The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Sen. Brown today in an opinion by Justice Mary Fairhurst, saying that the judiciary cannot interfere in an internal legislative process. The court declined to address the constitutionality of the supermajority vote requirement.

The unanimous decision is especially significant considering previous statements by Chief Justice Alexander and Justice Chambers (he of the "elephant in the court" opinion) that revealed their dislike of I-601. I would have expected at least a dissent or concurring opinion in the Brown case.

Case documents and timeline can be found here.

(Note: Publishers of this blog filed an amicus brief in support of the state in this action.)

UPDATE: Kris Tefft at AWB applauds the ruling, Jason Mercier at WPC wishes he had put down money on his predicted outcome, and Andrew Villeneuve at NPI suggests that the legislature and Gov. Gregoire could force the constitutionality issue with an act of "cooperative civil disobedience." The Amateur Law Prof calls it a "stunning punt." My own analysis can be found here.

• Community Care Coalition of Wash. v. Reed, No. 81857-6, regarding the Secretary of State's discretion in certifying an initiative.
• In re Custody of A.C., No. 79938-5, regarding out-of-state foster parents seeking custody.
• Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, No. 80665-9, regarding a consumer protection claim against a dentist.
• Otis Housing Association v. Ha, No. 80626-8, regarding a real estate dispute.