STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Defendants, through undersigned counsel, admit, deny, and allege as follows with

Transcription

1 HONORABLE BRUCE HELLER LEAGUE OF EDUCATION VOTERS, et al. v. STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiffs, STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. Defendants. NO SEA Defendants, through undersigned counsel, admit, deny, and allege as follows with regard to Plaintiffs Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint). I. INTRODUCTION 1. Part I of the Complaint sets forth plaintiffs characterization of this action and legal argument, and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations in Part I are denied. II. PARTIES. Defendants admit that the voters approved Initiative in 000, and admit that the Legislature passed HB in 00, HB in 0, and HB 1 in 0. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining factual allegations in paragraph. Paragraph sets forth legal characterizations requiring no answer. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations are denied. 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

2 Defendants admit that the voters approved Initiative in 000. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining factual allegations in paragraph. Paragraph sets forth legal characterizations requiring no answer. To the extent an answer is required, they are denied.. Defendants admit that Laurie Jinkins is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit David Frockt is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit that Jamie Pedersen is a Washington State Representative for the rd Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit that Robert Utter is a former Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph.. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph.. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit that Reuven Carlyle is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

3 Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph Defendants admit that Deb Eddy is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph Defendants admit that Sam Hunt is a Washington State Representative for the nd Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph Defendants admit that Jim Moeller is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph Defendants admit that Timm Ormsby is a Washington State Representative for the rd Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph. 0. Defendants admit that Eric Pettigrew is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph 0.. Defendants admit that Chris Reykdal is a Washington State Representative for the nd Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

4 . Defendants admit that Cindy Ryu is a Washington State Representative for the nd Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit that Mike Sells is a Washington State Representative for the th Legislative District. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph.. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit that plaintiffs named the State of Washington and Christine Gregoire, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington, as defendants. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Defendants admit paragraph.. Defendants admit that under RCW..0, a suit against the State may be brought in the county of residence or principal place of business of one or more plaintiffs. Defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining allegations of paragraph. 1 IV. STANDING 1 1. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal characterizations and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations of paragraph are denied. Defendants admit that plaintiffs include persons who are Washington State 0 Representatives, and deny, for lack of information as to truth, the remaining factual allegations of Paragraph.. Defendants admit that plaintiffs made a demand upon the Attorney General to investigate and initiate legal proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of RCW.1.0, that the Attorney General declined the demand, and that a copy of the demand and the Attorney General s response are Exhibits 1 and, respectively, to the Complaint. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

5 Paragraph 0 sets forth plaintiffs legal argument and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations of paragraph 0 are denied. 1. Paragraph 1 sets forth plaintiffs legal arguments and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations of paragraph 1 are denied. Defendants admit: that in 00, the House of Representatives voted on Second Substitute House Bill 0, it received yea votes, and it was not passed out of the House; that in 0, the House of Representatives voted on Substitute Senate Bill, it received yea votes, and it was passed out of the House; that in 00, the Senate voted on Senate Bill 1, it received yea votes, and it was not passed out of the Senate; and that in 0, the House of Representatives voted on Substitute House Bill 0, it received yea votes, and it was not passed out of the House. Defendants deny the remaining factual allegations of paragraph 1 for lack of information as to truth.. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal arguments and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph are denied.. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal arguments and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations of paragraph are denied. Defendants admit that Chris Reykdal is a State Representative, and deny the remaining factual allegations of paragraph for lack of information as to truth.. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph. V. FACTS. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal arguments and legal theories and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

6 Defendants admit that Initiative 01 was approved by Washington voters in November, further answer that the language of Initiative 01 speaks for itself, and otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph.. Defendants admit paragraph.. Defendants admit that Initiative 0 was approved by Washington voters in November 00, and further answer that excerpted language of Laws of 00, ch.1 is accurately quoted.. Defendants admit that Initiative was approved by Washington voters in November 0, and further answer that the language of Initiative speaks for itself. Defendants admit that Exhibit to the Complaint appears to be a copy of proposed I- bearing a Secretary of State date stamp of January, 0, and otherwise deny for lack of information as to truth the allegations of paragraph concerning Exhibit.. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal characterizations of I- and I-0 and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. Defendants further answer that the terms of Initiative 0 and Initiative speak for themselves. 0. Paragraph 0 sets forth plaintiffs legal characterizations of I- and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. Defendants further answer that Initiative speaks for itself. 1. Defendants admit that the Legislature amended RCW.1.0 in the 0 legislative session as set forth in Laws of 0, chapter, and that I-, approved by the voters, is set forth in Laws of 0, chapter 1. Paragraph 1 otherwise sets forth plaintiffs legal characterizations and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. Defendants further answer that Initiative speaks for itself. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

