AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
CLEAN [Citizens for Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now!], a nonprofit corporation, and Jordan Brower, individually and as a member of CLEAN, Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Washington, Respondent.
Frank RUANO and John Scannell, Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Washington, King County, and Ralph Munro, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
*1056 Shawn Newman, Olympia, Stephen Eugster, Spokane, Kris Sundberg, Mercer Island, for Appellant CLEAN, Jordan Brower.
Shawn Newman, Olympia, for Appellant Frank Ruano.
John Scannell, Seattle, for Appellant John Scannell.
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Susan Slonecker, Deputy, Quentin Yerxa, Deputy, Appellant Unit, Seattle, for Respondent King County.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Narda Pierce, Solicitor General, William Collins, Jeffrey Even, Assistants, Olympia, for Respondent State and Ralph Munro.
Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin, John Blankinship, Seattle, for amicus curiae John D. Blankinship and Citizens for More Important Things.
Preston, Gates & Ellis, Paul Lawrence, Eileen Weresch-Doornink, Seattle, for amicus curiae Washington State Major League Baseball.
*1055 ALEXANDER, Justice.
We granted review of an order of the Thurston County Superior Court dismissing two separate challenges to an act of the Legislature that provides a means of financing the construction of a publicly owned major league baseball stadium in King County. One of the challenges to the measure is by Frank Ruano and John Scannell (jointly referred to as Ruano). The other is by Jordan Brower and a non-profit corporation called CLEAN, Citizens for Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now, (jointly referred to as CLEAN). CLEAN contends that the aforementioned act violates several provisions of Washington's constitution. Specifically, it contends that the act: (1) funds a private project contrary to Wash. Const. art. VII, ง 1; (2) constitutes a gift or lending of the State's credit to a private enterprise, thereby violating Wash. Const. art. VIII, งง 5, 7; (3) invests public funds in a private enterprise in violation of Wash. Const. art. VIII, ง 7; and (4) violates Wash. Const. art. II, ง 28 as "special" as opposed to "general" legislation. CLEAN and Ruano both assert that what they claim is the act's invalid emergency clause wrongly circumvents the people's right to referendum as provided by Wash. Const. art. II, ง 1 (amend. 72). We conclude that the act survives all of these challenges and, consequently, affirm the trial court's order dismissing both lawsuits.
The Seattle Mariners, one of 28 major league baseball clubs, has been playing its home games in Seattle's domed stadium, the Kingdome, since 1977 when it first became a major league team. In recent years, the management of the Mariners has, on several occasions, expressed concern about the viability of the Kingdome as a facility for major league baseball. On these occasions, it indicated that in order for the Mariners to achieve financial stability and to become financially competitive with other major league baseball clubs, the Mariners needed a state of the art outdoor baseball facility as its home field.
In 1995, in an apparent effort to address the problem identified by the Mariners and *1057 to enhance the survival of major league baseball in the Seattle area, the Washington State Legislature adopted legislation that authorized King County to impose, subject to voter approval, a 0.1 percent addition to the sales and use taxes imposed in King County. Laws of 1995, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 14, งง 6, 7. The money obtained from such a tax increase was to be used by the county to finance the construction of a new county owned major league baseball stadium. Following passage of that legislation, the King County Council sought approval by King County's voters of an increase in the sales and use taxes imposed in King County. By a narrow margin, the proposed tax increase was rejected.
Following defeat of the proposed tax increase, John Ellis, the Mariners' Chief Executive Officer, sent a letter to King County Executive, Gary Locke, in which he stated that without a new stadium, the Mariners would "offer the team for sale" after October 30. Clerk's Papers at 20, Appellants' Am.Br. at 69.
