King County and the city of Seattle are among two of several plaintiffs to file a joint lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the newly passed initiative on natural gas.

Initiative 2066 prohibits state and local governments from restricting or “discouraging” Washingtonians’ use of natural gas in their homes and businesses. It was one of four initiatives on November’s general election ballot and it was the only one to pass — by about 3.4%.

Now, it’s set to amend state rules on which kinds of energy buildings should use, reverting a push by state legislators to make heating powered through electricity over natural gas.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in King County Superior Court, asks a judge to block the implementation of I-2066, which its attorneys said misled voters “about its actual provisions” and violated Washington’s single-subject law.

“This initiative, the way that it’s written, it covers multiple different subjects, not just issues related to natural gas — which is what the initiative supporters focused on and suggested all that was at issue,” Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the plaintiffs and partner with Pacifica Law Group, said. “This has much broader impact on a number of other laws … including energy efficiency, to avoid the disproportionate negative health impacts from air pollution, and these other issues that go far beyond the issue of natural gas.”

Gas clash: Who’s accused of being a ‘pompus turd’ in I-2066 legal threat

The suit claims I-2066 is unconstitutional, citing Article II, Section 9, of the Washington Constitution, which reads, “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

VP of External Affairs for Building Industry Association of WA comments

Jan Himebaugh, Vice President of External Affairs for the Building Industry Association of Washington called the claims “bogus”

“I think it’s just really sad that, once again, activists who think that they know what’s best for the people of Washington are trying to sort of undermine democracy,” she told “The Jake and Spike Show” on KIRO Newsradio Thursday. “The people of Washington spoke and Seattle and King County think they know better, so they’re going to tell the rest of Washington, ‘No, we think you got this wrong’ and that ‘You’re too dumb to know what you’re talking about.’”

While Governor Jay Inslee is not signed as one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, he raised the same legal argument just one day after the election, telling the press, “I think there is a very good chance the court will find that it was defective by violating the single-subject rule.”

When asked by KIRO Newsradio whether Inslee or his office had any direct or indirect involvement in the lawsuit, a spokesperson responded over email, “I think you’ll find many have voiced that argument. The governor is not party to the lawsuit.”

Founder of Let’s Go Washington releases statement

Brian Heywood, founder of the political action committee Let’s Go Washington — which heavily supported all four ballot initiatives — released a statement in response to the lawsuit, describing the city of Seattle and King County’s participation as shameful.

“Washington voters made their position clear: they want to protect natural gas and energy choice. Instead of spending time and money suing corporations, perhaps the (Attorney General Bob Ferguson), Seattle and King County should focus on enforcing the law and protecting the will of the people,” Heywood’s statement reads in part.

Despite Ferguson being named multiple times in Heywood’s statement, Ferguson’s office has not taken action to challenge the initiative and, in fact, declined a request to do so from the group bringing the lawsuit. In a letter sent Dec. 6 through their attorneys with Pacifica Law Group, the plaintiffs asked Ferguson’s office to “investigate and promptly institute legal proceedings” on I-2066’s constitutionality. Ferguson’s office replied three days later, rejecting the request and stating that initiatives have a “presumption of constitutionality.”

I-2117 goes down: Washington voters uphold landmark climate law against challenge

Lawrence told KIRO Newsradio the request to Ferguson’s office was merely a procedural necessity to guarantee the plaintiffs had legal standing for such a lawsuit.

“There are dozens, if not more, cases of initiatives that have been declared unconstitutional — like this one,” Lawrence said. “There is a lot of precedence for that, and in fact, we’ll be citing in our brief on the merits a number of Washington state cases that involve this problem of wrongfully combining multiple subjects in the same initiative.”

At the time of publication, no hearing on the lawsuit is currently scheduled. While I-2066 went into effect on Dec. 5, the future of its implementation is uncertain.

Below is Heywood’s statement in full:

Let’s Go Washington is focused on the fairness and accountability of government organizations – the Governor-elect and Governor Inslee have the highest responsibility to side with the people. Washingtonians have voted to protect natural gas from being banned, now it’s time for AG Ferguson and other statewide organizations to enforce this law. If the SBCC won’t follow the law, the governor should demand their resignations.

Meanwhile, as citizens struggle to afford housing and pay their energy bills, shamefully, the City of Seattle and King County are leading the charge to eliminate energy choice and make living more expensive. Washington voters made their position clear: they want to protect natural gas and energy choice. Instead of spending time and money suing corporations, perhaps the AG, Seattle, and King County should focus on enforcing the law and protecting the will of the people.”

Sam Campbell is a reporter, editor and anchor at KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Sam’s stories here. Follow Sam on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/HeySamCampbell