Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Washington Supreme Court weighs whether Richland charter petition must go on the 'next regular municipal election'
Summary
At oral argument June 12, attorneys debated whether the phrase "next regular municipal election" requires placing a Richland charter amendment petition on the next scheduled city general election or whether primaries or special elections qualify; counsel for the petitioner argued a restrictive auditor interpretation would delay voter choice, while the auditor rgued the statute is clear and the trial-court order should stand.
The Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument on June 12 in Abedder Richland v. Brenda Chilton over when a citizen petition to amend a city charter must be placed before voters.
Douglas McKinley Jr., identified in the transcript by the court as opening counsel for the appellant, told the justices he would focus on the "practical implications" of the auditor's reading of the operative statute and warned that, under that interpretation, a petition submitted in December could be delayed for "23 months later and 6 elections later" until November 2027. "What we're really deciding is do the voters of Richland get a choice," McKinley said, urging the court to read "next" as the soonest available opportunity to vote.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Leanne Holt, representing respondent Brenda Chilton in her capacity…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
