Home Rule Charter Form of Government
Article XI, § 4 of the state constitution was amended in 1948 to provide the option for counties to adopt "home rule" charters to provide their own form of government. This home rule provision does not change the role and authority of counties, but it does allow counties to provide for a form of government different from the commission form prescribed by state law. By adopting a home rule charter, county voters can provide for appointed county officers to perform county functions previously performed by independently elected officials and can change the names and duties of the county officers prescribed by the constitution and state law. Home rule charters may not, however, change the elected status and duties of the county prosecuting attorney or superior and district court judges, or the jurisdiction of the courts.
Home Rule Charter County Authority
Home rule charter counties have broad authority to provide for purely local governance issues. The state supreme court has ruled, however, that, under the state constitution, county home rule charter rights are subordinate to express state law requirements that go beyond matters of local concern. The court has concluded that the state constitution expressly relegates county home rule charters to an inferior position vis-a-vis "the constitution and laws of this state" where the matter involves public policy of broad concern, expressed in general laws. For example, the state supreme court has concluded that home rule charter counties are free to provide a different time for election of county officers. However, they have also held that ordinances enacted to implement a county's comprehensive land use plan as required by the Growth Management Act cannot be subject to amendment or repeal by referendum power granted in a county's home rule charter.
After adoption of a charter, the powers, authority, and duties of county officers provided for by state law are vested in the county legislative authority, unless the charter expressly assigns powers and duties to a specific officer. The duties of the board of county commissioners and other elected officers may also be modified by charter. The board of commissioners and other elected officers may be entirely replaced, subject to certain restrictions.
Home Rule Charter Option for Power of Initiative and Referendum
Another reason for adopting a home rule charter is to provide the powers of initiative and referendum to the citizens of the county. All charter counties have provided for initiative and referendum powers.
Optional Municipal Code cities are authorized by state law to provide for the powers of initiative and referendum without adopting a home rule charter (RCW 35A.11.080 through 35A.11.100). Legislation was proposed in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 legislative sessions which would have allowed the board of county commissioners in noncharter counties to similarly authorize the use of initiative and referendum without the need to adopt a home rule charter. However, none of these proposals have been adopted.
Current Washington Charter Counties and Their Form of Government
Until 1969, all Washington counties operated under the commission form of government. However, since then, six counties have adopted home rule charters: Clallam (1979), King (1969), Pierce (1981), Snohomish (1980), Whatcom (1979) and San Juan (2005). Of the six home rule charter counties, five have adopted the council-executive form of government. The county executive is elected in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom counties, and is appointed in San Juan County. Clallam County has retained the three-member commission form of government with responsibilities similar to boards of commissioners in noncharter counties, and also has an appointed county administrator.
In the five council-executive charter counties, the size of the council ranges from five members in Snohomish County to thirteen in King County. The council's primary duty is to adopt a budget and establish county policy. The county executive or administrator is responsible for general administration and operation of the county. The executive or administrator is also responsible for proposing the budget and, in the case of an elected county executive, has a veto power over most council actions. All charter counties, except for San Juan County, have elected legislative bodies with partisan positions. The council positions in San Juan County are elected on a non-partisan basis. All of the four elected county executives are partisan positions.
A county charter can make any elected county official, except the prosecuting attorney and superior court judges, an appointive rather than an elective position. The coroner or medical examiner has been made an appointive position in every charter county, although in Clallam County, the Prosecuting Attorney serves as the ex officio coroner.
The six charter counties, however, vary greatly in their treatment of the offices of the assessor, auditor, superior court clerk, sheriff and treasurer. The assessor is an elected position in every county, although some make the position non-partisan. The auditor is an elected officer in all but one county (King), where the auditor is appointed by the council. The clerk is an appointive position in all but two counties (Snohomish and San Juan), with the appointing authority varying among the commissioners, the superior court judges, and the executive (with council confirmation). The sheriff is now an elected position in all but one county (Pierce), although most counties have made the position non-partisan. Finally, the treasurer continues to be an elected position in all but one county (King). Pierce County has combined the assessor and treasurer into a single elected position.
To determine the particular organization structure of a home rule county government, refer to the county's charter.
Reference Sources
- Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Art. XI, § 4 Wash. Const. (as amended by Amendment 21 (1948)) - Providing for adoption of county home rule charters as a method of providing flexible, alternative forms of county government. Specifies procedures for adoption of a charter and sets out limitations on the ability of a charter to affect certain elected positions.
Back to Contents
Home Rule Charters
For information about City Charters, see "City Forms of Government"
Back to Contents
County Charter Adoption Process
The state constitution, in Article XI, § 4, specifies the procedure for a county to adopt a "home rule" charter. Any county may adopt a charter. There is no minimum population requirement. There are two methods to begin the charter adoption process - initiation by the county commissioners or intiation by voter petition. Under either method, a board of freeholders is elected to draft a proposed charter, which is then submitted to a vote of all the people for adoption or rejection. In 1998, the legislature considered, but did not pass, a joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 8204) calling for an amendment to the state constitution providing for a simplified alternative method of framing a county charter.
Initiation by County Commissoinsers
Under the first method, the county commissioners can initiate the charter adoption process by calling for an election of fifteen to twenty-five freeholders, the number to be determined by the commissioners. The freeholders must have been residents of the county for at least five years and must be qualified electors of the county.
These electors must meet within thirty days of their election to begin preparing a charter for the county. The charter must then be submitted to the voters at a special or regular election. If a majority of the voters approve, the charter is adopted and becomes the form of government for the county.
Initiation by Petition
Under the second method, registered voters equal in number to ten percent of the voters of the county voting at the last preceding general election may petition for an election of freeholders. This petition must be filed with the county auditor of the county at least three months before any general election. If this is done, the proposal that a board of freeholders be elected for the purpose of framing a county charter is submitted to a vote at the general election. At the same election, a board of freeholders is elected to draft the new charter. Assuming a majority of the people vote to elect a board of freeholders, the freeholders who are elected meet to frame a charter which is then submitted to the voters for adoption.
Under either procedure, if the charter is approved by the voters, the county government is to be established as provided in the charter within six months of the election.
In addition to the five Washington counties which have adopted charters, several other counties have taken various steps in the process of electing freeholders, drafting proposed charters, and submitting charter proposals to the voters. For example, in 1997, Clark County voters rejected a proposal to create a board of freeholders to draft a charter in an advisory ballot on the issue. Also in 1997, Cowlitz County voters approved a proposal to begin the charter adoption process , but rejected the resulting proposed home rule charter the following year. In 1998, Skamania County voters also approved a proposal to begin the charter adoption process but subsequently rejected the resulting charter.
Back to Contents
Consolidated City-County Government
At the same time the state constitution was amended in 1948 to allow counties to adopt "home rule" charters, another amendment was adopted to allow counties with a "home rule" charter to provide for the formation and government of a combined city and county municipal corporation known as a "city-county." The same procedures applicable to the adoption of a county charter alsovgovern the adoption of a city-county charter, except that the only method of beginning the combined city-county charter process is through a voter petition. There is no minimum population requirement.
In additon to providing for an alternative form of county government, a city-county charter may also merge the county with cities and other municipal corporations within its boundaries. Consolidated city-county governments have been proposed as a way to improve local government service provision by eliminating conflicts between competing levels of local government. Although a few Washington counties have explored this option, no combined city-county governments have yet been formed.
Reference Sources
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Art. XI, § 16 Wash. Const. ("Combined City-County") (as amended by Amendments 23 (1948) and 58 (1972)) - Provides for home rule charters for the formation and government of combined city and county municipal corporations
Attorney General Opinions