Alderwood Associations v. Washington Environmental Council: Difference between revisions
m (Updated dead link with link to Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.) |
m (Inventory category installation for: Ballot_measure_lawsuits) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''{{PAGENAME}}''}} | |||
{{law}}'''Alderwood Associations v. Washington Environmental Council''' is a 1981 decision of the [[Washington Supreme Court]] that the [[initiative]] provisions in [[Washington]] give individuals the right to solicit initiative signatures in a large regional shopping mall owned by Alderwood Associations, without the permission of the mall's owners. | {{law}}'''Alderwood Associations v. Washington Environmental Council''' is a 1981 decision of the [[Washington Supreme Court]] that the [[initiative]] provisions in [[Washington]] give individuals the right to solicit initiative signatures in a large regional shopping mall owned by Alderwood Associations, without the permission of the mall's owners. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
{{Laws governing ballot measures}} | {{Laws governing ballot measures}} | ||
[[Category:Petitioner access lawsuits]] | [[Category:Petitioner access lawsuits]] | ||
[[Category:Ballot_measure_law_lawsuits]] | |||
[[Category:Ballot_measure_lawsuits]] | |||
Latest revision as of 00:57, 11 August 2021
Alderwood Associations v. Washington Environmental Council is a 1981 decision of the Washington Supreme Court that the initiative provisions in Washington give individuals the right to solicit initiative signatures in a large regional shopping mall owned by Alderwood Associations, without the permission of the mall's owners.
Five of the nine justices of the Washington Supreme Court agreed on the ruling, but in his crucial fifth vote Justice Dolliver said that he reached his conclusion based on entirely distinct reasoning from the other four justices with whose decision he concurred.
A 2007 decision of Rob McKenna, the Washington Attorney General, on the subject of whethers circulators can collect signatures on private property when the property owner doesn't want them to, says, "We do know, based on Alderwood, that initiative or referendum supporters must be permitted to circulate petitions at large regional shopping malls, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."
External links
- Citation of Alderwood by Washington Secretary of State
- Citation of Alderwood by Washington Attorney General
- Constitutional Rights Of Petition Circulators And Blockers On Private Property In Nebraska, opinion of Jon Bruning, the Nebraska Attorney General, citing Alderwood.
