1
2
3
4
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

7
8
9

BURIEN COMMUNITIES FOR
INCLUSION, a Washington political
committee,

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

CASE NO. 17-2-23799-0
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.

13

RESPECT WASHINGTON, a Washington
political committee; KING COUNTY
ELECTIONS; JULIE WISE, KING
COUNTY DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS,
in her official capacity at KING COUNTY
ELECTIONS; and THE CITY OF
BURIEN,

14
15
16
17

Defendants.

18
19

Comes now the Plaintiff, and by way of complaint, alleges as follows:

20
21
22

I.

NATURE OF ACTION
1.1

Plaintiff Burien Communities for Inclusion (“the Committee”) brings this action

23

for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Respect Washington, King County

24

Elections, the King County Director of Elections, and the City of Burien (the “City”).

25

1.2

The Committee alleges that Burien Initiative Measure No. 1 (“Measure 1”) is

26
plagued by numerous issues that render it unlawful and invalid.
COMPLAINT - 1

The Committee seeks a
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1

declaratory judgment that Measure 1 is outside the scope of the City’s initiative power and is

2

otherwise invalid. The Committee seeks an order prohibiting the measure from appearing on the

3

November 2017 ballot.

4

II.

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.1

The Superior Court of Washington, King County has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

6
claims pursuant to RCW 2.08.010 and RCW 7.24.010.
7
8
9

2.2

Venue in King County is appropriate pursuant to RCW 4.12.020.

2.3

This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to RCW 7.24.010

10

because Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Measure 1 is invalid under the Burien

11

Municipal Code (“BMC”) and the laws of the State of Washington. This Court also has the

12
13

authority under RCW 7.24.190 and RCW 7.40.010 to issue a prohibitory injunction preventing
placement of Measure 1 on the November 2017 ballot.

14
15
16

III.

PARTIES
3.1

The Committee is a Washington political committee whose primary address is in

17

Burien, Washington and whose mission is to serve the Burien community. The Committee’s

18

interests and the interests of the people who it serves will be adversely affected by changes to the

19

functions, powers and duties of City officers and employees, as well as the inquiries, actions and

20

law enforcement profiling by the City that could result from the passage of Measure 1.

21
3.2

Respect Washington is a Washington nonprofit organization headquartered in

22
23

Bellevue, Washington. Respect Washington is the sponsor of Measure 1. As of the filing of this

24

Complaint, more than half of Respect Washington’s funding comes from “US, Inc.,” an entity

25

based out of Petoskey, Michigan. US, Inc. was founded by John Tanton, who public sources say

26

COMPLAINT - 2

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1
2

opposes immigration on the grounds of population reduction and protection of an ethnic white
majority.
3.3

3

King County Elections is a department of King County, Washington responsible

4

for conducting local elections. The Committee names King County Elections as a defendant

5

because an injunction preventing the unlawful initiative from appearing on the ballot will require

6

the department’s action.

7
3.4

Julie Wise is the King County Director of Elections. The Committee names

8
9

Defendant Wise in her official capacity only. The Committee names the Director of Elections of

10

King County Elections as a defendant because an injunction preventing the unlawful initiative

11

from appearing on the ballot will require the Director’s action.

12
13
14

3.5

The City is a code city, organized under Chapter 35.02 RCW and Article 11,

Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution, whose powers are conferred by the laws of the
State of Washington. The City does business in King County, Washington. The City is named as

15
16

a defendant because a challenge concerning the local initiative power necessarily involves

17

consideration of the City’s authority to enact legislation that conflicts with state and local laws.

18

IV.

19
20
21

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4.1

In January of 2017, the City Council considered the adoption of Ordinance No.

