Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35A · Chapter 35A.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.12.130 (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 enacting clause of all ordinances shall be as follows: "The city council of the city of . . . . . . do ordain as follows:" No ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title.
No ordinance or any section or subsection thereof shall be revised or amended unless the new ordinance sets forth the revised ordinance or the amended section or subsection at full length.
No ordinance shall take effect until five days after the date of its publication unless otherwise provided by statute or charter, except that an ordinance passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the council, designated therein as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace, may be made effective upon adoption, but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew, or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money.
Every ordinance which passes the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor; if he or she approves it, he or she shall sign it, but if not, he or she shall return it with his or her written objections to the council and the council shall cause his or her objections to be entered at large upon the journal and proceed to a reconsideration thereof. If upon reconsideration a majority plus one of the whole membership, voting upon a call of ayes and nays, favor its passage, the ordinance shall become valid notwithstanding the mayor's veto. If the mayor fails for ten days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it shall become valid without his or her approval. Ordinances shall be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk.
[ 2009 c 549 s 3013; 1967 ex.s. c 119 s 35A.12.130.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Schnitzer W., LLC v. City of Puyallup, Mun. Corp., 416 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schnitzer W., LLC v. City of Puyallup, Mun. Corp., 416 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “4 Governmental approval for its own actions is also contemplated in the United States Constitution, which categorizes both the president's actions and Congress's actions as "approv[al].”
City of Bothell v. Gutschmidt, 898 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Requisites for adoption of city ordinances are contained in RCW 35A.12.130, which specifies that: Every ordinance which passes the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor; if he approves it, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it with his…”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 357 P.3d 1040 (Wash. 2015). “Single-Subject Challenge ¶8 RCW 35A.12.130 provides in relevant part that “[n]o ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title.”
City of Wenatchee v. Owens, 185 P.3d 1218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “The Owenses filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them.”
Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass'n, Apps. v. City Of Seattle, Res., 432 P.3d 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “FACTS On November 8, 2016, Seattle voters approved 1-124. The ballot title for this initiative read as follows: Initiative 124 concerns health, safety and labor standards for Seattle hotel employees.”
City of Wenatchee v. Owens, 145 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 19× “The Owenses filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them.”
Jane Koler/land Use & Prop. Law, Pllc, Apps V. City Of Black Diamond, Et Ano., Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “100 states: “The mayor shall have the power to veto ordinances passed by the council and submitted to him or her as provided in RCW 35A.12.130 but such veto may be overridden by the vote of a majority of all councilmembers plus one more vote.”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac (Wash. 2015). “Single-Subject Challenge RCW 35A.12.130 provides in relevant part that "[n]o ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title.”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac (Wash. 2015). “Single-Subject Challenge RCW 35A.12.130 provides in relevant part that "[n]o ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title.”
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.