Legislative Apportionment in Washington

• DOI: 10.1177/1065912964017003102
• Published date: 01 September 1964
• Date: 01 September 1964
• Author: Richard C. Collins
• Subject Matter: Articles

137
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT IN WASHINGTON
RICHARD C. COLLINS
Seattle University
It was just over two years ago, on March 27, 1962, when the Supreme Court
of the United States rendered its decision in Baker v. Carr. In the state of Wash-
ington this decision has caused political maneuvering but no political solution; it has
produced litigation, but as yet, no definitive legal answer. Although there is little
doubt in most observers’ eyes that reapportioning will eventually be required, the
Supreme Court will have to rule on additional legal questions before more legisla-
tive action can be expected in this state. The answers to these questions are immi-
nent ; but the possibility that these answers will not affect the pattern of the 1964
elections is great.
Despite a constitutional mandate to reapportion the state legislative houses
on the basis of population after each decennial census, the legislature has freely per-
formed this duty only once in the 65 years of statehood. This 1902 apportionment
law was superseded in 1930 by a successful statutory initiative proposal. Despite
attempts to modernize the 1930 law by initiative, there was no further reapportion-
ment
until 1956.
A 1956 initiative proposal, which was spearheaded by the Washington League
of Women Voters, carried by some 41,000 votes out of 850,000 cast; interestingly
enough, the measure earned a majority in only nine of the state’s thirty-nine counties.
The measure was especially notable for abolishing the state’s precinct boundaries and
establishing U.S. Census Bureau tracts as districts for the state legislature.
There is no constitutional initiative in Washington, and a 1952 amendment to
the state constitution permits the state legislature to amend initiative measures by a
two-thirds vote within a two-year period. Utilizing this provision, the legislature
virtually nullified the initiative and reestablished the 1930 law. This law barely
escaped a gubernatorial veto, won a court test 5--4, and is...