Washington’s Supreme Court erased a voter-approved natural gas measure in a 6-3 ruling, putting constitutional procedure ahead of the electorate’s clear policy choice.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066 after finding that it violated the state constitution’s rule limiting ballot measures to one subject. The court declared the entire initiative unconstitutional rather than preserving any part of it.
Washington voters approved the measure by a 52% to 48% margin in 2024. The ruling now leaves those voters without the energy-choice protections they supported at the ballot box.
Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote, as the Daily Caller News Foundation reported, “Because the provisions that introduce distinct subjects are not severable, I-2066 is unconstitutional in its entirety,” in the majority opinion.
The majority found that Initiative 2066 contained four subjects that were constitutionally distinct. A single-subject rule bars an initiative from combining separate policy questions under one vote.
The court said it could not know which provisions voters would have approved if each had appeared separately. Because the majority found those parts could not be severed, it affirmed a lower court ruling and invalidated the full measure.
Three justices disagreed with that remedy. Their dissent argued that the court could remove several problem sections while allowing the rest of the initiative to remain, a central split in the same 6-3 ruling.
The challengers included Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, the Washington Solar Energy Industries Association and the Sierra Club. King County and Seattle also joined the litigation against the measure.
Stephens has served on the court since December 2007. Then-Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, appointed her to the bench.
Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, said the decision rejected the voters’ stated choice. He said nearly 2 million citizens backed the initiative because they wanted families and businesses to choose the energy source that met their needs.
Lane said, “Today’s decision represents a direct rejection of the clearly expressed will of Washington voters.”
Courts have a duty to enforce constitutional limits, even when voters approve a measure. But the dissent matters because three justices believed the court had another lawful option: remove the flawed sections and preserve the rest.
That dispute over how far judges should go also appears in other Washington conflicts over state mandates, including the legal fight involving a female-only spa policy. In Initiative 2066, the majority chose the broadest remedy available.
Todd Myers, vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center, warned that the Pacific Northwest already faces rising electricity demand. He said that concern existed even before any major growth from data centers.
Myers said, “The court’s decision, while not based on policy, makes that situation worse by reducing the flexibility the Pacific Northwest will need to meet demand for electrification and home heating.”
His criticism drew a line between the court’s legal reasoning and the practical result. The justices ruled on how the initiative was written, but families and businesses will live under the energy policies left in place.
President Donald Trump addressed similar concerns at the federal level in March 2026. He directed federal agencies to target state and local policies that his administration argued increase housing costs, including green-energy building mandates and restrictions on energy choice.
The Washington decision differs from federal litigation over mail ballot rules, but both disputes raise the same institutional concern: how courts should handle policies shaped through elections.
Myers placed ultimate responsibility on the Legislature and the previous governor for the underlying law. He also argued that families will bear the cost if the state lacks enough flexibility to meet its energy needs.
The majority treated the single-subject violation as fatal. The dissent would have saved what it could. For voters who approved Initiative 2066, that difference was decisive.
Constitutional rules matter, but so does restraint when judges choose a remedy. Voters deserve laws written clearly enough to survive review and courts careful enough to preserve their lawful choices.