On October 11, 1995, Governor Mike Lowry called the Legislature into special session solely for "the purpose of addressing matters related to stadium financing." Clerk's Papers at 146. At that session the Legislature considered Engrossed House Bill 2115, a bill sponsored by Representatives Van Leuven and Appelwick. This measure was designed to ensure the survival of major league baseball in King County. On the day following Governor Lowry's call for a special session, public hearings on the proposal were conducted in both the Trade and Economic Development Committee of the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee of the Senate. Governor Lowry testified in support of the bill at both hearings. In addition, numerous citizens testified for and against the measure.[1] Among those testifying in support of EHB 2115 were several Seattle business persons who indicated that the presence of the Seattle Mariners was essential to the success of their businesses, and that departure of the team would adversely affect them.[2] Robbie Stern, Special Assistant to the President of the Washington State Labor Council, expanded on the view of the business persons, stressing the broader impact of the Mariners on the state's economy, saying, "Here is an opportunity to use tax money to create family wage jobs and some service jobs that have health care and pension benefits; it's a good use of economic development funds." Senate Ways and Means Committee hearing tape 2 (Senate) (Oct. 12, 1995). Governor Lowry echoed these themes in his testimony before the committee of the House of Representatives, stating that the presence of the Mariners was of economic benefit to the entire state.
The Governor also stressed what he described as a "true family value question" indicating that: "Everywhere I've gone in the State, every kid has come up [to me] and said `save baseball.'" House Trade and Economic Development Committee meeting (House) tape 1 (Oct. 12, 1995). Other witnesses spoke to what they opined was the importance of major league baseball to the fabric of the community. For example, Vincent "New York Vinnie" Richichi, a Seattle sports radio talk show host, described the value of the Mariners to the community in this way: "We also have something that's an intangible here, that's our kids and a way of life. Baseball has something to do with all of that. It's a commerce for some people, it's a part of culture for some people, and for others it's a way of life." House tape 1 (Oct. 12, 1995).
As to the need for swift action by the Legislature, Governor Lowry was succinct, asking himself a seemingly rhetorical question, "Will the Mariners leave without action?" *1058 and answering it, "Yes." House tape 1 (Oct. 12, 1995).
The special session concluded on October 17, with the Legislature adopting EHB 2115 (hereinafter referred to as the Stadium Act), by a vote of 66 to 24 in the House of Representatives and 25 to 16 in the Senate. Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1. The Stadium Act authorized the creation of a public facilities district (District) in "a county with a population of one million or more," and empowered it to "acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, reequip, repair, and operate a baseball stadium[.]"[3] Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1, งง 201(1) at 4, 201(4)(b) at 5. The act also provided that three members of the governing board of the District would be appointed by the Governor with the remaining members appointed by the county executive, subject to ratification by the county legislative authority. Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1, ง 302, at 10.
Significantly, the Stadium Act provided a means by which King County and the State of Washington could generate additional revenues to be allotted to the District in order to defray the major portion of the costs of constructing the new baseball stadium.[4] The act provided that moneys collected under it may only be used to pay on the bonds issued to construct the stadium. Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1, งง 101(3) at 2, 103(3) at 3, 105(5) at 4, 201(3) at 5, 203(3)(a) at 9. It also stated that the "taxes authorized [by the act] shall not be collected after June 30, 1997" unless a major league baseball team has agreed to "[c]ontribute forty-five million dollars toward the reasonably necessary preconstruction costs" of the stadium and has contracted to "[p]lay at least ninety percent of its home games in the stadium for a period of time not shorter than the term of the bonds issued to finance the initial construction of the stadium." Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1, ง 201(4)(a), (b) at 5. The Stadium Act also required the major league tenant to share a portion of any profits generated by the baseball club from the operation of the franchise for a period equal to the term of the bonds issued to finance construction of the stadium. Under this provision, shared profits were to be defined by an agreement between the stadium tenant and the District and these profits were to be used to help retire the bonds and thereafter were to go directly to the District. While the Stadium Act provided that the District was to consult with the management of the Mariners on matters such as the design, location, specifications, and budget for the baseball stadium, the ultimate decision making authority as to those issues resided with the District. Laws of 1995, 3rd SpecSess., ch. 1, ง 30(1)-(5).
