Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

The Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, the voter-approved 2024 measure that aimed to protect access to natural gas for homes and businesses.

True. Voters approved I-2066 with 51.7% in 2024; the court voided it 6-3 in September 2026 for bundling four subjects. Official state results show the vote, and the court's opinion and two news reports confirm the 6-3 ruling.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “The Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, the voter-approved 2024 measure that aimed to protect access to natural gas for homes and businesses” True (high confidence): Voters approved I-2066 with 51.7% in 2024; the court voided it 6-3 in September 2026 for bundling four subjects. Reviewed October 31, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/wa-i2066-struck-down/1

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Established. Voters approved I-2066 in November 2024, 1,941,474 (51.71%) to 1,813,169 (48.29%), according to the Secretary of State's official results.
  • Established. On September 17, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the whole initiative is unconstitutional.
  • Established. The reason: it combined four subjects in one measure. They were gas access, local air agencies, building codes, and a clause in a 2024 utility law.
  • Not shown. The court did not rule that protecting natural gas access is unconstitutional. It also skipped the trial court's other two grounds.
  • Context. Three justices dissented and would have kept most of I-2066 by severing sections 9, 10, 11 and subsection 12(5).
Important context: I-2066 was a citizen initiative to protect natural gas service and limit rules that discourage gas use. The state constitution says one bill or initiative may cover only one subject. The court said I-2066 covered four. It did not decide whether a gas-access law on its own would be allowed.

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 4 methods across 4 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.
Evidence map
Method Institution / country Year(s) What it shows Key limitation Primary links
Official statewide election results published by the Washington Secretary of State, last updated November 26, 2024, the county certification date. Washington Secretary of State United States 2024 I-2066 received 1,941,474 Yes votes (51.71%) and 1,813,169 No votes (48.29%), for a total of 3,754,643. These are the state's own reported totals; we did not recount ballots. The margin was 128,305 votes out of 3,754,643. Washington Secretary of State
Reading of the full majority opinion in Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0, filed September 17, 2026. Washington Supreme Court United States 2026 The majority held that I-2066 combines four distinct subjects in violation of article II, section 19. The court could not tell which subject, if any, voters would have passed on its own. So it kept no part and voided the whole initiative. It applied the same constitutional limits that bind bills passed by the legislature. The opinion is a legal judgment, not a finding about the merits of natural gas policy. Its count of four subjects is the majority's view; three justices disagreed. Washington Supreme Court (majority)
Reading of the majority opinion's conclusion and of Justice Mungia's dissent in the same case. Washington Supreme Court United States 2026 The court ruled only on the one-subject rule. It skipped the trial court's other two grounds: a title that didn't name every subject, and changes to existing laws that the measure didn't show. The dissent would have kept I-2066 after cutting sections 9, 10, 11 and subsection 12(5). It agreed sections 9 to 11 changed existing laws without showing them. Whether a narrower natural gas measure would survive is untested. The dissent is not law, and it agreed that parts of I-2066 were unconstitutional. Washington Supreme Court (majority) Washington Supreme Court (dissent)
Same-day reporting by KUOW (Seattle public radio) and the Washington State Standard, which name the justices and quote the parties. KUOW, Washington State Standard United States 2026 KUOW reports that six of nine justices joined the majority. The Washington State Standard names the three dissenters: Justices Sal Mungia, Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Charles Johnson. The homebuilders' group that wrote the initiative called the ruling a rejection of voters' will. It said it has no plans to appeal. News reports summarize the opinion and quote interested parties; they are not independent legal analysis. KUOW Washington State Standard (via Lynnwood Times)
1. Official 2024 election results Official statewide election results published by the Washington Secretary of State, last updated November 26, 2024, the county certification date.

I-2066 received 1,941,474 Yes votes (51.71%) and 1,813,169 No votes (48.29%), for a total of 3,754,643.

Limit: These are the state's own reported totals; we did not recount ballots. The margin was 128,305 votes out of 3,754,643.

Verify: November 5, 2024 General Election Results: Initiative Measure No. 2066

2. The Supreme Court's majority opinion Reading of the full majority opinion in Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0, filed September 17, 2026.

The majority held that I-2066 combines four distinct subjects in violation of article II, section 19. The court could not tell which subject, if any, voters would have passed on its own. So it kept no part and voided the whole initiative. It applied the same constitutional limits that bind bills passed by the legislature.

Limit: The opinion is a legal judgment, not a finding about the merits of natural gas policy. Its count of four subjects is the majority's view; three justices disagreed.

