On June 19, 2003 the Washington State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to a November 2000 voter-approved initiative that banned the use of body-gripping traps and a number of poisons when used to capture mammals for recreation or commercial purposes.
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management had challenged the ban claiming the wording of the initiative violated several sections of that state’s constitution. Specifically CRWM pointed out that the Washington State Constitution required that,
a. “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title?
b. ?no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth in full length?
But the Washington State Supreme Court rejected that argument. Justice Faith Ireland wrote for the majority that,
A more moderate interpretation, as compared to those offered by the parties, is that the title deals with banning methods of trapping and killing animals. Using the above quoted examples of general and restrictive titles to guide the determination here, I-713’s title is general. I-713’s title contains specific topics as well, namely, body- gripping traps and pesticides. As in Amalgamated, however, those topics are merely incidental to the general topic reflected in the title – a ban on methods of trapping and killing animals. The title for I-713 is most accurately described as general and does not contain two subjects. However, even if we assume, arguendo, that the title is restrictive, it is still a constitutionally valid title. The subjects of trap and pesticide use for animals are related so as not to be the individual, disjointed subjects that Citizens contend they are. The provisions in the initiative governing the types of traps and pesticides that may be used are fairly within the subject expressed in the title.
This was a victory for the Humane Society of the United States which successfully pushed the initiative.
Having lost in this case Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management is still pursuing a separate lawsuit to invalidated both I-713 and I-655, which passed in 1996 and banned bear-baiting and cougar hunting with hounds. For that lawsuit, the CRWM is using a Public Trust Doctrine argument which it summarizes as,
The doctrine, simply stated, recognizes that sovereign (representative government) has the sole and exclusive administrative obligation and responsibility to protect, manage and conserve navigable waters, fish and wildlife for the enjoyment and use by the public for transportation, commerce and related activities and purposes.
CRWM is arguing that while a state legislature could ban bear baiting, such a ban could not be enacted via a voter initiative because it impinges on the Public Trust situated in the representative legislature.
Source:
High court upholds state trapping ban. Paul Query, The Associated Press, June 20, 2003.
A Brief Explanation of the NO-713 and Public Trust Doctrine Lawsuits. Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Press Release.