Governor Lowry signed the act into law within hours of its approval by both houses of the Legislature. Three days later, Ruano attempted to file a petition for referendum with the office of the Secretary of State in order to have the Stadium Act referred to a vote of the people. Secretary of State Ralph Munro declined to accept the petition, opining that an emergency clause in the legislation exempted the Stadium Act from the referendum process.[5]
On October 23, 1995, CLEAN filed a complaint in Thurston County Superior Court against the State of Washington. In it CLEAN sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Stadium Act violated several provisions of the Washington Constitution, to wit: Wash. Const. art. VII, *1059 ง 1, art. VIII, งง 5, 7, and art. II, งง 1, 28. On December 22, 1995, Ruano filed a separate action in Thurston County Superior Court against the State and Secretery of State Ralph Munro. Ruano alleged there, as had CLEAN, that the Stadium Act was not necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety and, as a consequence, the emergency clause in the Stadium Act was violative of article II, section 1 of the Washington Constitution and should be declared invalid.[6] Ruano prayed for a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to process their petition for referendum.
CLEAN and Ruano each moved for summary judgment. The Thurston County Superior Court joined the hearings on both motions for argument and, following that hearing, entered a single order dismissing all of the challenges to the Stadium Act. We granted direct review of that order. Subsequently, we allowed two organizations, Citizens for More Important Things and the Public Facilities District created by the act, to appear as amici curiae and permitted each to file a brief.
I
As noted above, CLEAN contends that the Stadium Act is violative of article VII, section 1 of the Washington Constitution, a provision that all taxes "shall be levied and collected for public purposes only." CLEAN asserts that public development of a baseball stadium as a home field for the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club does not serve a public purpose, but rather serves only the interests of the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club, a private for-profit business.
CLEAN correctly observes that public funds cannot be used to benefit private interests when the public interest is not primarily being served. Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wash.2d 93, 98, 558 P.2d 211 (1977). Public expenditures must, therefore, further public purposes. United States v. Town of North Bonneville, 94 Wash.2d 827, 832, 621 P.2d 127 (1980). "An expenditure is for a public purpose when it confers a benefit of reasonably general character to a significant part of the public." In re Marriage of Johnson, 96 Wash.2d 255, 258, 634 P.2d 877 (1981). "Where it is debatable as to whether or not an expenditure is for a public purpose, we will defer to the judgment of the legislature." Anderson v. O'Brien, 84 Wash.2d 64, 70, 524 P.2d 390 (1974).
Although no Washington case has decided whether or not a public purpose is served when the State or one of its subdivisions constructs a stadium to be leased to a professional sports franchise for use as its home field, the overwhelming majority of courts from other jurisdictions confronting this issue have determined that construction of a publicly owned stadium to be leased to professional sports teams serves a public purpose. See, e.g., Martin v. City of Philadelphia, 420 Pa. 14, 215 A.2d 894, 896 (1966) ("A sports stadium is for the recreation of the public and is hence for a public purpose."); Kelly v. Marylanders for Sports Sanity, Inc., 310 Md. 437, 530 A.2d 245, 257 (1987) ("the State's authorization for the financial support of stadium facilities [including a baseball stadium at the Camden Yards site in Baltimore] for professional sports in furtherance of public recreational activities is of long standing"); Rice v. Ashcroft, 831 S.W.2d 206, 210 (Mo.App.1991) ("[a]ny benefits to private persons... are incidental and do not take away from the primary purpose of legislationโto increase convention and sports activity in the St. Louis City-County area"); Libertarian Party v. State, 199 Wis.2d 790, 546 N.W.2d 424, 434 (1996) ("the fact that a private entity such as the [Milwaukee] Brewers will benefit from the Stadium Act does not destroy the predominant public purpose of this act").
On the other hand, public funding for facilities for professional sports teams has been rejected in at least two jurisdictions. In Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach, 186 So. *1060 2d 6 (Fla.1966), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that construction of a spring training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball Club did not survive a challenge that it violated a provision in the Florida Constitution allowing taxes to be imposed only for "municipal purposes, and for no other purposes." Fla. Const. art. VII, ง 9 n. 39 (West 1995). In reaching its decision, the court stated that "`municipal purposes' means ... a purpose intended to embrace some of the functions of the governmental agency." Brandes, 186 So.2d at 12.