Verify: Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0 (Sept. 17, 2026), majority opinion

3. What the ruling did not decide, and the dissent Reading of the majority opinion's conclusion and of Justice Mungia's dissent in the same case.

The court ruled only on the one-subject rule. It skipped the trial court's other two grounds: a title that didn't name every subject, and changes to existing laws that the measure didn't show. The dissent would have kept I-2066 after cutting sections 9, 10, 11 and subsection 12(5). It agreed sections 9 to 11 changed existing laws without showing them.

Limit: Whether a narrower natural gas measure would survive is untested. The dissent is not law, and it agreed that parts of I-2066 were unconstitutional.

Verify: Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0 (Sept. 17, 2026), majority opinion Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0, dissenting opinion of Justice Mungia

4. Independent news reports of the ruling Same-day reporting by KUOW (Seattle public radio) and the Washington State Standard, which name the justices and quote the parties.

KUOW reports that six of nine justices joined the majority. The Washington State Standard names the three dissenters: Justices Sal Mungia, Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Charles Johnson. The homebuilders' group that wrote the initiative called the ruling a rejection of voters' will. It said it has no plans to appeal.

Limit: News reports summarize the opinion and quote interested parties; they are not independent legal analysis.

Verify: Natural gas initiative ruled unconstitutional by Washington state Supreme Court WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters

Common questions

“The court ruled that protecting natural gas access is unconstitutional.”

Short answer: No

The court ruled only that one measure could not combine four subjects. It said separate subjects must be passed separately. It did not decide whether a gas-access law on its own would be valid.

“The ruling is a direct rejection of the clearly expressed will of Washington voters.”

Short answer: Values question

Voters did approve it, and the court did void it. The court said initiatives face the same limits as bills, and it couldn't tell which subject voters backed. Three justices would have kept most of it.

“A narrower natural gas initiative would now survive in court.”

Short answer: Not settled

Separate measures avoid the one-subject problem. But the court skipped the trial court's other grounds. Even the dissent found three sections changed existing laws without showing those changes, which the constitution also forbids.

Conclusion

Two independent records settle the claim. State results show voters approved I-2066 in November 2024, 51.71% to 48.29%. The Supreme Court's opinion of September 17, 2026, voids the whole initiative. KUOW and the Washington State Standard each report the 6-3 split. The claim is accurate as stated, so we rate it True with high confidence. The ruling is narrower than its result. The court did not judge natural gas policy. It found four subjects in one measure: gas access, local air agencies, building codes, and a clause in a 2024 utility law. It could not tell which of these voters would have passed alone. So it struck down the whole measure. Three justices disagreed and would have kept most of it. Still open: whether backers will try separate, narrower measures. Such a measure would still face the trial court's other grounds, which the Supreme Court did not decide. As of October 31, 2026, we found no reported request for reconsideration and no new natural gas initiative.

How we checked

  1. Defined the claim as worded in the Washington Senate Republican Caucus's October 31, 2026 post: the Supreme Court struck down the voter-approved I-2066.
  2. Took the vote count from the Secretary of State's official results page rather than from news reports.
  3. Read the full 59-page opinion, majority and dissent, from the court's website.
  4. Cross-checked the vote split and the dissenting justices against two independent news outlets, and recorded the limits of each source.

Editorial note: Scope: this article checks whether the court struck down a voter-approved measure and on what grounds. It does not assess the merits of natural gas or electrification policy, or whether the court decided the case correctly. FactHub takes no position on I-2066.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding for this piece.

Ownership: Published by the FactHub Research Team.

Conflicts: None known.

Sources

Sources are labeled by kind, with what this fact check takes from each, so readers can check the evidence independently.

  1. Government Washington Secretary of State. November 5, 2024 General Election Results: Initiative Measure No. 2066

    The state's official statewide results page for I-2066.

    Reliability: The Secretary of State reports and certifies statewide election results from county canvasses. It took no side on I-2066.

    • I-2066 passed with 1,941,474 Yes votes (51.71%) to 1,813,169 No votes (48.29%).

      What the source says
      Yes 1,941,474 51.71% No 1,813,169 48.29%
      Results table
  2. Government Washington Supreme Court (majority). Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0 (Sept. 17, 2026), majority opinion Identifier: No. 104240-0

    The court's published opinion striking down I-2066, written by Chief Justice Stephens.

    Reliability: The court that decided the case; the opinion is the authoritative statement of its holding. The State of Washington was a party and defended I-2066.

