1 SPOKANE.c 2 UNTY 3 4 5 . IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY 8 THE CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal a) ee w. 15203101-0 10 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR ¥ DECLARATORY AND u - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 12| VICKY DALTON, SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR, in her official capacity, 13] ENVISION WORKER RIGHTS POLITICAL COMMITTEE, a Washington political 14] committee as proponent; BRAD READ, an individual, 15 Defendants. 7 INTRODUCTION 18 The City of Spokane (the “City” or “Spokane” brings this complaint for declaratory 19] and injunctive relief against defendants Vicky Dalton as Spokane County Auditor 29|) ('Auditor”), Envision Worker Rights Political Committee (“Envision”), and Brad Read, to 21) Prevent Initiative No. 2015-2, entitled “Worker Bill of Rights,” (the “Initiative”) from being 29) placed on the ballot. The Initiative is outside the scope of the local initiative power and, 23) therefore, improper, The City seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the ‘24 | Initiative from being placed on the November 3, 2015 ballot 25] ‘Complaint - 1 oSraarigeeeul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19) 20 2 22 24 25 argu 1, Plaintiff Spokane is a first class charter city and a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington and does business in Spokane County, Washington, 2, Defendant Vicky Dalton is the Spokane County Auditor. The City names the defendant in her official capacity only because the Auditor is the proper person to enjoin with respect to preventing the unlawful initiative from appearing on the ballot, 3. Defendant Envision is a Washington political committee headquartered in Spokane County, Washington, Envision is the sponsor of Initiative No. 2015-2. 4, Defendant Brad Read is the campaign manager for Envision, On information and belief, he resides in Spokane County and he is only being sued in his capacity as campaign manager. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff Spokane brings this lawsuit under the Washington Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Ch. 7.24 RCW; and the authority of this Court to provide injunetive relief under Chapter 7.40 RCW, 6. Venue is proper in Spokane County pursuant to RCW 4.12.020, Venue is also proper because defendants do business in Spokane County. Factuan :GATIONS 7. On March 17, 2015, pursuant to Spokane Municipal Code (“SMC”) § 2.02.030, Envision filed Initiative 2015-2 with the Office of the City Clerk to amend the City Charter of Spokane (the “Charter”) to add a “Worker Bill of Rights.” A copy of Initiative 2015-2 is attached as Exhibit A 8. The official Ballot Title provides as follows: Shall the Spokane City Charter be amended to add a Worker Bill of Rights, Briana Complaint -2 seagate gun Bana a Vebaes Soa3 caer d]aua 10 u 12. 3 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 4 25 which secures the right to a family wage when employed by a large employer, right to equal pay for equal work, right not to be wrongfully terminated, and elevates Charter rights above rights claimed by corporations? Exhibit A. 9. Initiative 2015-2 provides for four primary “rights,” which are: 1____Right to a Family Wage, Workers in the City of Spokane have a right to a family wage, Workers employed by an employer with one hundred fifty (150) or more full-time equivalent workers shall be paid, at minimum, a family wage for work performed. ‘The employer requirement to pay a family wage shall not apply to workers in a ninety (90) day or less probationary period, in an internship if enrolled in school, or when enrolled in a Washington state certified apprenticeship program, 2,___ Right to Equal Pay. All workers in the City of Spokane have a right to equal pay for equal work. No employer may provide different wage rates or other compensation to workers who are performing jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility because of the worker's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, race, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, economic class, religion, age or developmental, mental, or physical ability. 3.___Right Not to_be Wrongfully Terminated. Workers in the City of Spokane have a right to be free from wrongful termination. Employers with ten (10) or more full-time equivalent workers shall not terminate a worker except for just cause, unless the worker is in a ninety (90) day ot less probationary period, is enrolled in a Washington state certified apprenticeship program, or is expressly hired for a particular project and the project has ended. The term “just cause” shall be interpreted in accordance with established, common law principles of collective bargaining and labor relations, as developed by labor arbitration decisions, and an employer secking to terminate a worker for just cause must demonstrate: a Timely and adequate work performance warnings and opportunities to correct work performance, unless the misconduct of the worker is serious enough to warrant immediate termination, such as criminal activity at work; keLcarestar Complaint - 3 ane "Trae aos TAGS fe aeb. A fair, objective, and non-discriminatory termination process, where the worker has an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the termination; and ¢. The termination is for work performance reasons, unless the employer can demonstrate that a layoff of a worker is necessary for economic hardship. If court finds a worker has been wrongfully terminated, the affected worker shall receive- compensation in the form of back pay, reinstatement, attomey fees, costs, and damages. 4, Corporate Powers Subordinate To People’s Rights. Corporations that violate, or seek to violate, this section shall not be deemed to be “persons” to the extent that such treatment would interfere with the rights enumerated in this section, nor shall corporations possess any other legal rights that would interfere with the rights enumerated by this section, including standing to challenge this section in court, the power to assert state or federal preemptive laws in an attempt to overturn this section, and the power to assert that the people of this municipality lack the authority to adopt this section. ‘The Initiative also contains an enforcement provision, which states: 1 Exhibit A, 10. ‘Hearing Examiner (“Hearing Examiner”) pursuant to SMC § 2.02.040(A) & (B) to review and Any worker, government entity, or nonprofit entity, may bring an action against the worker's employer for violation of these rights, and is entitled to attorney fees and costs in addition to legal remedies, including back pay, and equitable remedies, including reinstatement. Employers are not entitled to attorney fees and costs under this section. Any person may bring an action against the City of Spokane for failure to promulgate rules and policies necessary for enabling and effectuating the Right to a Family Wage, and that person shall be entitled to attorney fees and costs, in addition to equitable remedies. No action shall lie against the City for failure to enforce the rights contained within this section, On March 30, 2015, the City Council referred Initiative 2015-2 to the City issue a formal written opinion as to the legal validity and effect of the Initiative: itt Complaint - 4 On April 14, 2015, the Hearing Examiner issued his written opinion, stating KaLonTes Lip Tbe cee PACshate Gee.‘that the first three “rights” added by Initiative 2015-2 were likely permissible but that the fourth “tight,” regarding corporate subordination, exceeded “the jurisdictional limits of the ative power.” A copy of the Hearing Examiner's opinion is attached as Exhibit B. 12, Under SMC § 2.02.040(C), within seven days after receiving the Hearing Examiner's written opinion, an initiative sponsor has the choice to “proceed with collecting signatures for the initiative measure or to revise the initiative measure based upon the hearing ‘examiner's written opinion.” 13. Under SMC § 2.02.040(C), ifa “sponsor elects to revise the initiative measure, the city council shall discontinue processing the originally filed initiative measure.” 