Amendments to the Washington Constitution

In 1889, the Washington constitutional convention drafted the state constitution, which was ratified by Washington voters that same year. That same year, Washington was admitted into the Union and became the 42nd state.

The original 1889 Constitution is still in effect today, although it has since been amended over 100 times. Amendments to the Constitution are referred to voters either by the legislature or a convention. A two-thirds majority vote in both the Washington House and Senate is needed to send an amendment or convention proposal to voters, who then need to approve it by a simple majority.

Of these amendments, some of the topics addressed most often were spending, debt, investment, and taxation. However, while a majority of the amendments made to the Washington Constitution were ratified between the 1950s and 1980s, significant amendments have occurred throughout Washington’s history.

Redistricting Deadlines

In 2016, voters approved an amendment advancing the Commission’s ten-year redistricting deadline from January 1 of each year ending in two, to November 15th of each year ending in one. The resolution received unanimous support in the Washington legislature. Legislators noted that the previous deadline created a time crunch between busy year-end holidays and spring elections. The advanced deadline allows for increased public participation and feedback and more time to implement new boundaries. 

Denial of Bail

At the 2010 election, voters ratified a legislatively referred amendment to expand the class of criminal defendants who may be denied bail. Before the amendment’s passage, the constitution only authorized courts to deny bail in cases involving capital offenses (offenses for which the death penalty may be imposed if the person charged is convicted). The new provision included an additional class of cases: offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison where there is a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, of a propensity for violence that creates a substantial likelihood of danger to the community or any persons.

Opponents of the measure charged that it “erodes…precious freedoms” and “unfairly allow[s] for the detention of individuals who may be innocent.” In their view, the existing rules allowing judges to “set high bail and other conditions to protect the public from potentially violent individuals” were sufficiently protective, and this amendment “goes too far.”

Inmate Labor

Until 2007, Article II, Section 29 of the Washington Constitution, titled “Convict Labor,” prohibited the state from contracting with private for-profit or nonprofit entities to operate inmate labor programs in which inmates provide labor for the private entity. That changed when voters approved an amendment to qualify that language, resurrecting the controversy around inmate labor in the state. As a result of the amendment, not only is the legislature obligated to provide for inmate labor programs for the benefit of the state, but they may do so utilizing contracts with private entities.

Despite the amendment containing language that such programs “shall be operated” so as not to “unfairly compete with Washington businesses,” much of the backlash was centered around this very point. In the opposition’s view, there was no real assurance private workers wouldn’t be negatively impacted, and that “[w]hile education and job training can prepare felons for a successful return to the community, it should not be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens competing for jobs or local businesses competing in the marketplace.”

Election of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Prior to 1995, the Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court was the justice who had the shortest amount of time remaining in their term. In effect, this meant that the chief justice was the justice with two years left in their term, with the most seniority of those justices with two years remaining in their term, and who had not previously served as chief justice. The 1995 amendment changed the process for selecting a chief justice to allow the justices of the supreme court to elect a chief justice based on their qualifications for the role. The amendment also extended the term of the chief justice from two years to four years. Proponents argued that the amendment allowed “the full Court to select its own Chief—to lead the judiciary, protect public safety, reduce backlogs and improve justice.”

This amendment simultaneously attempted to limit the number of Washington Supreme Court justices. However, the reduction of the size of the court was reliant on subsequent reform legislation that was never passed. Accordingly, the court has remained a nine-person body to this day.

Independent Commission on Judicial Conduct

During the 1980’s, a sexual misconduct scandal involving a Washington judge shook public confidence in the state’s judicial system and raised concerns over the commission on Judicial Conduct’s ability to hold members of the bench accountable. In response, the legislature proposed, and voters approved, an amendment aimed at strengthening the commission, improving public access to its review, and restoring public confidence in the judiciary. The amendment posed several key changes, many of which built on the earlier reforms passed just three years prior, including:

• Increasing citizen participation by adding two non-attorneys to the commission, shifting the balance to favor non-attorney members with six non-attorneys and five attorneys sitting on the commission.
• Providing that the commission’s initial investigation to determine probable cause shall remain confidential; however, if a hearing is then held, it will be public, and records of the initial investigation will also be made public
• Permitting the commission to censor or reprimand a judge without the Washington Supreme Court’s approval, although the judge has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court within thirty days. The Supreme Court retains the authority to suspend or remove a judge based on the commission’s recommendation. 

Authorizing the commission to adopt its own rules, so long as they comply with state statutes and the state constitution, and the commission is additionally required to employ investigative officers with appropriate training.

