In a 6-3 decision, the state’s high court invalidated I-2066 on single-subject grounds, reversing a 2024 voter-approved measure that sought to limit policies discouraging natural gas use.
The Washington Supreme Court voided Initiative 2066, which nearly two million voters approved in 2024 to protect natural gas as an energy option.
The majority found I-2066 contained four constitutionally distinct subjects, violating the state’s single-subject rule for initiatives.
A three-justice dissent argued the decision discounts the initiative power reserved to Washington voters.
# What happened
# Why the court struck it down The majority said I-2066 bundled four constitutionally distinct subjects. Because the initiative included multiple provisions with different purposes and regulatory effects, the court said it was impossible to determine which parts received majority support when presented together. The ruling emphasized the difficulty of assessing voter intent when separate subjects are combined into one measure.
Supporters reacted with disappointment and accused the court of undermining the initiative process. The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), which backed I-2066 and collected more than half a million signatures in roughly six weeks to qualify it for the ballot, criticized the decision as a setback for voters' ability to check the legislature.
Opponents who brought the legal challenge welcomed the decision. Washington Conservation Action, the Sierra Club, Climate Solutions and the Seattle City Attorney issued statements arguing I-2066 was an attempt to lock in fossil fuel use, roll back climate and clean-air policies, or used logrolling tactics that mix unrelated provisions to pass unpopular changes.
# The dissenting view Justice Salvador Mungia wrote a 30-page dissent, joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Gordon McCloud. Mungia argued the initiative power is a constitutional right reserved to the people and criticized the majority for discounting that power. The dissent framed the initiative process as a legitimate mechanism to restrict or amend legislative action when it conflicts with voter preferences.
# Immediate implications The ruling nullifies I-2066, restoring the legal space for state and local climate and energy policies that discourage or limit natural gas use. It also raises questions about how future initiatives must be structured to meet the single-subject rule and whether similar ballot measures will face heightened judicial scrutiny.
# What to watch next
# Bottom line
The Washington Supreme Court has ruled the state’s natural gas initiative unconstitutional, ending a 2024 effort to turn voters out against policies intended to curb climate change.
Summary On September 17, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutional Initiative 2066 (I-2066) , which sought to repeal a range of climate legislation adopted by the Washington Legislature that sought to discourage the use of natural gas as part of the state’s transition to energy sources that do
In a closely watched state-law ruling, the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, a voter-approved measure designed to curb state and local efforts to move buildings and utilities away from natural gas. In Climate Solutions v. State, the court held that the initiative violated the Washington Constitution
In a closely watched state-law ruling, the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, a voter-approved measure designed to curb state and local efforts to move buildings and utilities away from natural gas. In Climate Solutions v. State, the court held that the initiative violated the Washington Constitution
(The Center Square) – A recent ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court against a voter-approved initiative to protect natural gas as an energy choice could have wide reaching consequences for other initiatives and legislation, including the recently passed income tax law. On Sept. 17, the Washington Supreme Cour
OLYMPIA — The state’s highest court will soon decide if lawmakers can use “legislative privilege” to withhold documents and records from the public after Washington Supreme Court justices agreed to review the matter Wednesday.
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.