Similarly, in Opinion of the Justices, 356 Mass. 775, 250 N.E.2d 547 (1969), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was called upon to issue an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a proposal that was then pending in the Massachusetts Legislature. The proposal, if passed, would have provided a means for public financing of the construction of a general purpose sports stadium in that state. Although the Massachusetts court noted that a public purpose could, in certain instances, be served by developing a professional sports stadium, it concluded that it was "unable to advise that the stadium complex and the arena will be for a public purpose." Opinion of the Justices, 250 N.E.2d at 560. It did so, however, because it concluded that the standards governing user fees and availability of the proposed facility were not adequate.
Although we are somewhat reluctant to rely too heavily on the interpretation that the highest court of another state places on a provision in its state constitution, particularly when the provision is not identical to the pertinent provision of our constitution, we are satisfied that the cases from the jurisdictions which have held that development of a publicly owned sports stadium serves a public purpose are instructive. Significant to our determination is that Washington's standard for determining public purpose, like Pennsylvania's, Maryland's, Wisconsin's and Missouri's, is broad. As we have noted, public expenditures in Washington need only confer a benefit of reasonably general character to a significant part of the public in order to survive a challenge that they do not serve a public purpose.
The above cited cases from Florida and Massachusetts, while on the surface appearing to provide solace to CLEAN, are not fundamentally inconsistent with the cases from the other jurisdictions. The Massachusetts court, in Opinion of the Justices, did not reject the argument that development of a public stadium as a home for professional sports teams serves a public purpose. The opinion, rather, turned on other grounds. In the Brandes case, the Florida Supreme Court concluded only that "municipal purposes" were not served by constructing a spring training facility that was to be leased to a major league team. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized that the primary purpose of the proposed facility was to provide a "training'' facility for a single team and that opportunities for spectators were only incidental. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Florida court concluded that this purpose did not fall within the narrow category of a function of the governmental agency. Whether that court would have reached the same conclusion about the construction of a stadium for regular and post season major league baseball games remains an open question. Significantly, at least one other court has held that making the distinction between a spring training facility and a stadium serving as a home field for regular and post season games of a professional team is important in determining whether construction of a sports stadium serves a public purpose. See Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm'n, 270 N.W.2d 749, 753 n. 5 (Minn.1978) (in which the court approved public construction of a professional sports stadium holding that "[t]he public interest in spring training games of a single team is obviously less than the public interest in a multi-purpose stadium to be used for professional (regular season and post season) and nonprofessional athletic events and nonathletic events.").
We are satisfied, after reviewing the record here, that construction of a major league baseball stadium in King County confers a benefit of reasonably general character to a significant part of the public in King County, as well as other persons in the region, to survive a challenge that it is violative *1061 of article VII, section 1 of the Washington Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmmdful of the fact that the Seattle Mariners may also reap benefits as the principal tenant of the publicly owned stadium that will be built as a consequence of the passage of the Stadium Act. That fact is not fatal to the act, however, as long as a public purpose is being served. The fact that private ends are incidentally advanced is immaterial to determining whether legislation furthers a public purpose. United States v. Town of North Bonneville, 94 Wash.2d 827, 834,621 P.2d 127 (1980).
Our conclusion that the Stadium Act does not run afoul of article VII, section 1 recognizes, as have the majority of courts around the nation, that public provision of a venue for professional sports franchises serves a public purpose in that the presence in a community of a professional sports franchise provides jobs, recreation for citizens, and promotes economic development and tourism. Having said that, we are aware that an argument can and has been made that few opportunities for recreation and little positive economic impact flow to a community from the presence of a major league baseball team. That argument merely underscores the fact that the degree to which the economy and quality of life of King County and the surrounding area will be enhanced by the development of a major league stadium to house the Seattle Mariners is debatable. The disagreement that underlies that debate, however, is best resolved by the people's elected representatives in the Legislature. In our judgment, they are in a superior position to evaluate the extent to which a public purpose is served by the realization of the perceived benefits. In deciding this question, we believe it was appropriate for the Legislature to consider that the concept of what is public purpose is not a static concept. Rather, it is a concept that must necessarily evolve and change to meet changing public attitudes. See BonneviUe, 94 Wash.2d at 833, 621 P.2d 127. The Legislature with its staff and committees is the branch of government better suited to monitor and assess contemporary attitudes than are the courts.