In 2005, voters approved another commission-related amendment, though it was corrective in nature and clarified only that elected municipal court judges were eligible to serve on the commission.

For more information on the Judicial Conduct Commission, see 1980 & 1986.

Establishing a Commission on Legislative and Judicial Salaries

In 1948, voters passed a constitutional amendment giving the legislature the authority to fix salaries for elected officials. Under this provision, salaries could not be decreased during an official’s term of office but, with the exception of legislators, the salaries could be increased. Then, in 1986, voters passed another constitutional amendment, this time authorizing the creating of a commission to set the salaries of elected officials. Additionally, the new provision allowed the commission to enact salary increases or decreases that could take effect midterm.

In anticipation of the amendment’s passage, the legislature passed statute that established that the commission would be comprised of 15 members, eight selected by the voters of each congressional district and seven appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, each from different professional backgrounds.

Proponents argued that, under the old provision, legislators faced “an obvious and unavoidable conflict of interest” since legislators set their own salaries. An independent citizens’ commission would, instead, allow the public to set the salaries of elected official “solely according to the needs of the state.” However, opponents argued that characterizing the commission as independent was misleading since its members were appointed by the legislature. They raised fears that legislators would be able to “receive huge salary increases by hiding behind a commission.” Despite these concerns, voters ultimately voted to adopt the citizens commission model for setting the salaries of elected officials and the Washington Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials continues to operate to this day.

Changes to the Commission on Judicial Conduct

In 1986, voters passed an amendment seeking to institute an array of changes to the recently established Judicial Qualifications Committee. These changes included:

• Renaming the body the “Commission on Judicial Conduct” to better reflect its work.
• Expanding the commission to include two additional non-lawyer public members, increasing the total number of members to nine.
• Permitting the commission, when it recommends removal, to immediately suspend a judge until a final determination is made by Supreme Court.

The amendment also instituted a requirement that all hearings be made public, with an exception for the initial proceeding to determine whether sufficient reason exists to conduct a hearing. This was largely a response to a statute adopted in 1981, which exempted the commission from provisions of the Public Disclosure Act, and allowed it to promulgate its own rules regarding the confidentiality of proceedings. Before the amendment’s passage, the commission’s rules required that all hearings be confidential, “with some exceptions where public interest in maintaining confidence in the judiciary and the integrity of the administration of justice so require.” Only one such public hearing was held during the commission’s then five-year existence.

For more information about the Commission on Judicial Conduct, see 1980 & 1989.

Creation of the Redistricting Commission

Voters adopted an amendment in 1983 providing for the appointment of a redistricting commission after each decennial federal census. Prior to its enactment, the Washington State legislature oversaw the reapportionment of Washington’s legislative and congressional districts. Since 1889, however, the legislature had accomplished redistricting only four times. In 1972, a federal court was forced to take over after the legislature failed to adopt a redistricting plan, and in 1982, the legislature’s congressional districting plan was rejected by a federal panel because of excessive deviation in district populations. In light of these repeated failures to comply with federal constitutional mandates, lawmakers determined that an independent commission should be established. 

The commission is composed of five members. Four commissioners are appointed by the legislative leaders of the two largest political parties in each house (usually 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats), who together appoint a fifth commissioner to act as nonvoting chairperson. The commission is responsible for the submission of a revised congressional and legislative redistricting plan, which the legislature may only amend by a two-thirds vote. The Washington Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all redistricting cases and has the authority to make appointments and adopt its own redistricting plan if constitutional deadlines cannot be met by the legislature or commission.

Establishing the Judicial Qualifications Committee

This section was added to create an independent Commission on Judicial Conduct, originally called the Judicial Qualifications Committee. At the time of its adoption, Washington was the only state in the country without some sort of judicial disciplinary body; the only way to discipline a judge was to remove them entirely from office through impeachment by the legislature or recall by the electorate. The amendment authorized the Committee, consisting of three judges, two members of the state bar association, and two non-attorneys appointed by the Governor, to hear complaints made by citizens and attorneys against judges and to recommend sanctions ranging from reprimand to removal from office to the Washington Supreme Court. 

While supporters of the measure called it an “effective” and “necessary” means for ensuring the people of Washington can hold their judicial officers accountable, opponents declared that it “would intrude on the right of the people to elect and remove judges and give unwarranted power to a bureaucracy in Olympia.” The opposition also pointed to a lack of evidence of judges in the state needing discipline or removal; proponents countered such evidence was unavailable because of the limitative procedures in the constitution. 