14, On April 14, 2015, Envision contacted the City Attomey’s Office to determine the effect of the Hearing Examiner's memorandum. Specifically, Envision asked whether removing the “legally flawed” provision from the Initiative would require it to restart the petition process. 1S. On April 15, 2015, the City Attomey’s Office informed Envision that it would. be required to restart the initiative process if it revised the initiative. 16. Rather than correct the “legally flawed” corporate subordination provision, Envision elected to proceed with signature gathering despite its knowledge that a similar corporate subordination provision had been previously declared to be in conflict “with federal and state law, and [therefore] outside the scope of the initiative powes” by a Spokane County Superior Court in August 2013. See Exhibit C (declaring a similar subordination of corporate rights provision as outside the scope of the initiative process). 17. On July 6, 2015, Envision filed with the City Clerk the petition signatures in support of the Initiative. On July 20, 2015, the City Council directed the City Clerk to validate the petition signatures through the Spokane County Auditor’ Office. 18 On July 24, 2015, the Spokane County Auditor certified that Envision had avons Complaint -§ sees ois Tae Raeee aan eww 10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 2B 24 25 collected sufficient signatures to place the Initiative on the November 3, 2015 general election ballot via a special election. 19. OnJuly 27, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution 2015-0078 requesting the Spokane County Auditor to hold a special election on November 3, 2015 in conjunction with the scheduled general election to submit Initiative 2015-2 to the electors. 20. Upon information and belief, the Auditor will be setting the final ballot proof and preparing for printing the 2015 ballot materials no later than September 2, 2015, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF 21, Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference. 22, Pursuant to the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act, Ch. 7.24 RCW, this Court may declare the validity of a proposed initiative. 23, The matter is ripe for declaratory relief because a dispute exists as to the validity of the Initiative and the City has standing to request declaratory relief to protect the public fise, Spokane’s voters, and the integrity of its Charter-created initiative process, 24, First class charter cities such as Spokane are authorized by state statute to provide in their charter “for direct legislation by the people through the initiative and referendum upon any matter within the scope of the powers, functions, or duties of the city.” RCW 35.22.200. 25. The Charter provides that the “initiative shall be exercised . .. in accordance with the general laws of the state.” Spokane City Charter § 82. 26. Cities may not adopt initiatives that exceed the city’s authority to legislate 27. Invalid initiatives exceeding the scope of the initiative power of any city are invalid and should not be placed on the ballot. 28, The Initiative exceeds the local initiative power, in part, because the City lacks the legislative authority to reduce federal and state constitutional rights or otherwise enact Complain -¢ eageentecie enn eelaws conflicting with superior laws. See Exhibit C. 29. A declaratory judgment action is proper to determine whether the Initiative exceeds the scope of the local initiative power of the City. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: INJUNCTIVE RELIEE 30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated by reference. 31, Pursuant to Chapter 7.40 RCW the Court has the power to grant injunctive relief, The Court may grant an injunction at the time the action is commenced or at any time afterwards 32, The ballot measures have been referred to the City Clerk to be directed to the Auditor for placement on the November 2015 ballot. 33. Unless a court order preventing placement of the Initiative is received before the Auditor sets the final ballot proof for printing, which upon information and belief is no later than September 2, 2015, the City will incur expense in unnecessary printing costs. 34, The City has a well-grounded fear that placing an invalid initiative on the ballot will waste valuable resources and confuse the electorate, Invalid initiatives (1) steal attention, time, and money from other valid propositions on the same ballot; (2) create voter confusion that arises from an initiative being enacted and later declared invalid; and (3) create significant administrative and financial burdens associated with defending against challenges to the invalid initiative post-election. Thus, the City faces an immediate invasion of its rights should the Auditor place the Initiative on the ballot. 35. For the reasons stated above, the City will suffer actual and substantial injury if an injunction is not entered preventing the Initiative from appearing on the ballot. 36. Only a valid initiative may be placed on a ballot for a local election. Accordingly, placing an invalid initiative on the ballot is improper. 37. A preliminary and permanent injunction precluding placement of the Initiative SEAT WASITON 0458 Twine ean eas Mame Goo ene ‘Complaint -7ween So era u 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19) 21 2 24 25 on the November 3, 2015 ballot is the only adequate remedy for the invalid initiative. RELIEF REQUESTED ‘Wherefore, the City requests the following relief: 38, A judgment declaring that the Initiative is beyond the scope of the initiative power of the City, is otherwise invalid and unenforceable, and should not be placed on the ballot. 39. A judgment declaring the rights and responsibilities of the Auditor, and directing the Auditor to not place the Initiative on the November 2015 ballot 40. A judgment for temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief precluding placement of the Initiative on the November 2015 ballot. 41. Such other and further relief to which the City may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted this 3d day of August, 2015. K&L Gatesue By, Michael K. Rye, wsna nar Aaron Millstein, ws a #435 Special Counsel to the City of Spokane K&L Gates, LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 370-8023 michael.zyan@klgates.com For Nancy L. Isserlis, wsaaw 11603 Office of the City Attomey 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Sth Floor Municipal Building Spokane, WA 99201-3326 Attorneys for the City of Spokane Complaint - 8 mare Tacs GeeEXHIBIT AWARNING Under Washington State law every person who signs an initiative or referendum petition with any other than his or her true name, knowingly signs more than once, or signs when he or she is not a legal voter; or signs a petition When he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes any false statement on such petition may be guity ofa misdemeanor. Initiative Petition to the People of the City of Spokane INITIATIVE NO. 2015 - 2 We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the City of Spokane, Washington, respectfully direct that this proposed City Charter amendment, known as Initiative No 2015 - 2, a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed herein, be submitted to the electors of the City of Spokane for their approval or rejection at the next available special or general municipal election. The proposed City Charter amendment shall appear as the following proposition: BALLOT TITLE Shall the Spokane City Charter be amended to add a Worker Bill of Rights, which secures the right to a family wage when employed by a large employer, right to equal pay for equal work, right not to be wrongfully terminated, and elevates Charter rights. above rights claimed by corporations? YES No Each of us for himself or herself says: | have personally signed this petition; | am a legal voter of the City of Spokane; my residence address is correctly stated; and | have knowingly signed this petition only once. (The full text of the proposed City Charter amendment is printed on reverse side of this age and continuing on the pages following) PETITIONER'S [PRINTED [RESIDENCE [DAYTIME | CHECKIF SIGNATURE =| NAME ADDRESS — | PHONE REGISTERED (as on voters (Street (optional) | ADDRESS IS registration) Address) DIFFERENTEnvision Worker Rights Political Committee, 1028 E. 13" Avenue, Spokane, WA $9202, (509)499-2949 ‘Summary of Measure THE LAWAS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS: No Worker Bill of Rights exists in the City Charter. Chapter 1.06 of the Spokane Municipal Code, regarding laws against discrimination, does prohibit discrimination in certain employment practices, THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL, IF APPROVED: This measure would amend the Spokane City Charter with a Worker Bill of Rights, which secures a right to (1) a family wage when employed by an employer with 150 or more full-time equivalent workers except for workers in a probationary period, in certain internships or certified apprenticeship programs; (2) equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, race, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, economic class, religion, age, or developmental, mental, or physical abilty for all workers; (3) just cause for termination of employment when employed by an employer with ten or more full-time equivalent workers; and (4) the right to enforce this section against competing rights clalmed by corporations. A CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A WORKER BILL OF RIGHTS WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane wish to build a healthy, sustainable, economically just, and democratic community; and WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane believe in the rights of workers to receive (1) a decent and fair family wage, (2) equitable pay regardless of personal traits, qualities, or characteristics, and (3) just cause for termination from employment; and WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane believe these rights are superior to competing rights claimed by corporations; and WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane have adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Spokane, which envisions, among other Items, income equity, living wages, and sustainable economic strategies, but the people recognize that the Comprehensive Plan is not legally enforceable in many important respects; and WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane wish to create a Worker Bill of Rights, which would, among other goals, establish legally enforceable rights for workers to protect the local economy and build the people's vision of a healthy, sustainable, ‘economically just, and democratic community.NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. That the City Charter of the City of Spokane shall be amended by adding a new section regarding a Worker Bill of Rights to read as follows: Section 120. Worker Bill of Rights A. Worker Bill of Rights 4. Right to a Family Wage, Workers in the City of Spokane have a right toa Family wage. Workers employed by an employer with one hundred fifty (150) or more full-time equivalent workers shall be paid, at minimum, a family wage for work performed. The employer requirement to pay a family wage shall not apply to workers ina ninety (90) day or less probationary period, in an internship if enrolled in school, or when enrolled In @ Washington state certified apprenticeship program. 2. Right to Equal Pay. All workers in the City of Spokane have a right to equal pay for equal work. No employer may provide different wage rates or other compensation to workers who are performing jobs that require ‘equal skill, effort, and responsiblity because of the worker's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, race, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, economic class, religion, age or developmental, mental, or physical abilty. 3.___ Right Not to be Wronafully Terminated, Workers in the City of Spokane have a right to be free from wrongful termination. Employers with ten (10) ‘or more full-time equivalent workers shall not terminate @ worker except for just cause, unless the worker Is in a ninety (90) day or less probationary period, is enrolled ina Washington state certified apprenticeship program, or is expressly hired for a particular project and the project has ended, The term “just cause” shall be interpreted in accordance with established, common law principles of collective bargaining and labor relations, as developed by labor arbitration decisions, and an employer seeking to terminate @ worker for just cause must demonstrate a, Timely and adequate work performance warnings and opportunities to correct work performance, unless the misconduct of the worker is ‘serious enough to warrant immediate termination, such as criminal activity at work; b, A fair, objective, and non-discriminatory termination process, where the worker has an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the termination; andc. The termination is for work performance reasons, unless the employer can demonstrate that a layoff of a worker is necessary for economic hardship. Ifa court finds a worker has been wrongfully terminated, the affected worker shall receive compensation in the form of back pay, reinstatement, attomey fees, costs, and damages. 4. Corporate Powers Subordinate To People's Rights. Corporations that violate, or seek to violate, this section shall not be deemed to be “persons” to the extent that such treatment would interfere with the rights ‘enumerated in this section, nor shall corporations possess any other legal rights that would interfere with the rights enumerated by this section, including standing to challenge this section in court, the power to assert state or federal preemptive laws in an attempt to overturn this section, and the power to assert that the people of this municipality lack the authority to adopt this section B. Definitions 1 “Corporation” means any corporation, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, business trust, limited liability company, or other business entity, organized under the laws of any State of the United States or under the laws of any country. "Employer" means government and any business having, or required to have, a business license from the City of Spokane. For the purposes of determining the number of employees of a particular employer, a corporation, as defined in Section 2(2), that is doing business at more than one location shall be treated as.a single employer, all franchisees and subsidiary corporations shail be treated as a single employer with the franchisor and parent corporation, and employees employed outside of the City of Spokane shall be counted for the purposes of determining the total number of full-time equivalent workers. “Family wage” means a wage that provides for basic needs anda limited abilty to deal with future emergencies without the need of public assistance. The City of Spokane shall calculate the family wage to include, but not be limited to, basic necessities such as food, housing, utlities, transportation, health care, childcare, clothing and other personal items, emergency savings, and taxes. The City shall calculate the family wage rate based on a household size of two with one person employed and the family wage rate shall not be less than the Self-Sufficiency ‘Standard for Washington State 2014, as adjusted for inflation. The City shall calculate the initial family wage within six months after the effective date of this section, and shall adjust the family wage each January 1* 4thereafter to reflect the change In the Consumer Price Index for the ‘Spokane Metropolitan Statistical Area, The City may allow deductions from the total family wage by employers who demonstrate one or more basic needs are covered elsewhere in a worker's compensation package Ifthe City of Spokane does not calculate a family wage, then eligible employers must provide, at minimum, a wage equal to the higher of either (1) three times the federal poverty guidelines for a family of two, or (2) any family wage rate previously calculated by the City of Spokane ‘The number of “full-time equivalent workers" equals the total number of hours an employer has paid its workers in a year divided by 2,080. “Worker” means