Other Languages1. A first class city may, by ordinance, require candidates for the office of freeholder to be nominated in a primary election. 2. A first class city may, by ordinance, require candidates for the office of freeholder to run for specific freeholder positions, as opposed to all candidates running against one another. 3. A first class city may, by ordinance, require candidates for the office of freeholder to reside in specific areas or districts of the city . However, the election itself must be city wide. The office of freeholder is a city wide office and a first class city cannot, by ordinance, authorize freeholders to be elected by the voters of a district of the city.
When the state constitution authorizes alternative provisions of a new county charter to be submitted to the voters, it refers exclusively to charter provisions drafted and submitted by the freeholders who have prepared the proposed charter; the law does not permit the county commissioners or any other person to submit alternative provisions to be voted on with the original proposal.
(1) In order to be eligible to sign a petition to dissolve an irrigation district which has an outstanding bonded indebtedness, as provided for in RCW 87.53.030, a person must be a qualified elector under the general election laws and a freeholder of the district, as provided for in RCW 87.53.050. (2) A person must be registered under the state general election laws in order to be a qualified elector within the meaning of RCW 87.53.050. (3) A contract purchaser of land in an irrigation district under a forfeitable executory contract for the sale of real property is a "freeholder of the district" as that term is used in RCW 87.53.050.
1. A board of freeholders elected pursuant to article 11, section 16 of the Washington Constitution to draft and present a proposed city-county charter may not instead draft a charter relating to the county only. 2. The state constitution requires that a city-county charter specifically provide for the legal status of cities within the new government's territory, and grants broad discretion to the voters in defining which, if any, of the powers and duties of existing cities would continue or change after adoption of a city-county charter. 3. Cities remaining in existence in a city-county operating under a city-county charter retain authority to annex territory, only if and only to the extent that the charter grants such authority. 4. All of the voters of a county may vote on the adoption of a proposed city-county charter, including those residing within any incorporated cities in the county. 5. A board of freeholders lacks authority to use public funds or property to advocate or promote adoption of a city-county charter after it has been drafted and submitted pursuant to the constitution; however, the acts of soliciting and recording public opinion, drafting, debating, deliberating, selecting options, and submitting a charter to the county are all specifically implied by the freeholders' constitutional role and do not constitute an unlawful use of public property.
If a board of freeholders is elected by the voters of a first class city under RCW 35.22.140 to prepare and propose a new or revised city charter for submission to the vote of the people, the freeholders may submit a charter which is complete except for one section and call upon the voters to select between two alternatives as to that section.
A county charter may provide for the nonpartisan election of county council members.
If a board of freeholders is elected by the voters of a first class city under RCW 35.22.140 to prepare and propose a new or revised city charter for submission to a vote of the people, that charter may not be presented to the voters on a section-by-section basis.