Amendment 25-A Case For Superior Court Preemption
Amendment
25-A Case For Superior Court Preemption
The structural comparison between Pierce
County's inflation-driven model and Clark County's proposed
Amendment 25 points to a looming constitutional question: Can a Home Rule
county enact a local charter provision that alters or overrides standard voting
thresholds set by state law?
To evaluate the durability of Clark
County's proposed amendment, the analysis must incorporate the foundational
jurisprudence of the Washington State Supreme Court regarding local
taxation and charter autonomy.
The Constitutional Conflict: Home Rule vs. Preemption
The Washington Supreme Court has
repeatedly established that while Home Rule charters grant counties immense
structural flexibility under Article XI, Section 4 of the State
Constitution, that flexibility is strictly subordinate to "general
laws" enacted by the Legislature.
When it comes to the power of taxation, the Court operates
under a highly restrictive framework:
- Taxation
is an Exclusive State Power: The Supreme Court has long held that
local governments possess no inherent power to tax. Municipal and county
taxing authority exists only to the extent that it has been
expressly delegated by the State Legislature (see King County v. Algona,
1984).
- The
Field of Property Taxation is Fully Preempted: Through Title 84 RCW,
the state has built an exhaustive, comprehensive statutory scheme for
property taxes. In Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v.
Spokane (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that when the state
Legislature enacts a general law regulating a matter of statewide
concern—such as property tax caps and mechanics—it preempts local charter
provisions.
The Problem of "Altering the Legislative
Threshold"
The key legal vulnerability of
Clark County’s Amendment 25 lies in how the Washington Supreme Court views
local adjustments to voting thresholds.
Under RCW 84.55.010, the
State Legislature has granted county legislative authorities the power to
increase property taxes by 1% via standard local legislative procedures.
Standard legislative procedure across Washington is universally recognized as a
simple majority vote.
In past challenges involving local
initiative limits on taxes, the Washington Supreme Court has struck down local
charter amendments that seek to disrupt or redefine the state-mandated
legislative process. In Vancouver v. Jarvis (1969) and later reinforced
in Whatcom County v. Brisbane (1994), the Court ruled that:
- When a
state statute confers a power or duty directly onto the "governing
body" or "legislative authority" of a county (such as the
power to pass the annual levy increase under RCW 84.55.010), that
power cannot be restricted, modified, or re-engineered by a local charter
amendment.
How the Court Would Likely Analyze Amendment 25
If Amendment 25 passes in November
2026, it is highly likely to face a swift preemption challenge in Superior
Court, eventually making its way to the state high court. The Supreme Court's
judicial inquiry would focus on a singular question: Does a charter-imposed
80% supermajority requirement impermissibly conflict with the state's statutory
delegation of taxing authority?
An analytical breakdown of the arguments reveals two
distinct paths:
- The
Argument Against Amendment 25 (Preemption): Opponents will cite Brisbane
to argue that RCW 84.55.010 explicitly delegates the management of
the property tax levy to the "county legislative authority." By
demanding 4 out of 5 votes instead of a simple majority, the charter is
effectively altering the state-defined mechanics of that legislative authority.
Because RCW 84.55.0101 explicitly delineates exactly when a
supermajority is required (only when the IPD falls below 1%), the state
has already occupied the field regarding tax voting thresholds. Therefore,
a county cannot invent its own absolute supermajority that ignores the
state's inflation-based framework.
- The
Argument For Amendment 25 (The Floor-vs-Ceiling Defense): Proponents
of the amendment would rely on the doctrine that Home Rule counties can
pass local laws that are more restrictive than state law, provided
they do not authorize something the state explicitly forbids. They would
argue that RCW 84.55 establishes a maximum ceiling for tax
increases, but does not strip a county of its organic right under Article
XI, Section 4 to govern its internal voting rules. If a council
chooses to make it harder on itself to raise taxes, it is working within
the spirit of fiscal restraint.
Possible Judicial Conclusion
Based on prevailing Washington
State Supreme Court precedent, Clark County’s Amendment 25 stands on shaky
constitutional ground. The Court has historically looked with intense
skepticism at local charter adjustments that alter the voting thresholds or
legislative pathways established by general state law.
While Pierce County safely operates
within the legal boundaries because its supermajority triggers are explicitly
written into RCW 84.55.0101 by the state legislature, Clark County's
attempt to construct a blanket, inflation-blind 80% supermajority will likely
be viewed by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional local modification of a
statewide statutory mechanism.