an individual employed on a fulltime, part-time, temporary, or seasonal basis, including independent contractors, contracted workers, contingent workers, and persons made available to work for the employer through the services of a temporary service, staffing, employment agency, or similar entity. The rights in this section extend to all workers who are physically-present in Spokane for any portion of the worker's employment. Enforcement 1 Any worker, government entity, or nonprofit entity, may bring an action against the worker's employer for violation of these rights, and is entitled to attorney fees and costs in addition to legal remedies, including back pay, and equitable remedies, including reinstatement. Employers are not entitled to attorney fees and costs under this section. Any person may bring an action against the City of Spokane for failure to promulgate rules and policies necessary for enabling and effectuating the Right to a Family Wage, and that person shall be entiled to attorney fees and costs, in addition to equtable remedies. No action shall lie against the City for failure to enforce the rights contained within this section, Section 2. Effective Date and Implementation of Rights If approved by the electors, this section shall take effect and be in full force one year from the issuance of the certificate of election by the Spokane County Auditor's Office, except: Employers shall be required to fully comply with the requirements of the Family Wage Right two years from the effective date, but shall only be required to pay at least 60% of the required wage on the effective date, and 80% of the required wage one year from the effective dateSection 3. Repealer, Interpretation, and Severability All ordinances, resolutions, motions, or orders in conflict with this section are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. The people of Spokane intend for this section to be liberally interpreted to effectuate the broad policy goals articulated in the preamble to the charter amendments set forth in Initiative No, 2015-2, and to be self-executing, If any part or provision of these section provisions is held invalid, the remainder of these provisions shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect.EXHIBIT BMEMORANDUM April 14, 2015 TO: Ben Stuckart, City Council President Members of the City Council ‘Terri Pfister, City Clerk FROM: Brian T. McGinn, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Initiative No, 2015-2, ce: Mayor David Condon Background (On March 24, 2015, the Envision Worker Rights Political Committee filed a proposed initiative, now designated as Initiative No. 2015-2, to amend the City Charter of the City of Spokane (the "Charter’) to add a "Worker Bill of Rights.” On March 31, 2015, the City Council referred Initiative No. 2015-2 to the Hearing Examiner for legal review. As a result, and in accordance with SMC 2.02.040, the Hearing Examiner is charged with preparing a formal written opinion as to the legal validity and effect of the proposed measure, This memorandum is intended to full this respons{bility. Summary of Initiative 2015-2 Initiative 2015-2 proposes to add Section 120, entitled "Worker Bill of Rights,” to the Charter. ‘There are four substantive rights that will be incorporated into the Charter if the Worker Bill of Rights is adopted. Those rights are summarized as follows. rst, the Worker Bill of Rights grants the workers of relatively large employers the right to a family wage." The requirement to pay a family wage applies to employers with one hundred fifty or more full-time equivalent ("FTE") workers. In general, interns, apprentices, and probationary employees are not entitled to a family wage. For workers that do qualify, the family wage is intended to provide them with sufficient wages to meet their basic needs and ensure a limited ability to deal with future emergencies (without the need for public assistance). The City is required to consider the costs of basic necessities, such as food, housing, utilities, health care, etc, when calculating the family wage. The proposed initiative also sets forth formulas for calculating and periodically adjusting the family wage. Second, the Worker Bill of Rights provides that all workers in the City of Spokane have a right to equal pay for equal work. To effectuate this right, the proposed initiative states that ‘employers may not discriminate in the payment of wages or other compensation based on the “worker's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, race, Page 10ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, economic class, religion, age or developmental, mental, or physical ability.” The prohibition against discrimination applies when workers are performing Jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility. ‘Third, the Worker Bill of Rights states that workers in the City of Spokane have the right to be free from wrongful termination. Under this provision, employers with ten or more full-time equivalent workers may not terminate a worker except for “just cause,” as that term is. generally defined by common law. In addition, an employer secking to terminate a worker for just cause must demonstrate that it provided timely and adequate work performance warnings and opportunities to correct work performance; utilized a fair, objective, and non- discriminatory termination process; and made the termination for work performance reasons or as part of a layoff prompted by “economic hardship.” If a court finds that a worker was ‘wrongfully terminated, the worker will be entitled to back pay, reinstatement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages. Fourth, the Worker Bill of Rights provides that the rights of corporations are subordinate to the rights of the workers. Any corporations that violate or seek to violate workers’ rights are stripped of their status as “persons” under the law. Further, corporations are denied any rights that “interfere” with workers’ rights, including “standing to challenge this section in court, the power to assert state or federal preemptive laws in an attempt to overturn this section, and the power to assert that the people of this municipality lack the authority to adopt this section.” Initiative Law ‘The people of Spokane have the right to legislate directly, through the initiative process. See Spokane City Charter, Article IX, Section 81. The people's legislative authority is necessarily broad and includes the power to make and enforce any law or regulation in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare. See eg. Const. art. 11, § 11 (conferring on cities the power to enact regulations notin conflict with general laws of the state). Although the power to legislate by initiative is far-reaching, there are limitations on the scope of that authority. Initiatives cannot exceed the jurisdictional limits of the enacting body or transgress constitutional directives. See City of Burien v. KIGA, 144 Wn.2d 819, 824 (2001) (stating that the {initiative power “is subject to the same constitutional restraints placed upon the Legislature ‘when making laws.”). In addition, Washington courts have described several specific limitations on Initiative powers. Those limitations include the following: 1) ‘The power of initiative only extends to matters that are legislative in nature, Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820, 823, S05 P.2d 447 (1973). Administrative matters, particularly local administrative matters, are not subject to initiative. Port Angeles v. Our Water- Our Choice, 170 Wn.2d 1, 8, 239 P.3d 589 (2010). A matter is administrative if it furthers or hinders a plan that the local government or some power superior to it has previously adopted. See id, at 10. A legislative action, by contrast, establishes new policy to be followed. See fd, at 1. 2) _Aninitiative cannot interfere with the exercise of a power delegated by state law to the governing legislative body of acity. City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash.2d 251, 264, age of 10138 P.3d 943 (2006). A grant of power to the city’s legislative body “means exclusively the mayor and city council and not the electorate. City of Sequim, 157 Wash.2d at 265. 