    • The court held that I-2066 combined four distinct subjects, which article II, section 19 forbids; distinct subjects must be enacted separately.

      What the source says
      Article II, section 19 forbids combining separate subjects in a single bill or initiative, requiring instead that distinct subjects be enacted separately … I-2066 violates this single-subject rule because it includes several provisions with markedly distinct purposes and regulatory effects, embracing four distinct subjects.
      Conclusion, p. 27

    • The court said it could not tell which of the four subjects, if any, a majority of voters would have approved alone.

      What the source says
      It is impossible for us to assess which of these four subjects, if any, would have received majority support had they been presented alone at the November 2024 general election.
      Part IV, p. 26

    • No part could be severed and saved, so the whole initiative is unconstitutional.

      What the source says
      It is not possible by judicial construction to sever and save any of the separate provisions and therefore I-2066 is unconstitutional in its entirety.
      Conclusion, p. 27

    • Qualifies: The court affirmed only on the single-subject ground and did not decide the other constitutional arguments.

      What the source says
      We affirm the superior court on this narrow ground under the single-subject rule contained in article II, section 19 and decline to reach the additional constitutional arguments raised by the parties.
      Conclusion, p. 27

    • The court applied to the initiative the same constitutional limits that apply to bills passed by the legislature.

      What the source says
      The people’s legislative power to enact law through popular initiative is subject to the same constitutional restraints as applied to bills passed by the legislature.
      Analysis, p. 5
  3. Government Washington Supreme Court (dissent). Climate Solutions v. State of Washington, No. 104240-0, dissenting opinion of Justice Mungia Identifier: No. 104240-0

    The dissent, which follows the majority opinion in the same PDF.

    Reliability: A dissent states the minority justices' reasoning and is not binding law.

    • Qualifies: The dissent would have upheld I-2066 after severing four provisions.

      What the source says
      I would hold that I-2066 meets constitutional requirements so long as sections 9, 10, 11, and subsection 12(5) are severed.
      Dissent, p. 2

    • Qualifies: Even the dissent found sections 9 to 11 unconstitutional for silently amending existing law.

      What the source says
      only sections 9, 10, and 11 violate article II, section 37 by silently amending existing law.
      Dissent, Conclusion, p. 30
  4. News report KUOW. Natural gas initiative ruled unconstitutional by Washington state Supreme Court

    KUOW (Seattle public radio) report on the ruling, published September 17, 2026.

    Reliability: Same-day news report quoting the opinion, the initiative's backers and its opponents.

    • Six of the nine justices joined the majority opinion.

      What the source says
      Six of the nine Supreme Court justices signed onto a majority opinion
      Body

    • Qualifies: The Building Industry Association of Washington called the ruling a rejection of voters' will.

      What the source says
      Today's decision represents a direct rejection of the clearly expressed will of Washington voters,
      Body · Greg Lane, executive vice president, Building Industry Association of Washington

    • The homebuilders' association, which originated and defended the initiative, said it has no plans to appeal.

      What the source says
      expressed disappointment at the ruling, but said they have no plans to appeal.
      Body

    • A leading backer said opponents objected to how the measure was written, not to its policy.

      What the source says
      They're not arguing that natural gas should not be banned.
      Body · Brian Heywood, founder, Let's Go Washington
  5. News report Washington State Standard (via Lynnwood Times). WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters

    Washington State Standard report on the ruling, republished by the Lynnwood Times on September 17, 2026.

    Reliability: Nonprofit statehouse news service report, independent of KUOW.

    • Justice Sal Mungia's dissent was joined by Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Charles Johnson.

      What the source says
      Justice Sal Mungia wrote a dissent that Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Charles Johnson joined.
      6-3 decision section

Update history

  1. First version.

For search, research, and AI systems

Machine-readable fact-check

This page includes standardized ClaimReview metadata describing the exact claim, FactHub's finding, publisher, and review dates. You can inspect the record below and confirm that it matches the article you just read.

View ClaimReview JSON 
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"ClaimReview","url":"https://facthub.org/n/article/wa-i2066-struck-down/1","datePublished":"2026-10-31","dateModified":"2026-10-31","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"The Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, the voter-approved 2024 measure that aimed to protect access to natural gas for homes and businesses.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"True"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/wa-i2066-struck-down/1/gas-flame/social-1200x630.jpg"}

This metadata helps machines discover the fact-check. It does not prove the conclusion or guarantee special treatment by a search engine.

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:wa-i2066-struck-down