The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday issued a 6‑3 ruling that nullified Initiative 2066, a measure approved by voters in the 2024 election. The court found the initiative unconstitutional because it combined several distinct policy provisions, breaching the state’s single‑subject requirement for citizen‑initiated statutes.
Background of the measure
Initiative 2066 was promoted by the Building Industry Association of Washington and gathered signatures with the help of the conservative political committee “Let’s Go Washington.” The measure sought to slow Washington’s transition away from natural gas by restricting the adoption of electric heat‑pump technology and by limiting utility rate plans that would reduce or increase the cost of natural‑gas service.
Voters approved the initiative by a narrow margin—just over 52 %—and it passed in 34 of the state’s 39 counties, including populous areas such as Snohomish and Pierce counties.
Legal challenge and court reasoning
Within days of the election certification, a coalition of environmental and consumer‑advocacy groups—including Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County, and the City of Seattle—filed a lawsuit challenging the measure. Their attorneys argued that the initiative violated Washington’s constitutional prohibition on “log‑rolling,” a practice where an unpopular provision is attached to a popular one to secure passage.
The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Initiative 2066 contained multiple, unrelated policy choices and forced voters to accept all of them as a single package. Because the measure did not meet the single‑subject rule, the court affirmed a lower‑court ruling that declared the initiative unconstitutional in its entirety.
Responses from stakeholders
Greg Lane, Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Washington, maintained that each section of the initiative was intended to protect consumers’ right to choose natural‑gas service. He argued that the measure was a safeguard for families who rely on natural gas for heating and cooking, emphasizing the importance of preserving affordable energy options.
Representatives of the plaintiff coalition, however, highlighted the broader public‑interest goal of accelerating Washington’s clean‑energy transition. They noted that the state’s 2024 law already set targets for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and that Initiative 2066 would have undermined those efforts by restricting utility plans designed to promote efficiency and lower emissions.
Implications for Washington’s energy policy
The decision restores the state’s ability to pursue its existing clean‑energy goals without the constraints imposed by Initiative 2066. It also serves as a reminder to future petitioners that Washington’s single‑subject rule will be strictly enforced, ensuring that ballot measures present clear, focused proposals rather than bundled packages.
While the ruling is a setback for the Building Industry Association and its supporters, it reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional safeguards and protecting the integrity of the initiative process.
What’s next?
Advocates on both sides are likely to assess the impact of the decision on upcoming energy‑policy debates in the state legislature. The ruling may influence how future measures are drafted, particularly those addressing the balance between traditional energy sources and emerging clean‑technology solutions.
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