3) Tobe valid, an initiative must be within the authority of the jurisdiction passing the measure. Philadelphia Il v. Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d 707, 719 (1996). Thus, a local initiative that conflicts with state law is invalid because itis outside the scope of the authority ofa city to enact. Seattle Bldg & Constr. Trades Council, 94 Wn.2d 740, 747- 748 (1980) (citizen initiative could not prohibit the state from constructing limited access highways because the city had no jurisdiction over State facilities) 4) An initiative may not include more than one subject matter. City of Burien v. KIGA, 144 Wn.24 819, 824-25 (2001). However, when an initiative has a general title, the body of the initiative may embrace several incidental subjects or subdivisions and not violate the single subject rule. City of Burien, 144 Wn.2d at 826. Analysis of Initiative 2015-2 Initiative 2015-2, ifenacted, would incorporate a "Worker Bill of Rights" into the Charter, That bill of rights seeks to create four substantive rights, namely the right to a family wage, the right to be free from wrongful termination, the right to equal pay for equal work, and the subordination of corporate rights. Each of these four elements of the bill of rights will be discussed in turn. In addition, this analysis will also address whether defining certain rights based on the number of employees Is consistent with equal protection. Finally, the single subject matter rule will be briefly considered. Family Wage. The Worker Bill of Rights provides that large employers, defined as employers with 150 or more PTE workers, must pay its workers a “family wage.” In other words, the initiative establishes a minimum compensation level for the workers of a certain dass of employers. ‘The family wage provisions appear to satisfy the threshold tests for an initiative, The establishment of a family wage Is a policy decision, and therefore {s legislative rather than administrative in character. There is no statute, to the Hearing Examiner's knowledge, that delegates authority to legislate on wages exclusively to the “legislative body” of the clty. AS such, the city council does not have sole authority to enact local laws on this subject matter, ‘The proposed initiative does treat a particular class of employers differently from others. This raises a potential equal protection issue, which Is discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this memorandum. The primary issue addressed here is whether the “family wage” requirement is consistent with existing statutes. ‘An initiative cannot enact legislation that is in conflict with existing statutes. See eg. King County v. Taxpayers of King County, 133 Wn.2d S84, 608, 949 P.2d 1260 (1997). Further, ifthe legislature has exercised exclusive authority to regulate a particular subject, the initiative process would not be available to regulate the same subject matter. See League of United Latin ‘Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F. Supp. 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (holding that initiative was not valid. because federal authority over immigration was exclusive). IF existing statutes do not exclusively regulate a subject matter, and the proposed initiative supplements rather than Pages of10contradicts the existing statutes, then It would be permissible for the proposed initiative to establish new or additional standards on the same subject matter. ‘The Hearing Examiner's research did not reveal a statutory scheme that exclusively governed the subject of compensation, Further, that research did not lead to the conclusion that the proposed initiative contradicted or conflicted with any existing statutes. Therefore, it appears that the establishment of a “family wage" is the proper subject of an initiative, at least in the respect that it does not conflict with an existing statutory scheme. Even so, this conclusion should be explained further, in light of the existing minimum wage statutes, both at the state and federal level ‘The state has adopted a minimum wage statute, called the Minimum Wage Act, codified at RCW 49.46. This statute establishes a minimum wage for employees in the State of Washington, ‘There is no conflict between the proposed initiative and the Minimum Wage Act because, among other things, the Act only establishes a floor below which wages cannot drop. The statute explicitly provides that its requirements are “in addition to and supplementary to any other federal, state, or local law or ordinance.” See RCW 49.46.120. The statute does not preclude the adoption of any standards or requirements that “are more favorable to employees than the minimum standards" applicable under the Act. See id. Thus, the state legislature did not purport to preempt the field by enacting this law. In addition, the if the initiative is adopted, it will undoubtedly set a wage for eligible employees substantially higher than the state minimum wage, given that the calculation of the “family wage" is based upon providing the “basic necessities" (including health care, child care, emergency savings, taxes, and the like) of a household of two people. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed Initiative does not conflict with the state's minimum wage statute, ‘The federal minimum wage statute operates in the same fashion as the Washington law. Specifically, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act states; No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing e minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter. See 29 US.C. 218(a). The Washington Supreme Court has recognized that the state may enact its own minimum wage, so long as itis higher than the federal minimum. See Peterson v. Hagan, 56 Wn.2d 48, 56, 351 P.2d 127 (1960). Since the initiative will surely result in wages higher than the federal minimum, there is no inconsistency between the proposed initiative and federal law. ‘The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed initiative does not contradict existing law. Further, the proposed initiative does not attempt to regulate a subject matter that is the exclusive province of the state or federal legislature. As a result, the proposed initiative is not subject to challenge on such grounds. Equal Pay For Equal Work. The Worker Bill of Rights prohibits wage discrimination amongst employees based on characteristics such as gender, familial status, citizenship, economic dass, Page 4of20and physical or mental ability, assuming those employees are performing equivalent jobs. ‘These terms do not seem significantly different from existing state statutes. ‘The Washington Law Against Discrimination ('WLAD") provides comprehensive prohibitions against discriminatory practices, See RCW 49.60.010 et seq. The WLAD declares that all people have a right to be free from discrimination because of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and sensory, mental or physical disability, among other things. See RCW 49.60.030(1). These rights specifically apply to employment. See RCW 49.60.030(1)(a) Washington has also adopted an equal pay act, codified at RCW 49.12.175, This state legislation is virtually identical to the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 USC 206(d)(1). See Adams v. University of Washington, 106 Wn.2d 312, 317, 722 P.2d 74 (1986). ‘The equal pay legislation, both at the state and federal levels, is designed to preclude discrimination in the payment of ‘wages based upon sex, and to provide remedies when this proscription is violated. The existing state statutes broadly cover the subject matter addressed in the equal pay provisions of the proposed initiative. The question becomes, then, whether the existing statutes preclude the adoption of local legislation on the same subject matter. This question appears to have been answered in Seattle Newspaper-Web Pressmen’s Union v. Seattle, 24 Wh.App. 462, 604 P.2d 170 (1979). In Pressman’s Union, a labor union challenged the validity of the Seattle Fair Employment Practices Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), ‘The union contended that the Ordinance was (1) preempted