Administrative Matters Fall Outside Local Initiative Power: Jewels Helping Hands v. Hansen

Introduction

In Jewels Helping Hands et al. v. Brian Hansen et al., 2025 WL ___ (Wash. Apr. 17, 2025), the Washington Supreme Court addressed the limits of municipal initiative power against the backdrop of the statewide homeless‐encampment policy. Washington and Spokane had each adopted detailed approaches to regulating camping by unsheltered individuals—Spokane through a local ordinance to comply with City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (the post-Martin regime) and the State via the Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA). Spokane resident Brian Hansen proposed Initiative 2023-4 to expand criminal prohibitions on camping within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and child‐care sites. Jewels Helping Hands and the Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium’s executive director sued to enjoin the measure, arguing it exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held the Hansen Initiative was impermissibly “administrative” in nature, not “legislative,” and thus beyond the municipal initiative power.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for an 8–1 majority, Justice McCloud held:

The local initiative power in charter cities like Spokane is narrower than the statewide power and extends only to matters “legislative” in nature, not to administrative decisions that implement or refine a policy already adopted by the legislative body.
Spokane’s 2022 “Martin Ordinance” laid out a comprehensive, post-Martin v. City of Boise enforcement regime for public camping—balancing shelter‐availability exceptions, safety zones, and sweep procedures.
Hansen’s Initiative merely amended those administrative details by creating new “never-camp” zones within 1,000 feet of parks, schools, and day-care facilities, without changing the core policy choice to criminalize unauthorized camping on public property.
Under controlling precedent (Heider v. City of Seattle; City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!), such a measure is an administrative act and exceeds the scope of the local initiative power. The Court therefore reversed and enjoined the Initiative.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (603 U.S. 520 (2024)): Held that governments may criminalize homeless encampments even if no shelter is available, prompting Spokane’s post-2019 ordinance amendments.
Heider v. City of Seattle (100 Wn.2d 874 (1984)): Ruled that a street‐name change ordinance was an administrative act—immune from referendum—because it “merely amend[ed] Seattle’s comprehensive street-names ordinance.”
City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice! (170 Wn.2d 1 (2010)): Found that citizens’ initiatives seeking to repeal fluoridation of the public water supply were administrative, not legislative, where they interfered with a “fairly detailed regulatory scheme” for water quality.
Ruano v. Spellman (81 Wn.2d 820 (1973)): Established the distinction between legislative matters (new policy) and administrative matters (execution of an existing policy).
Protect Public Health v. Freed (192 Wn.2d 477 (2018)): Confirmed that initiatives may be invalid if they intrude upon powers the legislature has delegated to a municipal body.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the two‐part test derived from Ruano and Heider:

Permanent & General vs. Temporary & Special: Whether the subject matter is a broad, enduring policy (legislative) or a narrow, time-limited detail (administrative).
New Law/Policy vs. Execution of Existing Policy: Whether the initiative declares new policy (legislative) or refines the details of a plan already adopted (administrative).

Although the Hansen Initiative was permanent, it did not declare a new approach to homeless encampments—it adjusted the enforcement details of Spokane’s Martin Ordinance (which itself had implemented post-Martin v. Boise rules). Under Heider and Our Water, such adjustments are administrative and cannot be enacted by local initiative.

Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Charter cities may grant citizens initiative power, but only over matters that are truly legislative—broad policy initiatives, not refinements to a detailed administrative scheme.
Municipalities and citizen drafters must distinguish new, overarching policy from fine-grained regulatory details when proposing local initiatives.
Courts will strictly enforce the legislative/administrative line to preserve local legislative autonomy and prevent piecemeal referenda or initiatives from disrupting comprehensive local or state-local programs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Local vs. Statewide Initiative Power: The state constitution grants a robust, statewide initiative power. Local initiative power exists only by statute or charter and is narrower.
Legislative vs. Administrative Acts:
- Legislative: Declaration of a new policy or creation of new law on a subject not previously addressed.
- Administrative: Execution, enforcement, or fine-tuning of details under an existing policy framework.
“Martin-Compliant” Ordinance: Spokane’s 2022 overhaul of its camping code required law-enforcement to check shelter availability before citations and created narrow “no-camp” zones for public safety reasons.
De Novo Review: The Court reviews questions about the scope of initiative power without deference to lower courts, applying precedent directly.

Conclusion

Jewels Helping Hands v. Hansen establishes a clear boundary: local initiatives may not intrude upon the administrative seams of a plan already adopted by a city council. By reversing the Hansen Initiative, the Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed that local initiative power is reserved for matters of general public policy, not for re-writing the detailed operational rules of existing municipal programs. This decision will guide future local ballot measures, ensuring that direct democracy remains a tool for crafting new policies rather than re-tailoring administrative minutiae.