On September 17, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling to strike down Initiative 2066. This decision regarding a natural gas measure has triggered accusations of partisan maneuvering from Republican leadership.
The Four-Subject Violation in the I-2066 Decision
The Washington Supreme Court's decisin to void Initiative 2066 centers on the state's single-subject rule. Chief Justice Debra Stephens,writing for the majority, determined that the natural gas measure violated Article II, Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. The court found that the initiative actually contained four distinct subjects, which is prohibited under state law.
According to the report, the measure had previously passed in November 2024 with 51.7% of the vote, representing nearly 2 million ballots and winning in 34 of the state's 39 counties.. In his dissent, Justice Sal Mungia argued that the provisions were merely two elements of a single subject : protecting the option to use natural gas.
Jim Walsh’s Allegations of a Pre-Written Political "Flex"
Republican chair Jim Walsh has accused the Washington Supreme Court of using the I-2066 ruling as a political "flex." Speaking on KIRO Newsradio, Walsh alleged that the court's decision was finalized months ago but intentionally withheld until mid-September to influence the November 3 general election.
Walsh further claimed that the court is currently a "rubber stamp" for the executive branch , noting that five of the six justices in the majority were appointees of Governor Bob Ferguson or former Governor Jay Inslee. He argued that this judicial configuration allows the executive branch to exert undue influence over the state's legal landscape.
Comparing I-2066 to the Parents' Bill of Rights
The consistency of the court's application of the single-subject rule is a central point of contention. Jim Walsh compared the I-2066 ruling to the court's previous rejection of car tab initiatives, suggesting a pattern of selective enforcement. As reported by the source, Walsh likened the court's inconsistent behavior to "Skinner’s rat," suggesting that the most damaging aspect of the judiciary's actions is the lack of predictable application of the law.
Conversely,Walsh noted that the court properly upheld Initiative 2081, the Parents' Bill of Rights, which addressed multiple categories of parental notification but was deemed to fall under a single subject. This comparison serves as the basis for his claim that the court's current interpretation of the constitution is being applied arbitrarily.
Five Supreme Court Seats on the November 3 Ballot
The upcoming November 3 election represents a historic moment for the Washington Supreme Court, with five of its nine seats on the ballot . This election includes four open seats created by recent retirements and the reelection campaign for Chief Justice Debra Stephens.
The political atmosphere is further charged by the presence of three other citizen initiatives, including I-645, which seeks to repeal the state income tax. walsh predicts that opponents of I-645 will immediately file lawsuits claiming the tax repeal measure also violates the single-subject rule by including future tax restrictions.
Was the I-2066 Opinion Held Back for Political Leverage?
Several critical questions remain regarding the internal operations of the Washington Supreme Court. While Jim Walsh claims his sources indicate the I-2066 opinion was ready months in advance, these allegations regarding the court's internal timeline remain unverified.
Additionally, the court has not addressed the claim that it is breaking the Code of Judicial Conduct by making decisions that undermine public trust.. It remains to be seen whether the ruling will result in the predicted voter backlash or if the court's interpretation of the state constitution will stand as a definitive precedent for future initiatives like I-645.
Comments 0