7 Paragraph excerpts statutory language from RCW.1.0. Defendants admit that the excerpts are accurately quoted and otherwise answer that the language of the referenced statute speaks for itself.. Paragraph excerpts statutory language from RCW.1.0. Defendants admit that the excerpts are accurately quoted and otherwise answer that the language of the referenced statute speaks for itself.. Paragraph excerpts statutory language from RCW.1.0. Defendants admit that the excerpts are accurately quoted and otherwise answer that the language of the referenced statute speaks for itself.. Defendants admit that Exhibit is a true and correct copy of SHB 0, and that on May, 0, SHB 0 was voted on final passage in the House of Representatives. Paragraph otherwise sets forth plaintiffs legal characterizations with respect to SHB 0 and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, they are denied. Defendants further answer that SHB 0 speaks for itself.. Defendants admit that prior to the House vote on SHB 0, legislators raised points of order with the Speaker of the House. At this time, defendants deny, for lack of information as to truth, that Exhibit is a true and correct transcript of proceedings on the floor of the House upon final passage of SHB 0.. Defendants admit that SHB 0 received votes aye, nay, and excused or not voting, did not receive a two-thirds supermajority in the House, and that the Speaker of the House declared SHB 0 failed. Defendants admit that Exhibit is a true and correct copy of a history of SHB 0, and otherwise deny that Exhibit is its legislative history. Paragraph otherwise contains plaintiffs legal characterizations and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied.. Defendants admit that in 0, proposed Initiatives, 1,,, 1, and 1 were filed with the Secretary of States Office, and further answer that none of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

8 them will appear on the November 0 ballot. Defendants deny the remaining factual allegations in Paragraph for lack of information as to truth. Paragraph otherwise contains plaintiffs legal characterizations with respect to proposed Initiatives, 1,,, 1, and 1, and requires no response. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. VI. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in Paragraphs 1- of the 0. Defendants admit that plaintiffs Complaint challenges the constitutionality of RCW.1.0, and that citations in the Complaint are to RCW.1.0, currently in effect. Defendants deny that RCW.1.0 is unconstitutional. Defendants admit that plaintiffs purport to challenge the provisions of a statute not currently in effect, RCW.1.0, if and when it takes effect. Defendants deny that such a claim properly is before the Court, and deny that RCW.1.0 is unconstitutional. 1. Defendants deny that RCW.1.0 is unconstitutional facially or as applied. A. Article II, Of The Washington Constitution. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in Paragraphs 1-1 of the. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal characterization of Article II, of the Washington Constitution and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, plaintiffs legal characterization is denied. Defendants admit that Article II, is accurately quoted.. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants admit that SHB 0 received a majority vote in the House, and otherwise deny Paragraph. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

9 Defendants admit that constitutional requirements may not be amended by statute or initiative, and otherwise deny paragraph. B. Article II, 1 Of The Washington Constitution. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in Paragraphs 1- of the. Paragraph sets forth plaintiffs legal characterization of Article II, 1 of the Washington Constitution and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, plaintiffs legal characterization is denied. Defendants admit that the portion of Article II, 1 quoted in paragraph is quoted accurately.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied. 0. Paragraph 0 sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph 0 is denied. 1. Defendants deny Paragraph 1.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied. C. Article VII, 1 Of The Washington Constitution. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1- of the. Defendants admit that the portion of Article VII, 1 of the Washington Constitution quoted in paragraph is accurately quoted. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

10 Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied.. Defendants deny paragraph. D. Article XXIII Of The Washington Constitution. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1- of the 0. Defendants admit that paragraph 0 accurately quotes Article XXIII of the Washington Constitution. 1. Defendants admit paragraph 1.. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph. E. Article II, SECTION Of The Washington Constitution. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1- of the. Defendants admit that paragraph accurately quotes Article II, Section of the Washington Constitution.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph is denied.. Paragraph sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, paragraph is denied. Defendants further deny that I- violates Article II, of the Washington Constitution, and deny that a challenge to its predecessors is properly before the court. F. Article I, Of The Washington Constitution ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

11 0. Defendants admit that paragraph 0 accurately quotes Article 1, and Article 1, of the Washington Constitution. 1. Paragraph 1 sets forth legal argument and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph 1 is denied.. Defendants deny paragraph. VII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DEECLARATORY JUDGMENT Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1- of the. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph. VIII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:. Defendants admit that plaintiffs repeat the allegations in Paragraphs 1- of the. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph.. Defendants deny paragraph. 1 IX. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1 0 By way of further answer and affirmative defense, Defendants allege as follows: 1. This action is not justiciable; This action is not ripe;. Plaintiffs lack standing;. This action is barred by the separation of powers doctrine;. This action is barred by the political question doctrine;. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

12 1 X. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Defendants respectfully requests relief as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, and that no relief be granted to plaintiffs;. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. DATED this 1th day of August, 0. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General s/ Maureen Hart MAUREEN HART, WSBA #1 Solicitor General ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00

13 1 1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that on this date I served the foregoing document, via electronic mail per agreement of the parties, upon the following: Paul J. Lawrence Paul.Lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com Matthew J. Segal matthew.segal@pacificalawgroup.com; Gregory J. Wong Greg.Wong@pacificalawgroup.com PACIFICA LAW Group LLP Second Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 1 Signed this 1th day of August, 0 in Olympia, Washington by: s/kristin D. Jensen KRISTIN D. JENSEN Legal Secretary ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Washington Street SE (0) -00