county charter cannot handcuff its own legislative branch and create a minority veto over fiscal matters.

---

V. CONCLUSION

    A home rule county charter cannot restructure the democratic process to give a minority faction veto power over local revenue decisions. Under the binding rule of League of Education Voters v. State, supermajority requirements for tax legislation unconstitutionally establish a "tyranny of the minority". Because the county council's taxing authority is derived strictly from the state legislature via the RCW, it cannot be constrained by restrictive charter amendments. I respectfully request that this Court declare the charter’s supermajority tax provision unconstitutional and void.

Respectfully submitted,

Bradley Branham