equal protection clause in Washington

2000See In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 421 , 986 P.2d 790 . [15] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 412 , 986 P.2d 790 (declining to determine whether annual review provisions of RCW 71.09.090 violate equal protection clause of the state constitution after holding that the annual review provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution because the two clauses have the same impact) (citations omitted). [16] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 410 , 986 P.2d 790 (quoting In re Detention of Dydasco, 135 Wash.2d 943, 951 , 959 P.2d 1111 (1998)); In re Detention of Patterson, 90 Wash.2d 144,

2000Turay, 139 Wn.2d at 412 (declining to determine whether annual review I provisions of RCW 71.09.090 violate equal protection clause of the state constitution after holding that the annual review provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution because the two clauses have the same | impact) (citations omitted).

2025“Under the equal protection clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 12, and the [F]ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law must receive like treatment.” State v. Coria, 120 Wn.2d 156, 169 , 839 P.2d 890 (1992). 4 No. 103627-2 (cons. w/ No. 103673-6) “The threshold question in any equal protection analysis is which standard of judicial review applies.” State v. Shawn P., 122 Wn.2d 553, 560 , 859 P.2d 1220 (1993) (citing Haberman v. Wash. Pub.

2025“Under the equal protection clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 12, and the [F]ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law must receive like treatment.” State v. Coria, 120 Wn.2d 156, 169 , 839 P.2d 890 (1992). 4 No. 103627-2 (cons. w/ No. 103673-6) “The threshold question in any equal protection analysis is which standard of judicial review applies.” State v. Shawn P., 122 Wn.2d 553, 560 , 859 P.2d 1220 (1993) (citing Haberman v. Wash. Pub.

2016In order to pursue an equal protection claim, "the complaining person [must] establish that he or she is similarly situated with other persons." State v. Handlev. 115 Wn.2d 275, 289-90 , 796P.2d 1266(1990).

1991In State v. Handley, 115 Wn.2d 275 , 796 P.2d 1266 (1990), the Supreme Court described how to apply the equal protection clause in criminal cases when the complaining *262 defendant is not a member of a suspect class. 3 At pages 290-91, it said: [I]f a defendant can establish that he or she is similarly situated with another defendant by virtue of near identical participation in the same set of criminal circumstances, then the defendant will have established a class of which he or she is a member.

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2025Our Supreme Court explained, “Protection for the integrity of the political process, as well as individuals’ rights, is within the zone of interests protected by the equal protection clause.” Id. at 668-69 .

2025See City of Seattle 103 Wn.2d at 668-69 (holding that city had a direct interest of the “fairness and constitutionality” of its processes within the protections of the equal protection clause); Singer, 380 U.S. at 36 ; Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 374 .

2009In an unpublished opinion (which therefore may not be cited as authority, see GR 14.1(a)), the Court of Appeals engaged in a Gunwall analysis (see State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986)) and then determined that the state constitution provides greater protection in this context than the equal protection clause.

2009In an unpublished opinion (which therefore may not be cited as authority, see GR 14.1(a)), the Court of Appeals engaged in a Gunwall analysis (see State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986)) and then determined that the state constitution provides greater protection in this context than the equal protection clause.

1999Const, art. 1, § 12 may be construed to provide greater protection to individual rights than that provided by the equal protection clause.” Darrin, 85 Wn.2d at 868 (citations omitted).

1999Although in some situations neither constitution is violated, that is not to say these very different clauses have the same meaning. 43 “[T]he extent to. which the constitutional guaranties found in article I, section 12, exceed those available under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment remains an open question.” Griffin v. Eller, 130 Wn.2d 58, 65 , 922 P.2d 788 (1996) (citing Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 , 642 & n.2, 771 P.2d 711 , 780 P.2d 260 (1989); State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 282-88 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991) (Utter, J., concurring)); see also Darrin v. Gould,

2000See In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 421 , 986 P.2d 790 . [15] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 412 , 986 P.2d 790 (declining to determine whether annual review provisions of RCW 71.09.090 violate equal protection clause of the state constitution after holding that the annual review provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution because the two clauses have the same impact) (citations omitted). [16] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 410 , 986 P.2d 790 (quoting In re Detention of Dydasco, 135 Wash.2d 943, 951 , 959 P.2d 1111 (1998)); In re Detention of Patterson, 90 Wash.2d 144,

