Republican Guaranty Clause lives?

Craig Oren oren at CRAB.RUTGERS.EDU
Wed Mar 15 20:41:39 PST 2000

A quick reading of the opinion does not show any use of the Republican
Guaranty clause. Rather, the initiative was invalidated because, according
to the court, it conflicts with several specific provisions of the
Washington Constitution. While that Constitution guarantees the initiative
and referendum, it requires that all laws, including those passed by
initative, be confined to a single subject; but simultaneously rolling
back auto fees and requiring referneda on all future tax increses violates
that rule, according to the court. Moreover, that Constitution allows
referenda only when a given percent of the state's voters sign a
referendum petition, and hence the initiative provision mandating a
referendum on any future tax increase is in conflict with that

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, John C. Eastman wrote:

> In an interesting ruling out of Washington state, a state court
> judge struck down a Washington anti-tax initiative yesterday,
> noting, among other things:
> ``In a representative democracy, citizens delegate authority to
> their
> elected representatives ... to decide certain questions on behalf
> of the
> citizenry."  "A representative democracy does not contemplate,
> let
> alone necessitate, a direct vote of the citizens on every act of
> the
> government.''
> The opinion is available at .
> Is the Republican Guarantee Clause, like the Privileges or
> Immunities Clause in Saenz, undergoing a resurrection?
> John C. Eastman
> Chapman University School of Law

 Professor Craig N. Oren                    telephone *856-225-6365
 Rutgers School of Law-Camden               fax  *856-225-6516
 Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey
 217 N. 5th Street
 Camden, N.J. 08102-1203                    oren at

*please note the new area code.

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list