II
CLEAN also asserts that the Stadium Act violates Wash. Const. art. VIII, งง 5 and 7. It alleges, in that regard, that development of a major league stadium constitutes a gift or a loan of the State's credit in aid of a private business, the Seattle Mariners. The aforementioned constitutional provisions are as follows: "The credit of the state shall not, in any manner be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, company or corporation." Wash. Const. art. VIII, ง 5.
No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.
Wash. Const. art. VIII, ง 7. Although these two provisions are worded slightly differently, this court has held that they have identical meaning, as well as the same prohibitions and exceptions. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 108 Wash.2d 679, 701 n. 13, 743 P.2d 793 (1987). "The manifest purpose of these provisions... is to prevent state funds from being used to benefit private interests where the public interest is not primarily served." Japan Line, Ltd v. McCaffree, 88 Wash.2d 93, 98, 558 P.2d 211 (1977).
A two-pronged analysis is employed to determine whether a gift of state funds has occurred. First, the court asks if the funds are being expended to carry out a fundamental purpose of the government? If the answer to that question is yes, then no gift of public funds has been made. The second prong comes into play only when the expenditures are held to not serve fundamental purposes of government. The court then focuses on the consideration received by the public for the expenditure of public funds and the donative intent of the appropriating body in order to determine whether or not a gift has occurred. Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane, 114 Wash.2d 20, 39, 785 P.2d 447 (1990); Taxpayers, 108 Wash.2d at 702, 743 P.2d 793; see also Scott Paper Co. v. City of Anacortes, 90 Wash.2d 19, 33, 578 *1062 P.2d 1292 (1978) ("if intent to give a gift is lacking the elements of a gift are not present, and article 8, section 7 does not apply"). Although we have concluded above that a public purpose is served by construction of a baseball stadium, it cannot be seriously contended that the development of a baseball stadium for a major league team is a "fundamental purpose" of state government. Our inquiry must concentrate, therefore, on donative intent and consideration.
CLEAN primarily relies on Johns v. Wadsworth, 80 Wash. 352, 141 P. 892 (1914) as support for its argument that construction of a publicly funded baseball stadium to be leased to the Seattle Mariners amounts to an unconstitutional gift of public funds. In Johns, we held that a Pierce County ordinance appropriating money to a private association to enable it to put on the Western Washington Fair violated Wash. Const. art. VIII, ง 7, notwithstanding the fact that the appropriation was "to a private corporation organized for a worthy purpose, educational in its nature." Johns, 80 Wash, at 355, 141 P. 892.
CLEAN's attempt to equate Johns to the instant case is not persuasive. The expenditure of public money that was scrutinized in that case went directly to a private fair association, the county mamtaining no direct control over how the money was to be spent. Furthermore, although any building that was erected with the appropriated funds was to become the property of the county, there was no requirement in the ordinance that any of the appropriated money be devoted to the construction of buildings. Here, on the other hand, a stadium must be built with the public funds generated by the Stadium Act, and it will be owned and managed by the District, a public entity. Furthermore, any tenant, including the Mariners, will be required to pay reasonable rent to the District for the privilege of conducting its activities in the stadium. In our judgment, a plain reading of the Stadium Act reveals no intent by the Legislature to donate public funds to the Seattle Mariners.