For more information about the Commission on Judicial Conduct, see 1986 & 1989

Governor’s Veto Powers

In 1974, the people of Washington amended their constitution to curtail and clarify the governor’s partial veto power. Prior to this amendment, the Governor’s powers were extensive. First, the governor was permitted to strike any element of a bill down to a single word or punctuation mark. Although this was not the prevailing understanding of the item veto power, the practice was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in 1960. In fact, it was the court’s blessing of a more extensive item veto power that motivated the legislature to propose the 1974 amendment to the governor’s veto powers, but this practice was also not restricted to appropriations bills, as is the case in most states. 

Those who supported an amendment to curb this authority were concerned that a “recent increase in both the scope of and the reliance on this power to substantively alter legislation,” was “destructive of the legislative process.” Proponents called on voters to “help rid [the] state of one-man lawmaking” and pointed to the incongruence between the state and federal approach to partial vetoes. Opponents countered that that the item veto is “part of the necessary system of checks and balances” and that the measure was a “blatant, unwarranted, and unjustified power grab by the legislature.”

The measure that ultimately passed reined in the partial veto—but only in part. The amendment abolished the practice of line-item vetoes on non-appropriations bills; for the governor to veto a mere “item,” the legislation at issue must be a bill appropriating funds. However, the amendment retained the Washington governor’s ability, uncommon across states, to veto “sections” of non-appropriation bills, as long as the governor is not trying to strike mere phrases or words.

Equal Rights Amendment

The national effort to enshrine federal constitutional protections against sex-based discrimination with an Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) has been a century-long undertaking that continues to this day. As a result of this drawn out, complicated history, many states have decided over the years to take matters into their own hands by passing their own state-level equivalents. Washington did so in 1972, when voters approved an amendment adding a new “Sex Equality” article to their constitution. The language mirrors that of the proposed federal ERA by ensuring that equal rights cannot be denied on the basis of sex. 

Since its enactment, the Washington Supreme Court has established only two narrow exceptions to the ERA’s strict prohibition on sex-based classifications: certain laws based on anatomical differences between the sexes and laws that ensure the actual, rather than mere theoretical, equality of the sexes.

Notice of Constitutional Amendment Elections

Washington’s original 1899 constitution mandated that the entire text of a proposed constitutional amendment must be continuously published in “some weekly newspaper” in each county for the three months leading up to an election. However, a 1962 amendment modified this requirement. The amendment provided that an explanation of each proposed amendment must be published once a week for four weeks before the election in every legal newspaper in the state. Most daily and weekly newspapers are considered legal newspapers.

The amendment was billed as a solution to the perceived “confusing” and “wasteful” requirements of the original provision. Proponents argued that merely publishing the text of the proposed amendment does not provide voters with an adequate understanding of the issues and that legal jargon in constitutional provisions could be confusing or misleading for voters. Additionally, proponents argued that it was unnecessary and wasteful to pay for advertising for a full three months preceding an election. Opponents countered that requiring publication in every newspaper in the state (which numbered over 170 at that time) was more wasteful. They suggested that the publication requirement should be limited to daily newspapers. Nevertheless, voters passed the proposed amendment.

Initiative and Referendum

In order to “modernize [the] initiative and referendum process so that signature requirements can keep pace with population growth,” voters ratified Amendment 30 in 1956. Most notably, the amendment abolished the fixed signature thresholds in place for initiative and referendum petitions. Under the original 1912 provision, signatures of ten percent of the legal voters, “but in no case more than fifty thousand,” were required to qualify an initiative for the ballot; the signatures of six percent of legal voters, “but in no case more than thirty thousand,” were required to qualify a referendum. The fixed signature thresholds of fifty thousand and thirty thousand were established at a time when one could presume a petition’s qualification for the ballot based upon reaching that upper threshold. As Washington’s population grew, the fixed limits lost their reliability as indicators of a petition’s secure qualification. Successful efforts to extend voting rights to previously disenfranchised groups further increased the number of voters eligible to sign an initiative or referendum petition, making it still easier to qualify petitions for the ballot by reaching the maximum thresholds alone. 

Amendment 30 eliminated the fixed signature thresholds, leaving only a modified version of the proportional system in place. The amendment changed the population base for which the qualifying percentage of signatures was measured from “all legal voters” to “voters registered and voting for the office of governor at the last preceding regular gubernatorial election.” The new qualifying percentages were set at eight percent for initiatives and four percent for referendums. These thresholds and basis of measurement are still effective today.

For more information about the initiative and referendum in Washington, see 1912 & 1952.

