Plenty of questions remain about last Friday’s Washington Supreme Court rulings on two lawsuits related to voter initiatives set for placement on the general election ballot in November.
The shock came from backers of the initiatives, who had no idea the legal challenges existed until hours before the rulings.
“We were two hours away from having all four initiatives thrown out,” said Brian Heywood of Let’s Go Washington, the group behind repealing the state’s capital gains tax (I-2109), ending the state’s cap-and-trade program and repealing sections of the Climate Commitment Act (I-2117), and making participation in WA Cares, the long-term care program run by the state optional (I-2124).
In two separate cases, the groups sued Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs challenging the process of certifying the signatures.
“This group of phony organizations bringing the challenges claimed that Hobbs made mistakes in reviewing the signatures that qualified the four initiatives,” said Washington GOP Chair Rep. Jim Walsh of Aberdeen.
Defend Washington and Washington Conservation Action Education Fund, which filed the suits, oppose the measures.
Walsh, who sponsored the initiatives, and other parties affiliated with the campaigns argue they should have been notified of the legal challenges, which began back in January, 2024.
“None of us who are parties of interest heard anything at any point,” Walsh told The Center Square.
Walsh concedes there was no legal obligation to notify the parties involved, but suggests it would have been the right thing to do.
“Normally the state AG’s office would notify me as the sponsor or Let’s Go Washington or any of the groups involved about this lawsuit brought by Defend Washington, which is really a couple of powerful political interest groups," said Walsh.
The Center Square did reach out to Defend Washington but received no response in time for publication.
The office of Attorney General Bob Ferguson also declined to respond.
Walsh suggested that the reason Ferguson’s office did not send out any press releases about the legal challenges is because the very people bringing the lawsuits have contributed to his campaign.
“Why was this so furtive and secretive?” asked Walsh. “I say it’s because the big money behind this comes from big supporters of the attorney general.”
“He had to defend Steve Hobbs, but it’s also his friends suing Steve Hobbs, so it was not a situation that the attorney general wanted a lot of attention put on,” said Walsh.
Greg Lane, Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Washington, backing I-2066 to protect energy choice tells The Center Square, he did get a little bit more notice than others involved.
“Secretary Hobbs called me the week before to give me a heads up that it was coming,” said Lane. “2066 was added much later to the mix at the very end, and Hobbs did call me.”
Lane explained he has known Hobbs for a long time, as Lane used to work in the Secretary of State’s office as deputy secretary of state.
“My frustration is with the folks who filed the challenge, doing everything they can to keep voters from having a say on these initiatives because they know they are popular,” said Lane.
“People in Washington clearly support them,” said Lane. “It’s an example of voter suppression.”
Christina Wong, Vice President of Programs for Washington Conservation Action, the group behind the challenge to I-2066 responded via email to a request for comment from The Center Square.
“While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we appreciate their resolving the substantive questions raised and accept their decision that the Secretary of State’s signature verification process conforms with current Washington law. We encourage elected leaders in Olympia to consider the issues brought forward in our suit,” read Wong’s email.
As previously reported by The Center Square, Jackson Maynard, executive director and counsel of the Citizen Action Defense fund, called the developments in the case, “really troubling.”
“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 said.
As Walsh puts it, “Nothing illegal, but certainly the appearance of ethics are called into question here, all the way around.”