CLEAN contends, additionally, that the act is merely an impermissible "financing conduit for private enterprise," apparently suggesting that the Stadium Act amounts to a loan of the State's credit. Appellants' Am. Br. at 34. As support for this argument, it cites Lasstta v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wash.2d 804, 576 P.2d 54 (1978), a case in which the City of Wenatchee purchased land in that city with the express intention of selling it to a private party who intended to construct a theater on the property. We concluded that such an action was an unconstitutional lending of credit, indicating:
Purchase of property by a municipality with an intent to resell it to a private party is prohibited by Const. art. 8, ง 7. At acquisition a municipality must at very least intend a public purpose to insure that a later sale to a private party does not violate the constitutional prohibition. A municipality is absolutely prohibited from acting as a financing conduit for private enterprise.
Lassila, 89 Washed at 811, 576 P.2d 54 (citation omitted). Again, the situation we faced in Lassila is not analogous to the present case. There, the City of Wenatchee was essentially acting as a middle person for a private enterprise. Wenatchee received nothing of value for its expenditure of public money and no public purpose was served by the expenditure. Here, unlike the situation in Lassila, we can discern no intent on the part of the Legislature to have the stadium sold to the Mariners, the Stadium Act providing that ownership of the facility is to remain in the hands of the public facilities district.
In sum, we are satisfied that construction of a baseball stadium with a view to leasing it to a major league team does not amount to a gift of state funds nor a lending of the State's credit. If, as amicus Citizens For More Important Things suggests, the District should enter into an agreement with the Mariners that would permit the ball club to play its games in the stadium for only nominal rent, then the constitutional prohibitions against making a gift of state funds might be implicated. Such a circumstance is not now apparent and we will not speculate about the future. In the unlikely event that this prediction should come true, the issue can then be raised in an appropriate manner.
*1063 III
CLEAN next contends that the Stadium Act violates a constitutional prohibition against public investment in private enterprise. The provision they cite is Wash. Const. art. VIII, ง 7 which provides "[n]o county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter ... become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation."
CLEAN, citing Black's Law Dictionary 1586 (4th ed. 1951), posits that the term "stock" includes the "capital" of an entity and argues that in building a stadium to house the Mariners, the District would essentially be contributing a capital asset, the publicly built stadium, to the Seattle Mariners, thereby making the District, indirectly at least, part owner of the stock of the Mariners. Lending support to the claim that the District will become an indirect co-owner of the Mariners, CLEAN points out that the Mariners and the county will share a portion of the profits generated by the baseball team from the operation of the professional franchise equal to the term of the bonds issued to construct the stadium. As a consequence, they argue, the District is essentially an investor in the Mariners' private project. Laws of 1995, 3rd Spec.Sess., ch. 1, ง 201(4)(c).
CLEAN's argument in this regard is somewhat strained. Again, it ignores the fact that all of the public moneys provided by the Stadium Act will go into the construction of the stadium, a facility which will be wholly owned by the District. Although CLEAN correctly observes that any profits generated by the Mariners will be shared with the county for a period of time, and thereafter with the District, that provision in the Stadium Act simply provides security to the county in that the county's share of the profits is to be devoted to retiring the bonds that were issued to finance construction of the stadium. The provision does not make the county or the District an investor in the Mariners because at the conclusion of the term of the bonds, the District will not directly or indirectly own any part of the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club.
IV
CLEAN next contends that the Stadium Act violates Wash. Const. art. II, ง 28 because it amounts to special legislation.
The Washington Constitution provides that:
The legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases:
. . . .
(5) For assessment or collection of taxes, or for extending the time for collection thereof.
(6) For granting corporate powers or privileges.
Wash. Const. art. II, ง 28. CLEAN argues that because the Stadium Act provides a means for constructing a baseball stadium only in counties with a million or more people it is unconstitutional special legislation in that it benefits a single entity. CLEAN points out, in that regard, that only one county, King, has a population exceeding one million, thereby bringing it alone within the ambit of the act. It suggests that the Legislature's singling out of one county was simply a matter of "corporate convenience" and not rationally related to the purpose of the Stadium Act. Appellants' Am.Br. at 42.
