rn-E This opinion was filed for record
IN CLERKS OFFICE
aUFRBE COURT.SDaE OF mSHSIOTON
PA7g 09
at ^/^HmonKfOV.9.2011
kjAi^> ^
GHIEFMSTfKE I
-
SUSAITL. CARLSON
SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ANDREW PILLOUD, NO. 93786-9
Appellant,
V. EN BANC
KING COUNTY REPUBLICAN
CENTRAL COMMITTEE and LORI Filed: [■luJ 9 9 mi
SOTELO, county chairman, King County
Republican Central Committee,
Respondents.
FAIRHURST, C.J.—^RCW 29A.80.061 requires political parties to elect, rather
than appoint, legislative district chairs for each legislative district. Appellant Andrew
Pilloud, acting pro se, seeks to enforce the statute against the King County
Republican Central Committee (Committee), which, by bylaw, has long chosen to
appoint its legislative district chairs. The King County Superior Court concluded that
the statute violates a political party's right to free association under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pilloud appealed this decision, and this
court granted direct review.
Pilloud V. King County Republican Cent. Comm., No. 93786-9
At issue is whether the superior court erred in ruling that the statute is invalid
under the First Amendment. Also at issue is whether the bill containing the statute
violates the single subject or subject in title requirements of article II, section 19 of
the Washington Constitution. We affirm the superior court and hold that ROW
29A.80.061 violates the Committee's freedom of association without reaching the
other issues.'
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pilloud sought direct review of a superior court order dismissing his mandamus
petition and invalidating RCW 29A.80.061. The statute was enacted as an
amendment to Engrossed Senate Bill 6453, the title of which was "AN ACT Relating
to a qualifying primary." Laws OF 2004, ch. 271. RCW 29A.80.061 provides:
Within forty-five days after the statewide general election in even-
numbered years, the county chair of each major political party shall call
separate meetings of all elected precinct committee officers in each
legislative district for the purpose of electing a legislative district chair in
such district. The district chair shall hold office until the next legislative
district reorganizational meeting two years later, or until a successor is
elected.
The legislative district chair may be removed only by the majority
vote of the elected precinct committee officers in the chair's district.
The requirement that precinct committee officers elect district chairs is inconsistent
with the Committee's bylaws, which provide that the Committee's chair appoints
'The Washington State attorney general submitted an amieus brief urging the court to
invalidate the statute on freedom of association grounds and not to reach the other issues. Amieus
Curiae Br. of State of Wash, at 4-5.
Pilloud V. King County Republican Cent. Comm., No. 93786-9
district chairs. Pilloud, a Republican precinct committee officer, filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus in superior court, seeking an order enforcing RCW 29A.80.061.
The Committee answered, opposing the mandamus action on several grounds.
It argued that the action was barred by collateral estoppel on the basis that a superior
court invalidated former RCW 29.42.070 (1967), the predecessor of RCW
29A.80.061, on equal protection grounds in 1967. State ex rel. Irwin v. Williams, No.
684175 (King County Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 1967). The Committee also argued that the
statute violates the single subject rule in article II, section 19 of the Washington
Constitution and the right to free association under the First Amendment. The
superior court denied the mandamus petition, ruling that under state law there was no
right to vote on the election of legislative district chairs and that the Committee had
no duty to call meetings to elect such chairs. The court did not reach the Committee's
constitutional arguments. Pilloud appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of whether
Pilloud was entitled to the writ of mandamus and, if so, whether RCW 29A.80.061
violates the First Amendment or the Washington Constitution. Pilloud v. King County
Republican Cent. Comm., No. 73303-6-1, at 6 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2016)
(unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/. The court held that Pilloud's
action was not collaterally estopped by the 1967 ruling because the current statute
-3-
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm., No. 93786-9
does not implicate the equal protection question at issue in the prior case.^ Id. at 4-5.
Neither party petitioned for this court's review.
On remand, the superior court ruled that ROW 29A.80.061 violates the First
Amendment because it interferes with the internal structure of a political party. In its
oral ruling, the superior court indicated that the outcome was governed by Eu v. San
Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 109 S. Ct. 1013,
103 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1989). The superior court dismissed Pilloud's mandamus petition
without reaching the Committee's single subject argument.
Pilloud appealed two issues directly to this court: (1) whether ROW
29A.80.061 violates the First Amendment by specifying the manner in which an
internal party office is filled and (2) whether Engrossed Senate Bill 6453, the bill
containing RCW 29A.80.061, violates the single subject or subject in title
requirements of article 11, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. See Laws OF
2004, ch. 271. We granted review of both issues. However, we decline to reach the
second issue because it was not addressed by the superior court and is not necessary
to resolve this appeal.
^ The statute at issue in the 1967 ease, former RCW 29.42.070, applied only to "class AA"
counties. This classification triggered equal protection analysis. The current statute applies to the
entire state, notjust class AA counties. RCW 29A.80.061.
-4-
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm., No. 93786-9
II. ANALYSIS
RCW 29A.80.061 unconstitutionally infringes on the Committee's freedom of
association because it regulates the internal structure of the party absent a showing
that such regulation is necessary to ensure fair and honest elections
The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the freedom of an individual to
associate for the purpose of advancing beliefs and ideas. E.g., Elrod v. Burns, 427
U.S. 347, 357, 96 S. Ct. 2673,49 L. Ed. 2d 547(1976)(plurality opinion); Cousins v.
