Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35A · Chapter 35A.11
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.11.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The qualified electors or legislative body of a noncharter code city may provide for the exercise in their city of the powers of initiative and referendum, upon electing so to do in the manner provided for changing the classification of a city or town in RCW 35A.02.020, 35A.02.025, 35A.02.030, and 35A.02.035, as now or hereafter amended.
The exercise of such powers may be restricted or abandoned upon electing so to do in the manner provided for abandoning the plan of government of a noncharter code city in RCW 35A.06.030, 35A.06.040, 35A.06.050, and 35A.06.060, as now or hereafter amended.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 18 s 18; 1973 1st ex.s. c 81 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—1979 ex.s. c 18: See note following RCW 35A.01.070.
Imposition or increase of business and occupation tax—Referendum procedure required—Exclusive procedure: RCW 35.21.706.
Initiative and referendum petitions: RCW 35A.29.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 239 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 239 P.3d 589 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “*593 RCW 35A.11.080. [2] But neither article II, section 1 nor RCW 35A.”
City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 6× “RCW 35A.11.080. 2 But neither article II, section 1 nor RCW 35A.”
Leonard v. City of Bothell, 557 P.2d 1306 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “Appellants, however, cite RCW 35A.11.080 1 and RCW 35A.11.090 2 and claim these provisions vest them with the power to subject the ordinance to a referedum election.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006). “010 (adopting code city initiative and referendum power provided under RCW 35A.11.080 through .100, referring to commission city power under RCW 35.”
State v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 432 P.3d 805 (Wash. 2019). “15 (adopting the initiative and referendum processes set forth in RCW 35A.11.080 -.100); Shelton City Code 1.”
City of Longview v. Wallin, 301 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 35A.11.080 to .100 allows noncharter code cities to provide for the exercise of initiative and referendum in their cities, and Longview has authorized its citi *770 zens to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum in chapter 1.”
City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice, 188 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 21 Though the right to state-wide initiative is protected by our state constitution, there is no similar constitutional protection or right of local initiative.”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 319 P.3d 817 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 35A.11.080. SMC 1.10.040. RCW 35A.11.”
Seatac Comm. For Good Jobs v. Bf Foods, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “This includes the requirement at issue in this case: "Signatures, including the original, of any person who has signed a petition two or more times shall be stricken.”
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.