Washington Supreme Court Strikes Down Initiative 2066 as Unconstitutional
The Washington Supreme Court has declared Initiative 2066 unconstitutional, ruling that the voter-approved measure improperly bundled multiple policy areas into a single ballot proposition.
In a 6–3 decision issued Thursday in *Climate Solutions v. State*, the court concluded the initiative fails to comply with the state constitution’s single-subject requirement. The ruling upholds a prior King County Superior Court decision that invalidated the entire measure, though the Supreme Court’s reasoning is more focused.
Chief Justice Debra Stephens authored the majority opinion, supported by Justices Steven González, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, G. Helen Whitener, Colleen Melody, and Justice Pro Tem Barbara Madsen. Justice Salvador Mungia filed the principal dissent, joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Sheryl Gordon McCloud. Justice Theodore Angelis abstained from participating.
Voters endorsed I-2066 in November 2024, with 51.71 percent casting ballots in favor—1,941,474 yes votes compared to 1,813,169 no. Regional support varied: Clallam County narrowly oppose the initiative, 50.86 percent to 49.14 percent; Jefferson County voters rejected it more decisively at 63.9 percent against; Mason County backed it with 56.42 percent approval; and Kitsap County approved it with 51.38 percent.
Scope of Initiative 2066
The measure reshaped state and local policies concerning natural gas usage across multiple domains. It mandated that gas suppliers—including large utility companies and municipalities providing gas services—continue delivering gas to eligible customers. The Utilities and Transportation Commission was barred from adopting plans that could restrict natural gas access.
The State Building Code Council also faced new constraints, prohibited from updating building and energy codes in ways that would limit, penalize, or deter natural gas consumption. One specific goal—the Washington Decarbonization Act’s target of reaching net-zero fossil-fuel emissions from residential and commercial buildings by 2031—was removed entirely.
Additionally, the initiative shielded gas use from local regulation, preventing cities, counties, and air quality agencies from enacting rules that discourage natural gas in heating, cooking, and other building-appliance applications.
Legal Challenge and Lower Court Ruling
A coalition including Climate Solutions, King County, the City of Seattle, and other groups filed suit in King County Superior Court. They contended the initiative violated constitutional mandates requiring legislation to address one core subject and reflect that focus in its title. Plaintiffs also argued the measure amended existing statutes without reproducing their full text, as required by law.
The state, along with the Building Industry Association of Washington and individual defendant Ashli Penner, defended the initiative. In May 2025, Superior Court Judge Sandra Widlan invalidated I-2066 on all three constitutional grounds.
Four Subjects Under One Ballot
Article II, section 19 of the state constitution bars bills—and by extension, initiatives—from encompassing more than one subject, with the subject clearly articulated in the title. The Supreme Court determined I-2066 violated this principle by interweaving four distinct policy domains: obligations ensuring continued natural gas availability, limits on local air-pollution oversight, revisions to statewide building and energy standards, and the elimination of a key severability clause from the Washington Decarbonization Act.
The court found these components too dissimilar to be separated without the judiciary effectively reconstructing voter intent—a task beyond its authority.
While each component of Initiative 2066 linked in some way to energy or natural gas, the state Supreme Court determined that such loose ties were insufficient to meet constitutional standards. According to the court’s established framework, initiatives must exhibit “rational unity”—a coherent connection both to their overarching title and among their individual provisions.
The majority concluded that rules limiting air pollution control agencies served a distinct regulatory goal from those shaping natural gas supply chains and distribution networks. Similarly, adjustments to statewide building codes were deemed primarily focused on construction standards and the powers vested in the State Building Code Council, rather than directly advancing the initiative’s stated energy focus.
The court also dismissed claims that I-2066 qualified as permissible omnibus legislation centered on “energy choice.” Though that label might seem fitting, earlier reporting noted, the measure lacked the cohesive scope seen in prior upheld omnibus laws. Instead, the initiative’s elements spanned multiple domains—utility oversight, local government authority, air quality management, and building code governance—without binding them into a unified response to a single challenge.
Court Declines to Save Portions of the Initiative
I-2066 contained a severability clause specifying that invalidation of one section need not affect the rest. Despite this, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional flaw ran too deep to be remedied piecemeal. Without clear guidance from voters, the justices found it inappropriate to select which parts of the initiative should endure if others fell.
The court emphasized that voters would have to decide how to prioritize among the initiative’s four core themes—utility regulation, local governance, air quality, and building codes—if those components were presented individually. Allowing the judiciary to pick and choose would effectively let courts assign relative weight to policy areas, a role the court deemed constitutionally reserved for the electorate.
As a result, the court upheld the full invalidation of I-2066.
The majority chose not to address two additional constitutional concerns raised by the King County Superior Court: whether the initiative complied with the state constitution’s subject-in-title mandate and whether it improperly amended existing statutes without explicit notice—commonly called “silent amendments.”
Three Justices Would Have Preserved Most of I-2066
A dissenting opinion from Justice Mungia offered a more targeted approach. He argued that most provisions aligned with the central aim of safeguarding consumer access to natural gas. Only one segment—subsection 12(5), which repealed the Decarbonization Act’s severability clause—posed a separate subject under article II, section 19 of the state constitution.
Mungia also identified sections 9, 10, and 11 as violating article II, section 37, due to their modifications to local governments’ and agencies’ legal obligations, which he contended were not sufficiently disclosed in the initiative’s text.
Rather than striking down the entire measure, he proposed excising those four elements and letting the remainder stand. He noted the initiative’s own severability clause lent support to this approach and observed that the surviving provisions could still fulfill the core objective of ensuring continued natural gas availability.
The majority, however, declined that path, reasoning that selecting surviving provisions would involve judicial assumptions about voter preferences—something best left to the ballot box.
Thursday’s ruling confirms the King County Superior Court’s earlier decision invalidating I-2066 in its entirety.
The Real Olympic Herald has issued guidelines for its content partners. Publications are required to attribute the source and the specific journalist, along with including a direct link to the original article. While minor adjustments for style, length, or current time references are permitted, the core narrative must remain unchanged. For online republishing, the canonical URL provided by the Real Olympic Herald should be utilized to ensure proper search engine attribution. Partners are also instructed to avoid selling the content or using it as a primary vehicle for advertising sales. The outlet provides an option to copy the story’s HTML code and invites inquiries via their contact channel.