A Seattle Election Was Decided by Charter Procedure—and the Supreme Court Let It Stand

The Supreme Court has handed down its opinion in an important case involving Seattle’s charter, declaring the amendments valid. The contest was over a seat in the house of delegates.

V. P. Wiesemnal was a candidate in the Third Ward for the office of delegate to the house of delegates at the annual election held March 8, 1892. Under section 3, article IV of the existing charter, he would have been entitled to be declared elected, as he received the second highest number of votes cast for that office in his ward. But he was refused the declaration of his election because the proposed amendments to sections 2 and 3 of article IV were carried at the same election. Those amendments reduced the number of delegates to one from each ward, so only the candidate receiving the highest number of votes was to be declared elected. Wiesemnal complained and sought a mandamus in the superior court to compel the canvassing officers to declare his election, alleging that the amendments were not lawfully adopted. The mandamus was refused and he appealed.

The first objection was that after the first passage of the proposed amendments as “Proposed Amendment No. 2” by the council and publication for ten days, the council reconsidered and amended it, then submitted it to the popular vote without a second ten-day publication. The court rejected the contention that the identical proposition must pass both houses once before and once after publication without change. It held that the first vote in council was intended as acquiescence rather than final action, and that the ten days’ publication was a warning to the public that the subject matter was to be considered with a view to amendment.

A second objection was that the final thirty days’ publication of the proposed amendments was made in seventeen consolidated propositions, while the notice of election and the ballots split them into thirty-seven separate questions. The notice described and numbered each amendment for the ballot, and the ballot provided “For Amendment No. 7 to the City Charter” and “Against Amendment No. 7 to the City Charter,” and so on. The court declared the amendments valid.