Wigoda, 419 U.S. All, 487, 95 S. Ct. 541, 42 L. Ed. 2d 595 {\915y,Kusper v.
Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57, 94 S. Ct. 303, 38 L. Ed. 2d 260(1973); Nat'l Ass'n For
the Advancement ofColored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-
61, 78 S. Ct. 1163,2 L. Ed. 2d 1488 (1958).
Restrictions that limit a political party's discretion in how to organize itself,
conduct its affairs, and select its leaders burden the party's right to free association.
Eu, 489 U.S at 230. If a state election law burdens the rights of political parties and
their members, it can survive constitutional scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments only if it advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored
to serve that interest. Id. at Til. A state has a compelling interest in preserving the
integrity of its election process and, toward that end, may enact laws interfering with
a party's internal affairs when necessary to ensure that elections are fair and honest.
Id. at 231.
-5
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm., No. 93786-9
Laws that regulate a party's internal governance but do not implicate
compelling state interests are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. See, e.g.,
id. at 232("[T]he State has not shown that its regulation of internal party governance
is necessary to the integrity of the electoral process."); Democratic Party of U.S. v.
Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 126, 101 S. Ct. 1010, 67 L. Ed 2d 82
(1981)(holding that the system of selecting delegates imposed by Wisconsin's open
primary laws unconstitutionally infringed on the democrats' freedom of association);
Cousins, 419 U.S. at 491 (holding the state did not have a compelling reason for
exercising control over the Illinois democratic party's delegate selection process).
The Supreme Court struck down a state law regulating internal party
governance in Eu. 489 U.S. at 230. In that case, a California statute required a party's
central committee chair to rotate between residents of northern and southern
California. Id. at 216. The Court struck down the law because it "limits a political
party's discretion in how to organize itself, conduct its affairs, and select its leaders."
Id. at 230. California argued that the law serves a "compelling 'interest in the
democratic management of the political party's internal affairs.'" Id. at 232 (internal
quotation marks omitted). But the Court held that was not a compelling interest
because "the State has no interest in 'protect[ing] the integrity of the Party against the
Party itself.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Tashjian v. Republican Party of
Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 224, 107 S. Ct. 544,93 L. Ed. 2d 514(1986)).
-6-
Pilloud V. King County Republican Cent. Comm.,No. 93786-9
Turning to the statute at issue, RCW 29A.80.061 provides, in pertinent part:
Within forty-five days after the statewide general election in even-
numbered years, the county chair of each major political party shall call
separate meetings of all elected precinct committee officers in each
legislative district for the purpose of electing a legislative district chair in
such district.
The statute requires that the Committee elect district chairs, but the Committee
bylaws require that the Committee appoint district chairs. The Committee's control
over the selection of chairpersons is a matter of internal organization, analogous to
the control over the geographic rotation of chairpersons held in Eu to be
constitutionally protected. 489 U.S. at 232-33 ("[A] State cannot substitute its
judgment for that of the party as to the desirability of a particular internal party
structure."). Because the statute specifies the manner in which an internal office is
filled, the statute interferes with the Committee's discretion in organizing itself and
selecting its leaders. Therefore, the statute can survive constitutional scrutiny only if
it is necessary to ensure fair and orderly elections.^ Id. at 233 ("[A] State cannot
justify regulating a party's internal affairs without showing that such regulation is
necessary to ensure an election that is orderly and fair.").
^ Pilloud argues that Eu does not entirely preclude a state's regulation of political parties,
relying on Marchioro v, Chancy, 442 U.S. 191, 99 S. Ct. 2243, 60 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1979). In
Marchioro, a Washington statute required parties to create a state central committee to perform
limited functions such as filling vacancies on the party ticket and calling statewide conventions. Id.
at 198-99. The Court upheld the statute because it did not require that the central committee make
any "internal party decisions." Here, in contrast, RCW 29A.80.061 does control internal party
decisions—^by specifying the manner in which internal offices are filled. Marchioro is
distinguishable from this case and does not contradict Eu.
-7-
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm.,No. 93786-9
Pilloud argues that the statute ensures fair and orderly elections by preventing
the county committee from improperly directing the activities of the district
committee to exceed campaign contribution limits. But he has not presented evidence
to support this claim, and the argument itself lacks merit. Campaign finance laws
treat county and district organizations as a single entity for purposes of contribution
limits—^therefore, the county committee cannot exceed its contribution limit by
directing the activities of the district committee. See ROW 42.17A.405(4)(b).
Because Pilloud fails to show the statute is necessary to ensure fair and orderly
elections or otherwise advances a compelling state interest, the statute is
unconstitutional.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court and hold that the statute violates the Committee's
freedom of association because it regulates internal party governance without
advancing a compelling state interest. The superior court properly dismissed Pilloud's
mandamus petition because RCW 29A.80.06I is unconstitutional under Eu and
therefore does not place a duty on county chairs to hold district chair elections. See
489 U.S. at 232-33; Eugster v. City ofSpokane, 118 Wn. App. 383, 402, 76 P.3d 741
(2003)(requiring that a party be subject to a "clear duty to act" before issuing a writ
of mandamus). The Committee offers several other arguments contending that RCW
29A.80.061 is unconstitutional as violative of article II, section 19 and equal
-8-
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm.,No. 93786-9
protection. We decline to reach these additional issues because they were not
addressed by the superior court and are not necessary to resolve this appeal.
-9-
Pilloudv. King County Republican Cent. Comm.,No. 93786-9
^du iuuM.
WE CONCUR:
- 10-