Justice Jim Johnson at work protecting the freedom of all Washingtonians
THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Coppernoll v. Reed, Sept. 2005
155 Wn.2d 290
J. Johnson authored majority opinion holding that the people must be allowed to vote on qualified initiatives.
“The initiative is the first power reserved by the people in the Washington Constitution. … [T]he right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state's history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government. Accordingly, this potent vestige of our progressive era past must be vigilantly protected by our courts.”
Wash. State Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Reed, July 2005
154 Wn.2d 668
When the court held that the legislation was exempt from referendum, J. Johnson dissented, arguing that the court’s holding allows the secretary of state and legislature to engage in prior restraint of the right to referendum.
“[I]t is a violation of law for the secretary to refuse to file this petition [for referendum] as he has no constitutional or statutory authority to make decisions of constitutional validity that are exclusively the province of this court. I would protect the people's constitutional right of referendum, while allowing later - and full and fair - consideration of the merits. Because the court allows the secretary of state and legislature to act in prior restraint of that right . . . I dissent.
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
In re Condemnation Petition of Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 2005
155 Wn.2d 612
Seattle monorail case, where majority ruled that Monorail company’s taking of private lands for profitable resale did not violate Washington State Constitution. J. Johnson dissents.
“In the wake of Kelo, legal scholars and citizens exulted that Washingtonians were insulated from such abuses [taking private land for profitable resale] because the plain language of the Washington Constitution, as previously enforced by this court, afforded broader protection against eminent domain abuse than its federal counterpart. See CONST. art. I, § 16. Unfortunately, the majority of this court is less enlightened than the citizenry or less inclined to restrain public agencies in their taking of private property. I side with the citizens and our Washington Constitution . . . [emphasis added].
“Special protection against taking of private property is found in our constitution's article I, section 16 ‘Declaration of Rights.’ These protections were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of government powers. The settlers of Washington came here drawn by the opportunity to own their own property and many fled from abusive governments.”
“By upholding Monorail's decision to take far more property than it needs from a lawful private owner, and by erroneously applying a deferential standard to the agency's grab of this property, the majority overrules this court's "universal rule" sub silentio. I would uphold our constitution and agree with the property owner that Monorail (and other agencies of its ilk) should be restrained from abusing private property rights. . . .[S]uch rights are of exceptional import to our citizens. I believe the authors of our constitution understood this vital principle and drafted and overwhelmingly approved article I, section 16 to protect against such abuse.”
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Rickert v. Pub.Disclosure Comm’n, Oct. 2007
161 Wn.2d 843
J. Johnson authored majority opinion that a statute censoring political speech is unconstitutional, holding that political speech is highly protected, and even if defamatory, a government agency should not engage in censoring speech.
“The United States and Washington Constitutions both protect the right of free speech, and political speech is the core of that right. … The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment… [T]he best remedy for false or unpleasant speech is more speech, not less speech. The importance of this constitutional principle is illustrated by the very real threats to liberty posed by allowing an unelected government censor like the PDC to act as an arbiter of truth.”
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, 2009
166 Wn.2d 633
Majority opinion authored by J. Johnson on the “Tent City” case. City of Woodinville’s refusal to consider Tent City permit request substantially burdens the church’s right to religious exercise.
“Washington's constitution guarantees, ‘[a]bsolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship’ and also provides that this ‘shall not be so construed as to . . . justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.’”
“The City violated the Church's constitutional rights under article I, section 11 when it refused to process the Church's permit application based on a total moratorium on temporary use permits in the area. Rather than seeking to impose reasonable conditions on the Church's project to protect the safety and peace of the neighborhood, the City categorically prevented the Church from exercising what the City concedes is religious practice.”
LAW AND ORDER
Brown v. Eldon Vail, 2010
No. 82832-6
A bare majority of the Supreme Court granted another stay to torturer/rapist/murderer Brown on his death penalty case litigated 15 years previously.
“When the United States Supreme Court ruled against Brown’s claims, it noted that ‘the State has a strong interest in having jurors who are able to apply capital punishment within the framework state law prescribes.’ … The same must be said of all judges… [j]udges are also bound by a constitutional oath to enforce the law. The people of Washington and family and friends of Holly Washa [the victim] are also entitled to this protection.”
State v. Sutherby, 2009
165 Wn.2d 870
The majority held that prosecutions for child pornography should be limited to one unit or prosecution instead of multiple units depending on the number of images possessed. Thus, they reversed the conviction of a child molestor/kiddie porn possessor for a new trial because his lawyer failed to request severance of the charges. J. Johnson authored a potent dissent against this holding.
“Poor little L.K. This innocent young girl was victimized at age five by her own grandfather, and now by a justice system that is supposed to protect her. The majority holds that Randy Sutherby, although convicted after a jury trial, is entitled to a new trial because he and his counsel did not ask to sever other criminal charges. I dissent because the majority finds this violates Sutherby's constitutional rights and remands to force L.K. to an unnecessary second trial.…
“[R]emanding now for an unnecessary new trial disregards an important principle of our constitution's crime victims' rights amendment. See CONST. art. I, $ 35 (amend. 84). That amendment stands for the principle that victims ought to be accorded dignity and respect throughout the criminal process. Under the majority's holding, L.K. and her family must now suffer through a second trial on the rape and molestation charges because the majority has an unfounded hunch that Sutherby might have been prejudiced.”
“Child pornography offenders should not be entitled to a ‘volume discount.’ . . . The majority's analysis undermines the legislature's purpose and fails to adequately protect innocent child victims. Hopefully the legislature will act to correct this misreading of the statute.”
