Article IV, section 25 of the Washington Constitution provides a requirement for the courts to identify and report on defects and omissions in the laws. Under this provision, superior court judges must annually report to the Washington Supreme Court "such defects and omissions in the law as their experience may suggest." This requirement is also contained in statute, which additionally requires court of appeals judges to report defects and omissions in the law to the Washington Supreme Court. The constitutional provision directs the Washington Supreme Court to annually report to the Governor, on or before the first day of January, those defects or omissions in the law that are believed to exist.
The 2023 letter from the Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court on defects and omissions in the law identifies several statutory provisions or chapters of law that have been found unconstitutional by Washington or federal courts, or whose validity is in question based on court decisions, but that remain codified in Washington law. When a statute is found unconstitutional, it is no longer valid or enforceable, but it remains in the law until the Legislature removes the unconstitutional provision by amendment or repeal of the statute.
Amended Statutes.
The following statutes that have been found unconstitutional, or whose constitutionality is suspect given court decisions, are amended:
Repealed Statutes.
The following statutes or chapters of law that have been found unconstitutional, or whose constitutionality is suspect given court decisions, are repealed:
Other Provisions.
The Secretary of State is respectfully requested to publish Article IX, section 1 of the state Constitution without the added section caption of "Preamble" based on the legislative findings that this constitutional provision does not have a section caption in the original source.
(In support) This is a constitutional obligation that comes over from the courts. The Legislature appreciates the courts sending the defects and omissions letter to the Legislature. This year's bill based on that letter is shorter than in previous years and hopefully less controversial.
A question has been raised about the clarity of the section of the bill relating to juvenile sentencing. It is important to make sure that it is clear and reflects current state law and operations.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) Prosecutors do not have concerns with the direction of the bill, but there are a couple of things to highlight. One relates to Section 2 of the bill and the Snaza case. The other relates to the Monschke case, which is being addressed by another bill in another committee. It is important to respond to this case, but as currently worded, the bill responds to it more broadly than the Washington Supreme Court intended. Other members and committees have been working to narrow that, and this committee should adopt similar language.
(In support) Representative Greg Cheney, prime sponsor.