651 to ensure that local officers and city officials will not request information regarding or
initiate any inquiry solely based on a person’s civil immigration status, race, or inability to speak

22
English, and to forbid the creation of a registry or database for the purpose of classifying
23
24
25
26

residents’ religious affiliations.
4.2

Ordinance No. 651 created Chapter 2.26 of the BMC. This Chapter prohibited

inquiries into immigration status by City offices, departments, employees, agencies, or agents

COMPLAINT - 3

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1

unless “otherwise required by law,” and prohibited the conditioning of City services on the

2

citizenship or immigration status of any individual. BMC 2.26.020. It also prohibited the

3

collection of information regarding religious affiliation, unless such information is voluntarily

4

provided. BMC 2.26.030. It expressly did not prohibit any City employee, agency, or agent

5

from participating in required activities with federal law enforcement agencies. BMC

6

2.26.020(A).

7
4.3

On January 9, 2017, at a Special Meeting of the Burien City Council, Ordinance

8
9
10

No. 651 was passed by a majority of council members, after public comment.
4.4

Craig Keller, a West Seattle resident who is also the campaign manager, treasurer

11

and sole officer of Respect Washington, submitted on July 7, 2017 an initiative petition to the

12

City Clerk’s office seeking to create an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 651 and amending

13
14

the BMC to prohibit the City of Burien from regulating the acquisition of immigration status or
religious affiliation without a majority vote of the City Council and a majority vote of the people

15
16
17

at a municipal general election.
4.5

The petition used for gathering signatures in support of Measure 1 contained

18

numerous extraneous statements of anti-immigrant propaganda, added a purported “legislative

19

history” characterizing city council members’ positions on Ordinance No. 651, and misstated the

20

language and effects of Ordinance No. 651. Specifically, the petition included the following

21

language, prominently placed, emphasized with a border and in larger font than most other text

22
on the page:
23
24
25
26

COMPLAINT - 4

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1
2

On the page setting forth the text of Measure 1, the petition included the following
information, and a solicitation for contributions to Respect Washington:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

COMPLAINT - 5

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1
2

4.6

Measure 1 amends the Burien Municipal Code as follows:
a.

3

Adds a new Chapter to BMC, at 9.20, titled “Citizen Protection of

4

Effective Law Enforcement,” which would prohibit the City from

5

“regulat[ing] the acquisition of immigration status or religious affiliation

6

unless such regulation is approved by a majority vote of the City Council

7
and a majority vote of the people at a municipal general election.”
8
b.

9

intents behind BMC 2.26 as outlined therein to be “propaganda;” and

10
11
12
13
14

Formally and specifically deems the Findings concerning the goals and

c.
4.7

Repeals BMC 2.26 in its entirety.

After several efforts at gathering the necessary number of signatures needed to

present the petition to the City Council, Respect Washington presented the petition to the City
Council.

15
16

4.8

The City Council considered the petition at its Special Meeting on July 31, 2017,

17

and heard extensive public comment on the issue. A decision was postponed until the City

18

Council’s regular meeting on August 7, 2017, where the City Council adopted Resolution No.

19

395 to place Measure 1 on the November 2017 ballot.

20
21

4.9
homepage

Measure 1 is already listed on the King County Elections ballot measure
(see

http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/whats-on-the-

22
ballot/ballot-measures/november-general/list-of-measures/burien.aspx).
23
24

4.10

Upon information and belief, King County Elections will be preparing, printing,

25

and mailing voter ballots and voter pamphlets in the very near future. Voter pamphlets are

26

scheduled to be mailed to voters on or about October 17, and ballots will be mailed on or about

COMPLAINT - 6

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1

October 18. However, overseas voters and military service member ballots are scheduled to be

2

mailed on or about September 22. Therefore, printing of ballots and related materials is expected

3

to commence well in advance of that date.

4

4.11

Various issues exist with Measure 1 that render it unlawful and invalid.

5

4.12

Initiatives and referenda that are unlawful or otherwise invalid should not be

6

placed on the ballot. Absent action from this Court, Measure 1 will unlawfully appear on the

7
November 2017 ballot.
8
4.13

9

The Committee has standing to bring this case because placement of Measure 1

10

on the November 2017 ballot and any resulting passage of Measure 1 will cause injury in fact to

11

the people of Burien who the Committee serves.

