The Washington State Supreme Court ruled against activist Tim Eyman in a closely watched case involving referendum rights and legislative emergency powers, denying his petition for a writ of mandamus that would have forced Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to process a proposed referendum.
The case, *Eyman v. Hobbs*, arose after the legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1296 on April 25, 2025. Three days later, on April 28, 2025, Eyman submitted a proposed referendum challenging section 501 of the legislation to the Secretary of State's office. However, Hobbs refused to process the referendum, citing the emergency clause contained in section 603 of the same bill, which he argued rendered section 501 exempt from referendum challenges under state constitutional provisions.
Eyman, a well-known political activist who has filed numerous ballot initiatives over the years, argued that the Secretary's refusal violated his constitutional right to file a referendum. He contended that both the plain language of Washington's elections act and existing court precedent required the Secretary to accept his properly filed referendum, assign it a serial number, and transmit it to the attorney general for preparation of a ballot title and summary.
The dispute centered on fundamental questions about the scope of referendum power in Washington state and whether emergency clauses can shield specific sections of legislation from citizen challenges. Under Washington's constitutional framework, citizens have the right to challenge most legislative acts through the referendum process, but emergency legislation is typically exempt from such challenges.
Chief Justice Stephens, writing for the court, delivered a ruling that clarified the Secretary's duties regarding referendum processing. The court held that "the Secretary has no mandatory duty to process a purported referendum on legislation that is, on its face, constitutionally exempt from referendum." This ruling establishes an important precedent for how state officials should handle referendum requests that appear to target constitutionally protected legislation.
The court also addressed the validity of the emergency clause itself, which was central to the Secretary's defense. The justices found that "the legislature's declaration of an emergency in section 603 is valid, and as a result, section 501 is not subject to referendum." This finding validates the legislature's use of emergency powers in the 2025 session and confirms that properly declared emergency provisions can effectively shield related legislation from referendum challenges.
The ruling represents a significant development in Washington state election law, as it clarifies the boundaries between citizen referendum rights and legislative emergency powers. The decision suggests that state officials are not required to process referendum petitions when the targeted legislation is clearly protected by valid emergency declarations, even if the petitioner argues otherwise.
For Eyman, who has been involved in numerous high-profile ballot measure campaigns throughout his career, the ruling represents a setback in his ongoing efforts to challenge legislative actions through the referendum process. His argument that the Secretary should process all properly formatted referendum submissions, regardless of their apparent constitutional viability, was rejected by the state's highest court.
The case also has broader implications for future referendum efforts in Washington state. The court's ruling provides guidance to both state officials and citizen activists about when referendum processing is required and when it may be legitimately refused. This clarity could help prevent future disputes over similar emergency clause situations.
The Secretary of State's office, represented by Hobbs, successfully defended its position that it has discretionary authority to reject referendum petitions that target constitutionally exempt legislation. This ruling supports the position that election officials can make preliminary determinations about the constitutional viability of referendum petitions rather than processing all submissions regardless of their legal merit.
The court's decision was filed on Nov. 6, 2025, and was heard en banc, meaning the full court participated in the decision rather than a smaller panel of justices. This treatment indicates the court viewed the case as raising important legal questions deserving consideration by all members of the state's highest judicial body.
Looking ahead, the ruling may influence how future legislative sessions structure emergency declarations and how citizen activists approach referendum campaigns. The decision establishes that emergency clauses, when properly declared, provide meaningful protection against referendum challenges, potentially affecting legislative strategy on time-sensitive or critical policy matters.
The denial of Eyman's petition effectively ends this particular legal challenge, though the broader questions about referendum rights and legislative emergency powers that the case raised will likely continue to shape political and legal discourse in Washington state.