Initiative and Referendum

The grant of direct legislative power in Washington was limited in 1952 by a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to amend or repeal initiative measures during the two-year period after their enactment, which the 1912 provision originally prohibited. Still, such amending or repealing legislation requires approval by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. 

This amendment appears to have been prompted in large part by the passage of a 1948 law, Initiative 172, which increased public assistance benefits for low-income seniors and blind citizens but imposed a significant financial burden on the state budget. “While the legislature conceivably could have increased taxes on the theory that the electorate would be willing to pay for a program it had endorsed, the lawmakers were reluctant to do so.  . . . The result was that the regular political branches of the state government had no effective control over a substantial portion of the budget and appropriations for the 1949-51 biennium.” This amendment was intended to give some of that control back to the legislature.

For more information about the initiative and referendum in Washington, see 1912 & 1956.

Home Rule Charters

In 1948, Washington voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that gave counties the right of “home rule” and permit counties to draft their own charter. This would allow county residents to choose a different form of county government, including providing for additional county officers needed to perform various county functions. At the time of adoption, all Washington cities with a population of 20,000 or more already had the option of adopting home rule charters.

Under the new county home rule provision, the process for adopting a new charter can be initiated by the current county government or by voters via petition. Then, a Board of Freeholders is formed to draft a new county charter that must be approved by a simple majority of voters before taking effect.

As of 2024, there are seven home rule counties. The remaining 32 Washington counties operate under the three-commissioner model of county governance provided by state law.

Initiative and Referendum

Growing distrust of politicians inspired a push for increased popular control over the legislative process in a number of states during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By 1912, following years of pressure from the state grange (a farmers’ organization), labor unions, and progressive organizations, the Washington legislature passed, and voters approved, an amendment authorizing citizen initiatives and referendums. Advocates’ push to enact direct legislation in Washington was inspired in part by the efforts of their neighbors to the south in Oregon, which had become one of the first states to enact direct democracy provisions in 1902. 

Although the amendment was ratified, it failed to attract even moderate attention at the election. “Less than half of the electors troubled themselves to vote on the question,” seemingly indicating “no general, popular demand for the initiative and referendum.” Nonetheless, the amendment passed, having drawn at least a majority of those who did vote on the measure.

For more information about the initiative and referendum in Washington, see 1952 & 1956.

Recall of Elective Officers 

In addition to their campaign to implement direct legislation in Washington, Progressive-era reformers were also successful in pushing through a recall amendment during the same election. The amendment empowers voters to call a special election at any time to recall and discharge any elective public officer (except judges of courts of record).

For many decades, Washington was the “only state whose constitutional recall provision require[d] a showing of cause before recall is allowed.” Washington remains one of only a few states that requires a recall petition to allege acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office. According to a 2019 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, only eight states require (by constitutional provision, statute, or otherwise) specific grounds for recall. By contrast, most states provide that a general statement of the grounds on which the demand for recall is based will suffice. While some argue Washington’s recall provision is too stringent to provide a viable check on abuse, others assert that Washington’s strict recall provision reasonably protects elected officials from harassment.

When a recall petition is successful in Washington, the office is declared vacant, and a successor is appointed by law for the remaining term. Here, too, Washington is in the minority of states, with most states providing for an election of a successor to be held either simultaneously or immediately subsequent to the recall election. 

Women’s Suffrage

10 years before the states ratified the 19th Amendment and gave women around the nation the right to vote, Washington voters ratified an amendment to the Washington Constitution that prohibited denial of suffrage on the basis of sex. 

The road to women’s suffrage in Washington began before Washington was admitted as a state. In 1854, one of Seattle’s founders, Arthur Denny introduced a resolution to give white women the right to vote during the territorial legislature’s inaugural session. This resolution was rejected; but, nearly 30 years later, the territory gave women the right to vote in a bill that also made women eligible to serve on juries. However, women’s support of temperance ran afoul of the powerful saloon lobby who, in 1887, successfully pressured the Washington Territory Supreme Court to declare the women’s suffrage law unconstitutional, reasoning that women could not serve on juries. The following year, the legislature once again enacted a law giving women the right to vote, this time without the right to serve on a jury.

Despite women possessing the right to vote in the territory, the Washington Constitutional Convention did not include women’s suffrage in the proposed state constitution. Instead, suffrage was presented to voters as a separate amendment, which voters rejected by a two-to-one margin in 1889. However, the following year, the state legislature authorized women to vote for local school trustees and directors. In the 20 years following, women voted on the question of the state flower (choosing the rhododendron), and, in 1896, Washington’s male voters rejected another ballot measure to extend suffrage to women. Then, 14 years later, the women’s suffrage amendment finally passed.