by WLAD and (2) beyond the police power of the city to adopt. See Pressman's Union, 24. Wn.App. at 464. Considering the union's first argument, the Court of Appeals noted that the statute contained no clear or express intent to take away the power of a municipality to legislate on the subject matter. See Pressman’s Union, 24. Wn.App. at 468, The statute also recognized that victims of discrimination should be allowed to pursue any civil or criminal remedy, indicating that WLAD was not intended to be exclusive. See Pressman’s Union, 24, WhApp. at 467. Looking to the statute as a whole, the Court of Appeals concluded that WLAD did not preempt the Ordinance and that there was room for the exercise of concurrent Jurisdiction by the city. See Pressman’s Union, 24, Wa.App. at 471. ‘Turning to the unfon's second argument, the Court of Appeals rejected the union's claim that there was a conflict between WLAD and the Ordinance. See Pressman’s Union, 24. WnApp. at 469, There was no conflict because the Ordinance did not authorize an act that the statute forbade, or vice versa. See fd, ‘The Court of Appeals also explained: ‘An ordinance may be more restrictive than the state enactment so long as the statute does not forbid the more restrictive enactment. Lenci v. Seattle, supra at 670-71. The Seattle Ordinance does not attempt to authorize practices that have been forbidden by the state Statute, It merely provides further prohibition against unfair labor practices. See Id, The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that that Ordinance was a valid exercise of the city’s police power under article 11, section 11 of the state constitution, See Pressman's Union, 24. Wn.App. at 471. age Sof10‘The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed initiative is not precluded by existing state law. ‘The foregoing statutes do not contain an express restriction on the adoption of local legislation, The proposed measure does not authorize activity forbidden by statute, or forbid activity allowed by statute. ‘The proposed initiative may be largely redundant with state law, but there is nothing precluding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in this case. It is also possible that the proposed initiative fs more restrictive than state law, in some respects (e4 the inclusion of “economic class" as a protected category). This is permitted because the state statutes do not preclude a more restrictive standard. ‘The proposed initiative also satisfies the llinitations applicable to initiatives generally. The initiative sets forth a broad policy regarding discrimination, and thus fs squarely legislative in nature. ‘The Hearing Examiner is not aware of any constitutional or other limitation on the proposed legislative action. Thus, the provisions calling for equal pay for equal work are not vulnerable to legal challenge in any respect anticipated or considered by the Hearing Examiner, Freedom From Wrongful Termination. The Worker Bill of Rights states that employers with ten or more fulltime equivalent workers may not terminate a worker except for "just cause,” and, In this way, intends to protect eligible employees from "wrongful termination.” As is true of the family wage provisions, the wrongful termination provisions treat a particular class of employers differentiy from others, raising concerns about equal protection. The equal protection issue, however, will be addressed separately below, The issue here is whether the ‘wrongful termination provisions exceed any limitations on the initiative power, ‘The wrongful termination provisions meet the threshold tests governing initiatives. ‘The ‘wrongful termination provisions create new policies affecting a certain class of employers and their employees. Creating new policies is legislative, rather than administrative, in character. Further, there is no existing legislative enactment that delegates authority over this subject matter to the “legislative body” of the city. Therefore, the city council does not have exclusive power to legislate on this subject. Finally, the Hearing Examiner is not aware of any Jurisdictional or constitutional restriction that would prevent the wrongful termination provisions from being enacted by initiative. In the Hearing Examiner’s opinon, the proposal to incorporate wrongful termination provisions into the Charter does not suffer from any obvious legal defects, Subordination of Corporate Rights. ‘The Worker Bill of Rights states that the rights of corporations are subordinate to the rights of the workers. The subordination of corporate rights is accomplished by depriving corporations of access to the courts. ‘The Hearing Examiner believes this component of the initfative is flawed and would not be sustained by the courts. ‘The initiative states that corporations that violate or seek to violate workers’ rights are stripped of their legal status as “persons,” and have no standing to challenge the initiative in court. The proposed initiative also attempts to limit the legal arguments that a corporation can assert in court. Specifically, the initiative states that a corporation cannot contend that state or federal law preempts the initiative, or that there is no jurisdiction to adopt the initiative. The Hearing Examiner does not believe that any of these provisions are valid. Page 60610,‘The state constitution “makes no distinction between corporations and natural persons in the matter of access to the courts.” See State ex rel. Lang v. McLeod, 6 Wn. App. 848, 849, 596 P.2d 540 (1972). The state constitution, rather, specifically states that “all corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued, in all courts, in like cases as natural persons.” See Const. art. 12, § 5 (emphasis added). Initiatives, just like enactments of the legislature, must be consistent with the state constitution, See City of Burien v. KIGA, 144 Wn.2d 819, 824 (2001). In the Hearing Examiner's opinion, the provisions of the proposed initiative that deprive corporations of access to the courts, directly or indirectly, are inconsistent with the state constitution and wil not be sustained. See fd (Stating that an initiative which runs afoul of the state constitution will be struck down by the courts), ‘The proposed initiative 1s also inconsistent with state law. The Washington Business Corporation Act, for example, provides that “every corporation has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out {ts business,” including the power to ‘sue and be sued, complain, and defend in its corporate name.” See RCW 238.03.020(2)(a}. Similar authority is granted to nonprofit corporations. The Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act states that each corporation “shall” have the power to “sue and be sued, complain and defend, In its corporate name.” See RCW 24.03.035. In the Hearing Examiner’s opinion, the proposed initiative directly contradicts existing state statutes Therefore, in addition to the constitutional infirmity, these provisions also conflict with state statute and therefore exceed the jurisdictional limits ofthe initiative power. The drafters attempt to insulate the initiative from legal challenges by declaring that corporations cannot challenge the initiative on jurisdiction or preemption theories. In the Hearing Examiner's opinion, these provisions are not legally effective, Federal law either supersedes Inconsistent law adopted at the local level or it does not. Jurisdiction to enact an initiative either exists or it does not An initfative cannot guard against such challenges by purporting to ban a corporation from raising the issues in the first place, This is justa different mechanism to deny corporations access to the courts. Ultimately, a corporation cannot be legally precluded from challenging the initiative as preempted by federal law or as being Invalid for lack of jurisdiction, Equal Protection. There are two provisions in the Worker Bill of Rights that could be challenged as violating equal protection: the “family wage" requirement and the “wrongful termination” provision. The Hearing Examiner believes that these parts of the initiative may raise equal protection ‘concerns because they treat