norml17 - Page 18

Page 18 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 compiled in the 12 years since his dissent), and with the broader protection
 provided under the state constitution, one. might persuade four other justices,
 rather than two, to join him, creating a majority and changing the law.
 Co rr .e, _ r aly si
 It is interesting to note that while 15 states have "privileges and
 irr_nunifies '' clauses in their constitutions, as of t988 only one, Oregon, had
 applied an analysis independent of the federal "equal protection" analysis
 applied by the U.S. supreme court°6* The fact that Oregon has applied such
 an analysis may be significant, however, because Washingtoffs privileges and
 immunities ctause is based on Oregon's˘ 9 and is identical except that
 Washington inserted words dealing with corporations. 7o
 Under Washingtonffederal analysis today, _ere are three tests used to
 deterrmne whe_er a right to equal protection has been violated, in
 sum.mary: 7_
 . Strict scrutiny applies if an allegedly discriminatory statutory classification
 affects a suspect class or a fandament2d right. Suspect classifications are
 typically bose based on race, alienage or national origin. Under this test,
 a law may be upheld only if it is shown to be necessary to accomplish a
 "compelling state interest?'
 . Heightened scrutiny (or intermediate scratiny) is typically applied m
 gender-based classifications, but has been held to apply when the
 chalIenged law affects both an important right (such as liberty) and a serrfi-
 suspect class not accomatable for its stares (such as the poor). The test is
 that the law must be seen as "furthering a substantial interest of the state."
 , Minimal scrutiny is applied absent any of die reasons to apply the higher
 levels, above. The test is whe_er a "rational relationship" exists between
 the challenged classification and a legitimate state interest. The
 6g Schumau, _T_e Right m _Equal Privileges _md Immunities°: A State*s Version of _FXlUal Protection,'" 13
 VL L. Roy. 221_ 223, 225-26 (1988).
 69 _'Sourees of Washington Coas_imtion" section, 1991-92 LegisLative Mamml, page 367.
 7o Wash. ConsL art l, § 12: '_No law shall be passed granting m ai_y citizee_, class of citizens, or
 corporation ofner d_a_ municipal, privileges or immunities which upon ige same _er,_s _atl not eqmtlXy
 belong to all citizens, or corporafiOnSo _ Or. COngo art L § 29: "No law _˘aaU be passed gra_ting to any
 citizen or class of citizeas privileges, or immunities, which, upon _ae same terms, shaU not equally
 belong to all citizens. _
 71 Sumanarized N _J,ille___,_S_miI_, 117 Wn. 2d 263, 277-279 __ P.2d _ (199t).

Previous , Next , Return to Index