2000See In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 421 , 986 P.2d 790 . [15] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 412 , 986 P.2d 790 (declining to determine whether annual review provisions of RCW 71.09.090 violate equal protection clause of the state constitution after holding that the annual review provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution because the two clauses have the same impact) (citations omitted). [16] In re Turay, 139 Wash.2d at 410 , 986 P.2d 790 (quoting In re Detention of Dydasco, 135 Wash.2d 943, 951 , 959 P.2d 1111 (1998)); In re Detention of Patterson, 90 Wash.2d 144,

2012In Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wn.2d 810, 818-19 , 539 P.2d 845 (1975), we invalidated former RCW 4.96.020 (1967) as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2012In Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wn.2d 810, 818-19 , 539 P.2d 845 (1975), we invalidated former RCW 4.96.020 (1967) as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2025“Under the equal protection clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 12, and the [F]ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law must receive like treatment.” State v. Coria, 120 Wn.2d 156, 169 , 839 P.2d 890 (1992). 4 No. 103627-2 (cons. w/ No. 103673-6) “The threshold question in any equal protection analysis is which standard of judicial review applies.” State v. Shawn P., 122 Wn.2d 553, 560 , 859 P.2d 1220 (1993) (citing Haberman v. Wash. Pub.

2025“Under the equal protection clause of the Washington State Constitution, article I, section 12, and the [F]ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law must receive like treatment.” State v. Coria, 120 Wn.2d 156, 169 , 839 P.2d 890 (1992). 4 No. 103627-2 (cons. w/ No. 103673-6) “The threshold question in any equal protection analysis is which standard of judicial review applies.” State v. Shawn P., 122 Wn.2d 553, 560 , 859 P.2d 1220 (1993) (citing Haberman v. Wash. Pub.

2025Id. at 474 (“If the Legislature recognizes that one member of the class should receive credit the equal protection clause mandates that all members should receive credit.”).

2005Restraint of Knapp, 102 Wn.2d 466, 473 , 687 P.2d 1145 (1984) (“The equal protection clause requires that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the laws receive like treatment.”). ¶26 Nor-Pac assumes that the DOL and it are similarly situated with respect to the law.

2025To do so would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause under the United States Constitution because a defendant has a constitutional “right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria.” Id. at 85-86 .

2021In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that purposeful race discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because it denies defendants their right to a jury of their peers. 476 U.S. 79, 86-89 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2025To bring an equal protection challenge, an individual must make a threshold showing that they “received disparate treatment because of membership in a class of similarly situated individuals and that the disparate treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 484 , 139 P.3d 334 (2006).

2025Sindars Has Not Shown Disparate Treatment Because of Indigency To show a violation of the equal protection clause, Sindars must first “establish his classification by showing he was treated differently from others who were similarly situated.” Osman, 157 Wn.2d at 485 .

2025Id. at 21 . 28 No. 103627-2 (cons. w/ No. 103673-6) (Mungia, J., dissenting) The equal protection clause prohibits the government from treating similarly situated people differently without a legitimate governmental interest.

2004State v. Schaaf, 109 Wn.2d 1, 21 , 743 P.2d 240 (1987). “ ‘The rational relationship test is the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

1996Stated another way, when members of the same class are accorded different treatment under a statute, there is an equal protection violation unless there is a rational basis for the disparate treatment. 14 Forbes v. City of Seattle, 113 Wn.2d 929, 943 , 785 P.2d 431 (1990).

1996Stated another way, when members of the same class are accorded different treatment under a statute, there is an equal protection violation unless there is a rational basis for the disparate treatment. 14 Forbes v. City of Seattle, 113 Wn.2d 929, 943 , 785 P.2d 431 (1990).

2004True, not every distinction or questionable public policy amounts to an equal protection violation, Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 , 113 S. Ct. 2637 , 125 L.

2004True, not every distinction or questionable public policy amounts to an equal protection violation, Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 , 113 S. Ct. 2637 , 125 L.