12

V.

13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – Declaratory Judgment That Measure 1 Is Invalid
Because It Exceeds The Scope Of the City’s Initiative Power.

14

5.1

Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

15

5.2

Pursuant to the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW 7.24 et seq., this

16
17

Court may declare the validity of a proposed initiative.
5.3

This matter is ripe for declaratory relief because a dispute exists as to the validity

18
of the Initiative.
19
20

5.4

Administrative Issues Are Outside the Initiative Power. Local initiative power

21

is limited to legislative, as opposed to administrative, actions. Determining whether an action is

22

administrative or legislative is appropriate in pre-election review. Ordinance No. 651 sought,

23

among other things, to bring City operating procedures in line with King County law

24

enforcement policies in order to foster trust and cooperation between city personnel and law

25

enforcement officials and immigrant communities to heighten crime prevention and public

26
safety. Policies and procedures regarding how Burien City personnel conduct their jobs are
COMPLAINT - 7

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1

administrative and already established in the BMC and city policies. Measure 1 would thus

2

change existing administrative policy. Measure 1 is administrative in nature, and is therefore not

3

subject to the initiative (or referendum) process. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment

4

that Measure 1 is invalid on this basis.

5
6

5.5

Powers Granted To The Legislative Authority Of A City Are Outside The

Initiative Power. Powers that have been granted to the legislative authority of a city or county,

7
as opposed to the municipal entity as a whole, are also not subject to legislation by initiative. If a
8
9

state statute explicitly grants power to the city’s legislative authority—here, the City Council—

10

then that power is held exclusively by the City Council and not by the electorate. RCW

11

35A.11.020 states that the “legislative body of each code city shall have power to organize and

12

regulate its internal affairs … and to define the functions, powers, and duties of its officers and

13
14

employees[.]” Ordinance No. 651 governs the functions, powers, and duties of its personnel with
respect to inquiring into, using, and disclosing immigration status and information about

15
16

religious affiliation. If passed, Measure 1 would prohibit City officials from limiting City

17

employees from regulating the acquisition of immigration status or religious affiliation without a

18

vote by the electorate at a general election. Measure 1 therefore exceeds the scope of the City’s

19

initiative (or referendum) powers. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Measure 1

20

is invalid on this basis.

21
22
23
24
25

VI.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – Declaratory Judgment That Measure 1 Is Invalid
Because The Content and Form of the Petition Used To Gather Signatures In
Support Thereof Failed To Comply With Proper Initiative/Referendum Procedures,
As Set Forth In Both City And State Law, Rendering the Signatures Obtained
Invalid.
6.1

Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

26

COMPLAINT - 8

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 6.2

1
2

Court may declare the validity of a proposed initiative.
6.3

3
4

This matter is ripe for declaratory relief because a dispute exists as to the validity

of the Initiative.

5
6

Pursuant to the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW 7.24 et seq., this

6.4

RCW 35A.11.080 provides that cities like Burien may provide for the exercise in

their city of the powers of initiative and referendum.

7
6.5

BMC 1.10.010 provides that the “citizens of the city of Burien … are granted the

8
9
10

powers of initiative and referendum as provided for in RCW 35A.11.080,” which “shall be
exercised in the manner set forth in RCW 35.17.240 through 35.17.360.”

11
12

6.6

submission “shall follow the procedures established in RCW 35.21.005.”

13
14

As required by RCW 35.17.270, any petitioner preparing an initiative petition for

6.7

The petition proposing Measure 1 violates RCW 35.21.005 by deviating from the

requirements for the contents and form of a petition, as set forth in RCW 35.17.240 through
15
16
17

35.17.360, by containing on its face non-objective information, information that is not fair or
impartial, and fundraising solicitations not permitted by statute.
6.8

18

Because the petition failed to comply with local and state law, the signatures

19

obtained via those petitions are invalid. Therefore, there were not a sufficient number of valid

20

signatures as required by RCW 35A.11.100 to qualify the measure for the ballot.

