Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Whether County Planning Commissioners Count as "Offices" Under State Law
Summary
At a May 30 oral argument in Tumwater, counsel for Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith asked the Washington Supreme Court to adopt a sovereign-authority test for "office," while counsel for the Sportsman Alliance urged a plain-text approach and reliance on precedent; the court took the case under advisement.
The Washington Supreme Court heard competing arguments on May 30 over whether Washington's "incompatible office" language encompasses appointed roles such as county planning commissioners and how to define an "office" under the statute applied to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Joe Pinesco, who said he represented Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith, told the court that "a position constitutes an office for purposes of an incompatible office clause . . . when the position independently exercises sovereign authority." Pinesco urged the justices to adopt a framework (derived from Brown v. Blue) that looks to creation by law, delegation of sovereign power, duties defined by statute,…
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
