There was an interesting line in the Supreme Court's decision Friday rejecting a pre-election challenge to the constitutionality of I-960.
While Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, writing for the unanimous court, made quite clear the court was not expressing an opinion as to whether I-960 might withstand a post-election constitutional challenge, the court did say:
Just as the legislature is not entirely without authority to enact laws relating to causes of action and the practice of law, so the legislature is not wholly without authority to enact laws relating to referendums and legislative procedures. See ch. 29A.72RCW; Const. art. II, § 1(d) (section governing initiatives and referendums "is self-executing, but legislation may be enacted especially to facilitate its operation"); Const. art.II, § 9 (each house to determine the rules of its proceedings).
Don't read too much into this. The court pointed out these constitutional areas of authority to explain that I-960's challenged items (super-majority and popular vote requirements) are legislative in nature (and so could also appear in an initiative).
But it's interesting the court went to the trouble of pointing out there are constitutional areas in which these provisions could fit.
