LIMIT v. Maleng
| Initiative law|
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Ballot title challenges
| Laws governing|
local ballot measures
The outcome of the case was that on October 17, 1994, federal judge Barbara Rothstein struck down the law. Her ruling was not appealed by the state.
In 1988, in the case of Meyer v. Grant, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that it violates the First Amendment for a state to outlaw the practice of paying anyone to circulate a petition. The law at issue in that case was from Colorado.
Washington had long had a law similar to the Colorado law ruled unconstitutional in Meyer v. Grant. They believed that the new law they passed in 1993, HB 1645, would salvage as much of the old law as possible.
However, Rothstein noted there was no evidence to support the state's contention that the ban is necessary to eliminate fraud. She noted evidence presented by the plaintiff, that petitions circulated by paid workers have higher validity rates, than petitions circulated by volunteers.
- Residency requirements for petition circulators
- History of restrictions on paid circulators
- Changes in 2007 to laws governing the initiative process
- Changes in 2008 to laws governing the initiative process
- Meyer v. Grant
- Prete v. Bradbury
- Text of HB 1645, the bill that was ruled unconstitutional in LIMIT v. Maleng