Washington’s Supreme Court erased a voter-approved natural-gas measure in a 6-3 ruling, leaving energy-choice advocates warning that families will bear the cost.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 2066 violated the state Constitution’s single-subject rule, which requires a ballot measure to address only one main subject. The justices struck down the entire initiative.

Washington voters had approved Initiative 2066 in 2024 by 52% to 48%. Nearly two million people backed the measure, which supporters described as a safeguard for natural-gas access and consumer energy choice.

The decision affirmed a lower court ruling. It also added another 6-3 judicial split to a year already marked by close court fights, including a separate mail-in voting ruling involving President Donald Trump’s executive authority.

Four subjects doomed the entire Initiative 2066

Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote that Initiative 2066 contained “four constitutionally distinct subjects.” The majority also found that those parts could not be separated while leaving the rest in place.

“Because the provisions that introduce distinct subjects are not severable, I-2066 is unconstitutional in its entirety,” Stephens wrote.

Three justices dissented. They argued that the court could remove several faulty sections while preserving the remainder of the voter-approved measure.

That split matters. The majority chose the broadest available result: voiding the entire initiative rather than saving portions that voters had approved. Similar disputes over judicial reach have surfaced in debates about whether state courts chart their own path on major legal questions.

The challenge came from Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, the Washington Solar Energy Industries Association and the Sierra Club. King County and Seattle also joined the coalition.

Energy advocates say voters will pay the price

Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, called the outcome a “direct rejection” of Washington voters’ expressed will.

Lane said nearly two million citizens supported Initiative 2066 because they wanted families and businesses to retain the freedom to choose the energy source that met their needs.

The association also said the initiative sought to preserve natural-gas access. Its response placed the dispute squarely on consumer choice rather than the technical structure that controlled the court’s decision.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported a sharper warning from Todd Myers, vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center:

“The court’s decision, while not based on policy, makes that situation worse by reducing the flexibility the Pacific Northwest will need to meet demand for electrification and home heating.”

Myers said Washington and the wider Pacific Northwest already face a serious and growing electricity shortage. He added that his warning did not account for significant growth in data-center demand.

He placed ultimate blame on the Legislature and the previous governor for the underlying law. But Myers also argued that the court ignored the families likely to pay for Washington’s energy shortage.

Trump has targeted rules that raise housing costs

The state ruling also comes amid a wider fight over energy mandates and housing costs. In March 2026, President Trump directed federal agencies to target state and local policies that his administration says make homes more expensive.

Those policies included green-energy building requirements and restrictions on energy choice. The order reflected the same basic concern voiced by Initiative 2066 supporters: government rules can limit household options while raising costs.

Courts continue to shape policy well beyond the disputes directly before them. That broader impact also drives the ongoing legal fight over how to make the Dobbs abortion ruling endure nationwide.

Stephens joined the Washington Supreme Court in December 2007 after an appointment by then-Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. She now serves as chief justice.

The legal basis for the Initiative 2066 decision was procedural, not a direct judgment on natural gas. Its practical result was still clear: every part of a measure approved by 52% of Washington voters disappeared with one ruling.

Courts must enforce constitutional limits, but lawmakers should not create measures so tangled that judges can erase the voters’ choice in full.