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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.11.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in RCW 35A.11.090, and except that the number of registered voters needed to sign a petition for initiative or referendum shall be fifteen percent of the total number of names of persons listed as registered voters within the city on the day of the last preceding city general election, the powers of initiative and referendum in noncharter code cities shall be exercised in the manner set forth for the commission form of government in RCW 35.17.240 through 35.17.360, as now or hereafter amended.
[ 1973 1st ex.s. c 81 s 3.]

Notes:

Sufficiency of petition in code city: RCW 35A.01.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: State v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 432 P.3d 805 (Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 432 P.3d 805 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “360 (authorizing cities using the commission form of government to adopt the initiative and referendum processes); RCW 35A.11.100 (authorizing same processes for noncharter code cities); Sequim Municipal Code 1.”
City of Longview v. Wallin, 301 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 35A.11.100. On May 23, the petition sponsors submitted petitions to the Longview city clerk with 3,628 voter signatures.”
Mukilteo Citizens v. City of Mukilteo, 272 P.3d 227 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 35A.11.100, the powers of initiative and referendum in noncharter code cities are to be exercised as set forth in RCW 35.”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 319 P.3d 817 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 35A.11.100. RCW 35A.11.040C7). 486 U.”
State Of Washington v. Evergreen Freedom Found. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Although Sequim, Chelan, and Shelton are noncharter “code cities” subject to title 35A RCW,1 RCW 35A.11.100 provides that, with a few exceptions, the initiative process set forth in chapter 35.”
Seatac Comm. For Good Jobs v. Bf Foods, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “A decade later, the Court again addressed First Amendment issues in a challenge to post-Meyer Colorado laws regulating ballot initiatives.”
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.