* Wash. Conserv. Action Educ. Fund v. Hobbs

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON CONSERVATION
ACTION EDUCATION FUND, TONY
USIBELLI, and NANCY HENDERSON,
Petitioners,
v.
STEVE HOBBS, in his official capacity
as Secretary of State for the State of
Washington,
Respondent.
NO. 103260-9
EN BANC
Filed: October 17, 2024
G ONZÁLEZ, C.J.—Under Washington law, people have both the power to
propose legislation through the initiative process and the power, when exercised
appropriately, to challenge initiatives. In this case, one group of people proposed an
initiative and another group of people challenged it. Given the fast approaching
deadline to print the ballot, we denied the challenge by order with opinion to follow.
We now explain our decision.
The challengers, the Washington Conservation Action Education Fund and
voters Tony Usibelli and Nancy Henderson petitioned this court directly for an order
FILE
IN CLERK’S OFFICE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
OCTOBER 17, 2024
THIS OPINION WAS FILED
FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON
OCTOBER 17, 2024
SARAH R. PENDLETON
ACTING SUPREME COURT CLERK
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Washington Conservation Action Education Fund v. Hobbs, No. 103260-9
2
requiring Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to stop counting petition signatures
submitted in support of Initiative 2066 (I-2066) using the signature verification
procedures established by rule. The challengers argue that the secretary’s verification,
based solely on matching petition signatures to signatures found in the voter rolls, is
insufficient and that the secretary must also verify signers’ addresses. The challengers
also sought accelerated review and for an injunction pending review. By order, we
denied the injunction motion, denied accelerated review, and dismissed the petition
with opinion to follow.
Generally speaking, I-2066 would repeal or amend recent legislation that attempts
to limit the use of natural gas. Initiative sponsors collected signatures in support and
submitted them to the secretary. Washington law allows the secretary to use statistical
sampling, under processes adopted by rule, to determine if the petition is supported by a
sufficient number of signatures of legal voters. RCW 29A.72.230. Under the current
rules, the secretary takes “a minimum three percent random sample of the signatures
submitted” and checks those signatures against those of registered voters. WAC 434-
379-010. Under the rules, a signature match is sufficient and the signatures will be
counted regardless of whether the signers included their addresses on the petition or
whether they provided addresses that matched those listed in the voter rolls associated
with their signatures. WAC 434-379-010, -012, -020.
The challengers brought an original action in this court under RCW 29A.68.013,
seeking to enjoin the secretary from certifying the signatures for a vote without checking
signers’ addresses. RCW 29A.68.013 is a broad statute that authorizes any justice of this
court, judge of the Court of Appeals, or judge of the superior court sitting in the proper
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Washington Conservation Action Education Fund v. Hobbs, No. 103260-9
3
county, to order election officials to follow the law, correct errors, or desist from a
wrongful act related to elections.
But RCW 29A.68.013 is a general statute that applies to any claim that an
election official has erred, committed a wrongful act, neglected their duty, or that some
error or omission has or is about to occur. A more specific statute, RCW 29A.72.240,
concerns specific error alleged here – that the secretary erred in determining that the
initiative petition “contain[ed] the requisite number of signatures of legal voters.” The
statutes provide different timelines for bringing an action, and different burdens of
proof apply. Under such circumstances where overlapping statutes conflict, “‘[a]
general statutory provision must yield to a more specific statutory provision.’”
Washington State Assoc. of Counties v. State, 199 Wn.2d 1, 13, 502 P.3d 825 (2022)
(alteration in original) (quoting Ass’n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State
Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342, 356, 340 P.3d 849 (2015)). In addition, if this
error would could be asserted under the general statute, it would render the specific
statute superfluous, in violation of the general principle that we interpret statues to
render no part of them superfluous. Id. at 12-13 (quoting State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444,
450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)).
Under the more specific statute, RCW 29A.72.240, any citizen who is
dissatisfied with the secretary’s determination that an initiative contains the requisite
number of legal voters’ signatures must bring their challenge in the Thurston County
Superior Court. The superior court’s decision is immediately reviewable by this court.
This court will either issue a writ or an injunction, or this court will dismiss the
proceedings. Id. The challengers brought this case in the wrong court and under the
wrong statute. Accordingly, we must dismiss it.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Washington Conservation Action Education Fund v. Hobbs, No. 103260-9
4
In addition, the petition for injunctive relief fails on the merits. As we explain
in more detail in Defend Washington v. Hobbs, No. 102996-9, the secretary’s
procedure of validating initiative petition signatures by matching them with signatures
on the voter rolls complies with controlling law. Both article II, section 1(a) of the
Washington State Constitution and RCW 29A.72.230 require the secretary verify and
canvass the names of legal voters on the petition, not current addresses.
Like the appellants in Defend Washington, the challengers argue that only those
who are eligible to vote at their addresses of record at the time of signing are “legal
voters.” But the statute requires only that the names be canvassed, which involves
verifying the signatures against those appearing on the registration rolls. A “legal
voter” is a registered voter. Sudduth v. Chapman, 88 Wn.2d 247, 251, 558 P.2d 806
(1977). Even if RCW 29A.68.013 provided an avenue to challenge signature
certification, the challengers show no error or omission in the certification process
warranting relief under the statute.
We dismiss the petition for injunctive relief.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Washington Conservation Action Education Fund v. Hobbs, No. 103260-9
5
____________________________
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________ 	____________________________
_____________________________ 	____________________________
_____________________________ 	____________________________
_____________________________
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.