Washington Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Amendments to RCW 49.60.227: Comprehensive Procedure for Striking Racially Restrictive Covenants

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Washington recently rendered a pivotal decision in the case of Alex May v. Spokane County, which addresses the procedural intricacies involved in eliminating racially restrictive covenants from property titles and public records. This case underscores the delicate balance between eradicating morally repugnant contractual clauses that have historically disenfranchised communities and preserving the documented history of such injustices. The petitioner, Alex May, sought to have a racially restrictive covenant voided and physically removed from both the property title and public records, invoking RCW 49.60.227. The respondents, including Spokane County and the County Auditor Vicky Dalton, challenged the extent of relief permissible under the statute.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington held that the amendments made to RCW 49.60.227 during the 2021 legislative session are applicable to the present case. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court for relief consistent with these amendments. The decision clarified that the legislature's intent was to allow for the complete removal of racially restrictive covenants from the chain of title while maintaining historical records for archival purposes. The Court emphasized that prior interpretations of the statute, which did not authorize the physical alteration of original documents, were superseded by the updated legislative framework.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment references several key historical and legal precedents concerning racially restrictive covenants. Notably:

BUCHANAN v. WARLEY (1917): This Supreme Court case invalidated racial zoning ordinances, asserting that they infringed upon property rights.
CORRIGAN v. BUCKLEY (1926): The Court held that private covenants restricting property ownership based on race were not subject to constitutional regulation as contracts between private parties.
SHELLEY v. KRAEMER (1948): This landmark decision declared that racially restrictive covenants were unenforceable as they involved state action, thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

These precedents collectively illustrate the evolving judicial landscape concerning racially discriminatory covenants, emphasizing a trajectory towards their nullification and the protection of individual property rights against discriminatory practices.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a de novo standard of review for statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain language of RCW 49.60.227 and its legislative intent. The Court acknowledged that legislative amendments aim to balance the removal of offensive covenants from property titles with the preservation of historical records. By interpreting the amended statute, the Court determined that a court order is not merely declaratory but necessitates specific procedural steps to physically redact and remove the covenants from official records. This interpretation aligns with the Legislature's intent to eradicate remnants of discrimination while maintaining a historical archive.

Moreover, the Court considered the dissenting opinion, which argued for interpreting the statute as allowing only the filing of an order without physical alteration of records. The majority, however, found this interpretation insufficient in addressing the complete removal of discriminatory covenants from titles, thereby aligning with the legislative amendments.

Impact

The Judgment has significant implications for property law and anti-discrimination efforts in Washington State. By upholding the legislative amendments, the Court ensures that property owners can fully excise racially restrictive covenants from their titles, thereby promoting equitable housing practices. Additionally, the requirement to maintain historical records separately safeguards the collective memory of discriminatory practices, preventing their erasure from public consciousness and legal archives.

This decision sets a precedent for similar cases, providing a clear procedural pathway for eliminating discriminatory covenants. It reinforces the state’s commitment to combating discrimination and upholding the values enshrined in the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Future litigants can rely on this ruling to pursue comprehensive remedies for invalid covenants, ensuring both legal rectitude and historical integrity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Racially Restrictive Covenants

These are clauses included in property deeds or contracts that prohibit the sale or occupancy of the property to individuals based on race, nationality, or ethnicity. Historically used to maintain racial homogeneity in neighborhoods, they have been deemed discriminatory and unenforceable.

RCW 49.60.227

This Revised Code of Washington (RCW) statute governs the removal of unenforceable covenants that discriminate based on race or other protected characteristics. It outlines the legal procedures for declaring such covenants void and provides mechanisms for their elimination from property titles and public records.

Declaratory Judgment

A legal determination by a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the parties. In this context, Alex May sought a declaratory judgment to establish that the racially restrictive covenant was void and to mandate its removal.

Chain of Title

This refers to the sequence of historical transfers of title to a property. Ensuring that the chain of title is free from discriminatory covenants is crucial for legal ownership and the prevention of discriminatory practices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in Alex May v. Spokane County marks a significant advancement in the state's efforts to eliminate racially discriminatory covenants from property titles and public records. By enforcing the legislative amendments to RCW 49.60.227, the Court has established a clear and comprehensive procedure for property owners to remove offensive covenants while preserving the historical record of such discriminatory practices. This balance ensures that the legal system not only rectifies past injustices but also maintains an accurate historical narrative, thereby reinforcing the principles of equality and non-discrimination foundational to Washington's legal framework.