Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.32.020 (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 board of county commissioners of each county shall divide their county into three commissioner districts so that each district shall comprise as nearly as possible one-third of the population of the county: PROVIDED, That the territory comprised in any voting precincts of such districts shall remain compact, and shall not be divided by the lines of said districts.
However, the commissioners of any county composed entirely of islands and with a population of less than thirty-five thousand may divide their county into three commissioner districts without regard to population, except that if any single island is included in more than one district, the districts on such island shall comprise, as nearly as possible, equal populations.
The commissioners of any county may authorize a change to their electoral system pursuant to RCW 29A.92.040. Except where necessary to comply with a court order issued pursuant to RCW 29A.92.110, and except in the case of an intervening census, the lines of the districts shall not be changed more often than once in four years and only when a full board of commissioners is present. Except when authorized under RCW 29A.92.115, the districts shall be designated as districts numbered one, two, and three.
[ 2023 c 56 s 11; 2018 c 113 s 204; 1982 c 226 s 4; 1970 ex.s. c 58 s 1; 1963 c 4 s 36.32.020. Prior: 1893 c 39 s 2; 1890 p 317 ss 1, 2; RRS s 4037.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 56: See note following RCW 29A.92.720.
Findings—Intent—Short title—2018 c 113: See RCW 29A.92.005 and 29A.92.900.
Effective date—1982 c 226: See note following RCW 35.21.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2014 · leading case: State v. Orozco, 186 P.3d 1078 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Orozco, 186 P.3d 1078 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “5(a) limits our review to issues the trial court had an opportunity to consider.”
Story v. Anderson, 611 P.2d 764 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 6× “The candidates for each position are nominated by the qualified voters of their district.”
State v. Orozco, 186 P.3d 1078 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 7 Finally, in her reply brief, Orozco argues for the first time that the Prosecuting Attorney's conduct violates RCW 36.”
Carlson v. San Juan Cnty., 333 P.3d 511 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “Accordingly, Council candidates are required to be nominated from separate residential *362 districts, delineated in accordance with RCW 36.32.020 that accommodates the unique geographic nature of San Juan County and proved workable for over a hundred years prior to Charter…”
Michael Carlson, App/cross-res. v. San Juan Cnty., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “1 and the statutes that authorize residency districts of unequal population, RCW 36.32.020 and RCW 36.32.040(2), violate equal protection and substantive due process; and article I, section 12 and article I, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution.”
Story v. Anderson, 588 P.2d 1179 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “1 Respondent claims and the trial court agreed that the primary election scheme as applied to Island County is violative of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution because of the special proviso allowing unequally populated…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.32.020(1) — 2 cases
Story v. Anderson, 611 P.2d 764 (Wash. 1980). “The candidates for each position are nominated by the qualified voters of their district.”
Story v. Anderson, 588 P.2d 1179 (Wash. 1979). “1 Respondent claims and the trial court agreed that the primary election scheme as applied to Island County is violative of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution because of the special proviso allowing unequally populated…”
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.