employers differently based upon the number of employees. This line of demarcation could be considered arbitrary and therefore may implicate equal protection rights. For example, a "family wage" is only available to employees who work for large employers, ie those who employ one hundred fifty (150) or more FTE workers. Employees of small employers may assert, understandably, that there is litle justification for depriving them of this benefit merely because they do not work for a larger enterprise, The large employers, ‘meanwhile, may assert that smaller employers gain an unfair competitive advantage because they will not be required to compensate their employees to the same degree. A similar argument could be made regarding the right to be free from wrongful termination. Employees age 7 of10who work for small employers, Le. those wo employ fewer than ten (10) FTE workers, cannot claim the right to be free from “wrongful termination” as defined by the initiative. An employer of twelve workers, one could anticipate, might question why having three less employees should insulate the smaller employer from the “wrongful termination” restrictions Ultimately, the question is whether itis improper discrimination to confer benefits or impose regulations based on the number of full-time employees, This question can best be answered, in the Hearing Examiner's view, by considering the principles of equal protection. The purpose of the privileges and immunities provision of Article I Section 12, ofthe state constitution, and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, is to secure equality of treatment for all persons. See Mosebar v. Moore, 41 Wn.2d 216, 222, 248 P.2d 385 (1952). To comply with these constitutional provisions, legislation must satisfy two requirements: (1) the legislation must apply alike to all persons in the designated class; and (2) there must be reasonable grounds for making distinctions between those who fall within the class and those who do not. See id. ‘The initiative appears to comply with the first prong of the equal protection test. All employers ‘within the given class are subject to the same standard. For example, all large employers must pay the family wage to their employees. There does not appear to be any discrimination within the class. The issue, then, is whether there is improper discrimination between employers in the class and employers who are not. The Hearing Examiner cannot provide a firm conclusion regarding whether the Initiative satisfies the second prong of the equal protection test. ‘The reason for the Hearing Examiner's, hesitation is lack of information, The Hearing Examiner does not know, based solely from the Tanguage of the initiative, why only employers with more than one huncred fifty employees must pay a family wage, or why employers with fewer than ten employees need not follow the termination protocol of larger employers. There is no legislative history to review, so the rationale for these classifications is unknown to the Hearing Examiner. Even so, itis likely that the initiative sponsors can successfully defend these classifications from an equal protection challenge, for at least two reasons. First, employers are not defined as a suspect or even a semi-suspect class, AS a result, the proposed legislation is subject to the lowest level of scrutiny by the courts, Le. the “rational basis" test. Under that test, the classification will be upheld against an equal protection challenge “if there is any conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” See Gassett v. Farmers Ins Co, 133 Wn.2d 954, 979, 948 P.2d 1264 (1997). Stated another way, a challenger would have to show that the classification is "purely arbitrary.” See id.If any reasonable explanation can be provided for the chosen classifications, the legislation will be upheld as consistent with equal protection. Presumably, the initiative sponsors can provide some justification for defining employers in the chosen manner. Ifso, the initiative will be sustained. Second, the Washington Supreme Court, on at least one occasion, has upheld this type of classification, In Griffin, an employee challenged an exemption for small employers contained. in Washington's law against discrimination, RCW 49.60. Under the statute, employers of fewer than eight employees are exempt from the statutory remedies. See RCW 49.60.040 (defining Pagebof 10“employer” for purposes of the statute). The employee asserted that the exemption violated her equal protection rights, secured by the federal and state constitutions. See Griffin v. Elle, 130 Wn.2d 58, 922 P.2d 788 (1996). She argued, among other things, that there were no reasonable grounds for distinguishing between large and small employers. See fd, at 66. The ‘Washington Supreme Court rejected her claim, concluding that there was a rational basis for exempting small employers, and that the Legislature was entitled to relieve small employers of the statutory and regulatory burdens of RCW 49.60. See fd. Accordingly, the Court determined that the statute did not violate equal protection. See id Single-Subject Matter Rule, As stated above, initiatives are only allowed to address a single subject matter. The proposed initiative may seem to transgress this rule because it addresses multiple subjects under a general heading of "Worker Bill of Rights.” However, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed inttiative satisfies the single-subject rule, for the reasons that follow. ‘When the title is general, an initiative can have several subdivisions without violating the rule. City of Burien, 144 Wn.2d at 826, The test to determine whether the subdivisions of the initiative are within the single subject rule is whether the subdivisions have a rational unity ‘among all matters included within the measure and the general topic expressed in the tite. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 209 (2000). In the Hearing Examiner's opinion, the subdivisions are all logically related to the goal of establishing a bill of rights for workers. The individual components of the initiative are also sufficiently related to each other to form a coherent whole. If any one provision of the Worker Bill of Rights could be singled out as distinct from the rest, it is the provision regarding the subordination of corporate rights. Nonetheless, the Hearing Examiner believes that the provisions on corporate rights, as drafted, are sufficiently connected to worker's rights to avold transgressing the rule. Conclusion ‘This memorandum serves as the Hearing Examiner’s written, legal opinion on the legal validity and effect of proposed Initiative 2015-2, In the Hearing Examiner's opinion, the Worker Bill of Rights can properly be adopted by initiative. ‘The form of the initiative is proper because It addresses a single subject matter within the meaning of the law. The initiative addresses matters which are legislative, rather than administrative, in nature, The city council does not exclusive authority to legislate on the relevant subject matter, And, with one notable exception, the proposed initiative honors statutory and constitutional constraints, One component of the proposed initiative fs legally flawed, in the Hearing Examiner's view. The provisions regarding the subordination of corporate rights are not consistent with the state constitution or state statute, as explained above, The Hearing Examiner recommends that the initiative sponsors amend the proposed initiative to remove these provisions and to revise the preamble and ballot title accordingly. The Hearing Examiner is not able to suggest a less drastic revision because the essential purpose of these provisions is to strip corporations of rights guaranteed by the state constitution and protected by existing state legislation. A minor Page 9010amendment would neither be consistent with the drafter’s Intent nor curative of the legal shortcomings. ‘The Hearing Examiner expresses no opinion on whether or not Initiative 2015-2 should be adopted or not. That is a policy question that is beyond the scope of this memorandum. DATED this 14% day of April 2015 WA = —————_ Brian. McGinn City of Spokane Hearing