The Supreme Court Rules on Local Terms
A legal dispute over when county officers begin their terms reaches a final decision in Olympia.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The supreme court made quick work of the Pierce county case of McMurray vs. Hollis, relating to the terms of county officers. The opinion, concurred in by all judges, decides that new terms begin in January. The court held that while territorial laws were once in force, the state constitution's adoption created a new legal framework. Section 14 of the schedule specifically dictates that officers elected at the first election were to take office on the second Monday in January. The court reasoned that the constitution provided a complete plan for biennial elections and two-year terms, superseding earlier territorial legislation that had suggested a March commencement date.
“It is very clear from such a provision of the schedule that it was the intention of the constitution that officers to be elected at the first election should take their office on the second Monday in January.”
Conflicts over the start dates of local offices and the transition of administrative power remain a feature of Washington's governance. The court's 1893 ruling settled a transition ambiguity that parallels modern bureaucratic debates over when newly elected officials assume their mandates.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.