Facts: The voters of King County authorized the issuance of bonds to raise funds to provide relief for indigent and disabled county residents in 1932. Subsequently, the voters of the state of Washington passed Initiative 94 in 1934, which placed limitations on the ability of the state government and of local governments to tax real and personal property. In order to provide for the punctual payment of bonds issued pursuant to the 1932 authorization, the King County Commission in 1937 authorized a direct tax to be levied on all taxable property in the county. The rate of and annual amount to be collected via the tax was not specified but rather was made contingent upon the size of the county’s bond obligations. Respondent Henry Love filed suit against the county, claiming that the imposition of such an open-ended tax violated the specific limitations established by Initiative 94. The Superior Court for King County permanently enjoined the county from issuing any bonds that bound the county to levy taxes without restriction as to the rate or amount thereof so long as Initiative 94 remained in effect. King County appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): May the power of taxation of state and local governments be restricted so as to impair their ability to repay obligations incurred in the exercise of important government functions?

Conclusion: Justice Steinert’s opinion for a unanimous Court held that while the power of taxation is an essential attribute of sovereignty that is possessed by the state even if not expressly conferred by the people, as ultimate sovereignty is vested in the people by the Washington State Constitution it is within their power to place restrictions upon the exercise of this power. Moreover, the passage of Initiative 94 was the functional equivalent of an act of the legislature, which is the ultimate source of all authority vested in county governments. Thus, King County enjoyed no inherent power to exceed statutory limitations imposed upon taxation.

Docket No. 25576

Petitioner: King County

(Counsel: Warren G. Magnuson and Edwin C. Ewing)

Respondent: Henry Love

(Counsel: Bruce C. Shorts, C.H. Hartson, and Bruce Shorts, Jr.)

Decided: Thursday, April 11th, 1935

Prevailing Party: Henry Love (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Opinion: 181 Wash. 462 (1935)

Court: Millard1 Court (1935-1936)

Millard

Main

Mitchell

Tolman

Holcomb

Beals

Steinert

Blake

Geraghty