Examiner age 10010EXHIBIT Ceee ane ow 10 u 12 3B 4 1s 16 W 8 19 20 a 26 2s 26 a ee one Aug 29 2013 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: SPOKANE COUNTY SPOKANE ENTREPRENEURIAL CENTER, SPOKANE COUNTY, DOWNTOWN: ‘SPOKANE PARTNERSHIP, GREATER No. 13-02-02495-5 SPOKANE INCORPORATED, THE SPOKANE BUILDING OWNERS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, SPOKANE GRANTING PLAINTIFFS" ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, THE MOTION FOR DECLARATORY SPOKANE HOME BUILDERS JUDGMENT ASSOCIATION, THE INLAND PACIFIC CHAPTER OF ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, AVISTA, ‘CORPORATION, PEARSON PA PACKAGING SYSTEMS, WILLIAM MOLLER. STEVE GALVATOR! NANCY MCLAUGHLIN, MICHAEL ALLEN, and TOM Plaintifis, ‘SPOKANE MOVES TO AMEND THE. CONSTITUTION, ENVISION SPOKANE, ‘VICKY DALTON, SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR, in her official capacity, and THE CITY OF SPOKANE, 3 RECEIVED i Au 28203 | SuceRORCOURL | : ; | battens 3 ‘THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Plaintiffs? Motion for Declecatory Judgment, noted for consideration oa August 23, 2013. The Court has considered Plaintiffs" ‘Motion and Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, the declarations and exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintifis’ Replies in ORDER ORANTING PLFB MOT, FOR DEC. 2-1 eee Dwrmmenisaowssomns ieee Bat10 u 12 3 1s 16 wv 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 a 26 27 Support of Their Motion for Declaratory Sudgment, Envision Spokane's and Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution’s oppositions to Plaintiffs? Motion for Declaratory Judgment, the City ‘of Spokane’s response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment, the Auditor's response (o Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment, the parties’ arguments, and all pepers and pleadings on file. The Court now finds as follows: 1. A justiciable controversy exists. There is an actual, present, and existing dispute between parties with genuine and opposing interests that are direct and substantia. Postelection events will not further sharpen the issue whether Initiative 2013-3 end Initiative 2013-4 (the “SMAC and Envision initiatives”) ace within the scope of the local initiative power, 2. Plaintfishave standing. Plaintifis fall within the zone of interests the initiatives seek to regulate and have demonstrated sufficient injury, and this case involves significant and. continuing issues of public importance that merit judicial resolution. 3. The Envision initiative exceeds the local initiative power and is invalid. 1 The zoning provision exceeds the local initiative power because itis administrative in nature and involves powers delegeted under RCW Title 35 to the legislative bodies of municipalities. Zoning is an ‘administrative fanetion. The Envision initiative's zoning provision is adrinistrative because it would change or hinder « pre-existing zoning code. ». The water provision exceeds the Toca initiative power because it conflicts with federal and state law, and is administrative in nature. ‘The provision soeks to regulate bodies of water that are subject to the Clean Water Act, Washington’s water code, and the Growth Management Act, The water provision would add requirements to ‘these pre-existing regulations, and would interfere with pre-existing ORDER GRANTING PLFS." MOT, FOR DEC. -2 iene ‘Dares cos tens oa B1210 u 12 3 4 18 16 y 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 26 27 ‘The SMAC initiative exceeds the local initiative power and is invalid. ‘ORDER GRANTING PLFS." MOT, FOR DEC. 1-3 Tiere Dwr 22st ops 00026 voi regulations. ‘The water provision therefore conflicts with federal and state law and is outside the scope of the local initiative power. The ‘provision is also administrative because it secks to change or hinder Pre-existing water regulations. The water provision is also outside the scope ofthe focal initiative power because it attempts to impose rights on Spokane residents regarding water outside the state of ‘Washington, and it attempts to create new constitutional rights, The City of Spokane lacks jurisdiction fo enact such legislation. ©. The workplace provision exceeds the loca initiative power because it attempts to expand constitutional protections, which is beyond the City of Spokane’s jurisdiction to enact, The provision also conflicts ‘with federal and state labor laws by attompting to redefine and expand labor rights in the City of Spokane, 4. The comporate rights provision exceeds the local initiative power because it attempts to change the rights of corporations under federal ‘and stats law, The provision therefore conflicts with federel and state law, and is outside the scope of the initiative power. a. The SMAC initiative exceeds the local initiative power because its prohibitions on campaign contribetions and lobbying conflict with ‘federal and state law. The First Amendment end Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), proteo the right of corporations to engage in political speech. The local initiative _ Povier does not include the ability to limit U.S, Supreme Court, precedent, The initiative also conflicts with Washington's campaign disclosure lew, which defines a “personas including corporations. Dove Weigh Tema B4310 n RD 3 14 1s 16 Ww 18 19 20 a B 24 25 a7 'b, The SMAC initiative exceeds the local initiative power because it attempts to strip eoxporations of their First and Fifth Amendment sights, which would conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent 5, The Envision and SMAC initiatives are‘not severable because all provisions of both initiatives are invalid Now, thereforg itis hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs” Motion for Declaratory Judgment is GRANTED, The Court DECLARES that the Envision and SMAC initiatives aro {invalid as outside the scope of the local iititive power. The Court further DECLARES that neither initiative shall appeat on the November 5, 2013 ballot, and directs the Auditor not to {nchude them on that ballot. Final judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs in aocordance ‘with this Order. DATED this_2F day of C da 2013. ‘Waryann C. Moreno Stpecor Cour ge Presented by: Davis Tremaine LLP Attorneys for Plaintifis By Le 2 ibert Maguire, WSBA 439909 Rebeooa Francis, WSBA #41196 Ryan C. Gist, WSBA #41816 Bd ‘Third Avenue, ea aera Tek 206-757-8094 Homes dae E-mail: robmaguire@dwtcom ‘ORDER GRANTING PLPS." MOT. FOR DEC. J.-4 three "BHT 236516829095 e606 mittee B4410 n 2 B 4 15 16 a 18 19 2 23 26 27 Approved as to form: Terence V. Sawyer Date Attomey for Defendant Spokane Moves to Amend ‘The Constitution eal Qustdanicadtie, C/LA1'S Ee ‘Whipple Law Group, PLLC ‘Attorneys for Defendant Envision Spokane By. EP pec ut anatuarnialun oe E1013 Mic ‘D. Whipple, WSBA #42605 Dan L, Catt ‘Attomeys for Defendant Vieky Dalton, Spokane County Auditor cE BD pa wil auktaicadion on 1078 Dan L. Catt, WSBA #11606 K&L Gates LLP Alttomeys for Defendant City of Spokane 3 LQ ge email akan: on $199 * johael Ryan, WSBA #32091 ‘ORDER GRANTING PLFS.' MOT. FOR DEC.J.-5 wo ‘WT zasésgtv2 0009952-000006 tpi oe B45ns) aay IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE THE CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal corporation, No. Plaintiff, GR 17 DECLARATION OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MAIL v. RE: VICKY DALTON, SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR, in her official capacity, ENVISION WORKER RIGHTS, POLITICAL COMMITTEE, a Washington political committee as proponent; BRAD READ, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. ‘The undersigned hereby states that I have examined the aforegoing document, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief received via electronic mail, which consists of 33 pages, including this Declaration page, and that it is complete and legible. EXECUTED this 3rd day of August, 2015, at Spokane, WA, K&L GATES LLP 618 WEST RIVERSIDE AVENUE SUITE 300 SPOKANE, WA 99201-5102 TELEPHONE: (509) 624-2100 FACSIMILE: (509) 456-0146 caw Sth oresiar OR 17 DECLARATION - 1 sorte es rersnaecnineons ABITONP 8 Bet Gates