Special legislation is legislation which operates upon a single person or entity. General legislation, on the other hand, operates upon all things or people within a class. Convention Ctr. Coalition v. City of Seattle, 107 Wash.2d 370, 380, 730 P.2d 636 (1986). A class, however, may consist of one person or corporation as long as the law applies to all members of the class. Convention Ctr., 107 Wash.2d at 380, 730 P.2d 636 (citing Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Ivarson, 19 Wash.2d 723, 730, 144 P.2d 258 (1943)).
We disagree that the Stadium Act is special legislation simply because it applies only to counties of a certain size. It is not uncommon for the Legislature to distinguish among cities on the basis of population and such legislation is upheld "[s]o long as population bears a rational relationship to the purpose and subject matter of the legislation." City of Seattle v. State, 103 Wash.2d *1064 663, 674, 694 P.2d 641 (1985). In order to "survive a challenge as special legislation, any exclusions from a statute's applicability, as well as the statute itself, must be rationally related to the purpose of the statute." City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d at 675, 694 P.2d 641.
The purpose of the Stadium Act is to preserve the public's opportunity to view major league baseball and to maintain for the citizens of the state the economic benefits that flow from the presence of a professional sports franchise. In adopting the legislation, it was not irrational for the Legislature to limit the construction of publicly owned major league baseball stadiums to the most populous counties of the state. Although CLEAN correctly points out that only one county currently has a population exceeding one million people, it is certainly possible that in the not too distant future another county or counties may grow that large.
Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Legislature to consider that King County, our state's most populous county, currently is the only county with a major league baseball team within its boundaries. The relationship between the population of an area and its ability to put fans in the seats of the stadium is obvious. Certainly without fan support, a major league baseball franchise is doomed. With its demise, of course, go the rents payable to the District and any profits that would otherwise be paid to the county to help retire any bonds that are issued to provide funds for building the stadium. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, "[g]reater population ensures more ticket sales and better corporate support. It also promises a greater economic multiplier from spending for food, lodging and entertainment, and a larger base of economic activity to generate revenue to defray the District's expenses." Libertarian Party, 546 N.W.2d at 432. Furthermore, it is beyond argument that the population of an area has a relationship to the legitimate object of providing an opportunity for citizens to view professional sportsโthe greater the population, the greater number of persons who will enjoy the experience.
V
CLEAN and Ruano both contend that section 310 of the Stadium Act, the emergency clause, violates their constitutionally protected right to referendum and, as a consequence, is invalid. More to the point, they argue that the Stadium Act was not necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.
The pertinent provision in our state's constitution is article II, section 1, which provides:
LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, ... but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
. . . .
(b) Referendum. The second power reserved by the people is the referendum, and it may be ordered on any act, bill, law, or any part thereof passed by the legislature, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, [or][7] support of the state government and its existing public institutions.
Wash. Const. art. II, ง 1 (amend. 72). According to this provision, all legislation adopted by the Legislature is subject to referendum except laws that are (1) necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, or (2) in support of existing public institutions. Because it cannot seriously be contended that the Stadium Act is in support of an existing state institution, our focus will be on whether the Stadium Act was necessary for the immediate *1065 preservation of the public peace, health or safety. State ex rel. Kennedy v. Reeves, 22 Wash.2d 677, 679-81, 157 P.2d 721 (1945).
The terms "public peace, health or safety," unfortunately, are not defined in the constitution. Those terms have, however, been interpreted in cases from this court as being synonymous with an exercise of the State's "police power." See, e.g., State ex rel. Pennock v. Coe, 42 Wash.2d 569, 573, 257 P.2d 190 (1953) (this court has "upheld legislative declarations of emergency where the acts could, by reasonable inference, be said to be an exercise of the police power or in financial support of the state government or its existing institutions"); State ex rel. Pennock v. Reeves, 27 Wash.2d 739, 743, 179 P.2d 961 (1947), overruled on other grounds by Coe, 42 Wash.2d 569, 257 P.2d 190 (1953); State ex rel. McLeod v. Reeves, 22 Wash.2d 672, 674, 157 P.2d 718 (1945). The police power of the State is an attribute of sovereignty, an essential element of the power to govern, and this power exists without declaration, the only limitation upon it being that it must reasonably tend to promote some int