Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.72.240 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any citizen dissatisfied with the determination of the secretary of state that an initiative or referendum petition contains or does not contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters may, within five days after such determination, apply to the superior court of Thurston county for a citation requiring the secretary of state to submit the petition to said court for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling the certification of the measure and petition, or for an injunction to prevent the certification thereof to the legislature, as the case may be. Such application and all proceedings had thereunder shall take precedence over other cases and shall be speedily heard and determined.
The decision of the superior court granting or refusing to grant the writ of mandate or injunction may be reviewed by the supreme court within five days after the decision of the superior court, and if the supreme court decides that a writ of mandate or injunction, as the case may be, should issue, it shall issue the writ directed to the secretary of state; otherwise, it shall dismiss the proceedings. The clerk of the supreme court shall forthwith notify the secretary of state of the decision of the supreme court.
[ 2003 c 111 s 1824. Prior: 1988 c 202 s 29; 1965 c 9 s 29.79.210; prior: 1913 c 138 s 17; RRS s 5413. Formerly RCW 29.79.210.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Writ procedure superseded by RAP 2.1(b), 2.2, 18.22.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Doe v. Reed, 586 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. Reed, 586 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” Wash. Rev.Code § 29A.72.240. Within five days of the superior court’s decision, a party may seek review by the Washington Supreme Court.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 29A.72.240. ¶ 70 As the legislative scheme governing a state initiative or referendum clearly illustrates, a preelection action concerning the validity of an initiative or referendum typically takes the form of an application for a writ of mandate compelling or injunction…”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash. 2d 251 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 29A.72.240. ¶65 As the legislative scheme governing a state initiative or referendum clearly illustrates, a preelection action concerning the validity of an initiative or referendum typically takes the form of an application for a writ of mandate compelling or injunction…”
Paxton v. City of Bellingham, 129 Wash. App. 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “005 would violate ex post facto law; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting unlawfully obtained documents; (3) that the City and county attorneys had a conflict of interest; (4) that the challenge to sufficiency of the Initiative petition was untimely under RCW 29A.”
Doe v. Reed, 661 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “See RCW 29A.72.240. Any citizen dissatisfied with the Secretary of State’s determination may file an action in state superior court for a citation requiring the Secretary of State to submit the petition to the state court “for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling…”
West v. Reed, 246 P.3d 548 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “On September 3, 2009, West filed a complaint for judicial examination of the referendum petition under RCW 29A.72.240 and also alleged a violation of the Public Records Act, chapter 42.”
Robin Ball v. Kim Wyman, 435 P.3d 842 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 4× “Both groups of plaintiffs requested that the court review the petition for sufficient signatures under RCW 29A.72.240, a provision that authorizes judicial review of the number of signatures submitted in support of an initiative, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.”
Kerry Slone, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “5 Ball sought review under RCW 29A.72.240, which provides for judicial review where a referendum petition contains or does not contain the requisite number of signatures.”
Wash. Conserv. Action Educ. Fund v. Hobbs (Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “A more specific statute, RCW 29A.72.240, concerns specific error alleged here – that the secretary erred in determining that the initiative petition “contain[ed] the requisite number of signatures of legal voters.”
Defend Wash. v. Hobbs, 557 P.3d 666 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “102996-9 RCW 29A.72.240. They argued that merely checking signatures against the voter rolls did not ensure that the signers were legal voters.”
West v. Reed, 246 P.3d 548 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “On September 3, 2009, West filed a complaint for judicial examination of the referendum petition under RCW 29A.72.240 and also alleged a violation of the Public Records Act, chapter 42.”
John Doe1 v. Reed (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.72.240. Within five days of the supe- 1 The Washington Constitution includes some exceptions to this reserved power, but none applies in this case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.