21
22

VII.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – Declaratory Judgment that Measure 1 Is Invalid
Because It Imposes Unreasonable Restrictions On The City Council’s Power To
Organize Its Affairs, In Violation Of State Law.

23
24
25
26

7.1

Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

7.2

Pursuant to the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW 7.24 et seq., this

Court may declare the validity of a proposed initiative.

COMPLAINT - 9

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1
2
3

7.3

This matter is ripe for declaratory relief because a dispute exists as to the validity

of the Initiative.
7.4

Section 1 of Measure 1 states that the City “shall not regulate the acquisition of

4

immigration status or religious affiliation” unless “approved by a majority vote of the City

5

Council and a majority vote of the people at a municipal general election.”

6

7.5

The legislative body of the City of Burien has the power to organize and regulate

7
its internal affairs, conferred to it by RCW 35A.11.020. This power, inter alia, confers on the
8
9

legislative body of the City of Burien the power to enact laws and have those laws become

10

effective without those laws having to be approved by a majority vote of the people at a

11

municipal general election. This language adds impermissible conditions on the City Council’s

12

ability to organize and regulate its internal affairs, in violation of State law.

13
14

VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Declaratory Judgment That Measure 1 Is Invalid
Because It Violates The Single Subject Rule.

15

8.1

Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

16

8.2

Pursuant to the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW 7.24 et seq., this

17

Court may declare the validity of a proposed initiative.

18
8.3

This matter is ripe for declaratory relief because a dispute exists as to the validity

19
20
21

of the Initiative.
8.4

The Washington Constitution (art. II, sec. 19) requires that no bill embrace more

22

than one subject. This requirement applies to ordinances adopted by initiative. If a piece of

23

legislation fails to meet this requirement, it is wholly invalid.

24
25

8.5

If legislation contains two component parts with two different purposes—one

continuing and general in character, the second specific and targeted in nature—it is in violation

26
of the single subject rule and therefore wholly invalid.
COMPLAINT - 10

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 8.6

1

Measure 1 contains two component parts with two different purposes. It creates a

2

continuing, general, prospective prohibition on the City regulating the acquisition of immigration

3

status or religious affiliation without a majority vote of the City Council and of the electorate at a

4

general election. It also creates a specific repeal of BMC 2.26. It therefore violates the single

5

subject rule, and is invalid.

6

IX.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Injunctive Relief.

7
9.1

Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

9.2

Pursuant to RCW 7.24 and RCW 7.40 et seq. the Court has the power to grant

8
9
10

injunctive relief. The Court may grant an injunction at the time the action is commenced or at

11

any time afterward.

12

9.3

13

A prohibitory injunction preventing Measure 1 from being placed on the ballot

for the November 2017 election is the only adequate remedy for this invalid initiative.

14
XI.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

15
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following relief:

16
17

A.

A declaratory judgment that Measure 1 is procedurally and substantively invalid;

18

B.

Enjoin Measure 1 from being included on the November 2017 ballot;

19

C.

Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs; and

20

D.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

21
22
///
23
24

///

25

///

26

///

COMPLAINT - 11

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132

 1

DATED this 8th day of September, 2017.
s/Jennifer L. Robbins
Jennifer L. Robbins, WSBA # 40861
Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA #17673
Laura Ewan, WSBA # 45201
Katelyn Sypher, WSBA # 49759
Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
18 W Mercer St, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119
Phone: (206) 257-6008
Fax: (206) 257-6043
robbins@workerlaw.com
iglitzin@workerlaw.com
ewan@workerlaw.com
sypher@workerlaw.com

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Burien Communities for Inclusion

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

COMPLAINT - 12

SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER ST., SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98119
Office (206) 285-2828 / Fax (206) 378-4132