The Clash Over Spokane’s Homeless Policy: What Democracy Means on the Streets
Seventy-five percent. That’s the overwhelming majority of Spokane voters who, just last November, approved Proposition 1—the measure banning camping within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and daycares. Yet within mere months, the Washington State Supreme Court swept that mandate aside, ruling that voters lacked the authority to amend such city policies via local initiatives. This sudden reversal has left the city—residents and business owners alike—reeling, and has reignited debate about the true meaning of democracy in an age of growing homelessness and deepening political divides.
The court’s 6-3 decision asserts that Proposition 1 was not a new law, but rather an administrative adjustment to existing city policy—thus falling outside the scope of what voters can decide at the ballot box. As Chief Justice Debra Stephens noted in her dissent, “this majority significantly narrows the types of issues voters may address through initiative, potentially severing a vital lifeline of democratic participation.”
What’s at stake is bigger than Spokane. Local business owners, like Brad Barnett of the Spokane Business Association, describe mounting exasperation: “Letting people suffer [and] die on our sidewalks isn’t compassion — it’s abdication.” For others, the ruling represents an overdue check on the ability of a simple majority to criminalize poverty. Yet, for many, there’s a nagging question: When it comes to enormously complex issues like homelessness, should voters wield a direct hand, or should nuanced policymaking remain the purview of elected officials, equipped (at least in theory) with expertise and resources?
Legal Loopholes or Democratic Safeguards? Parsing the Court’s Rationale
The court’s majority opinion zeroes in on the distinction between “legislative” and “administrative” actions—a distinction that, while seemingly technical, carries enormous weight. According to the opinion, initiatives can only create wholly new laws, not merely alter the mechanics or enforcement of those already on the books. Because Spokane already had a framework regulating homeless encampments, the initiative’s additional restrictions—however popular—were judged as administrative tweaks, not legislative innovations.
For the legal layperson, it’s an abstract (and perhaps exasperating) argument. But, as attorney Mark Lamb points out, its implications are anything but theoretical. Lamb warns this ruling could “effectively gut the local initiative power”, making it exceedingly difficult for voters to contest entrenched city policies. The ability for regular citizens to directly address issues via the ballot box—a longtime liberal cornerstone—may be slipping further out of reach for Washingtonians.
That fear is shared by dissenters on the court. Chief Justice Stephens contended that Proposition 1 “represented a significant policy shift,” not just a minor adjustment, and took pains to critique the majority’s “unnecessarily restrictive” reading of the initiative powers. Justice Stephens’ argument echoes a broader theme in American legal history: the back-and-forth tussle between local direct democracy and institutional authority. The Progressive Era reforms of the early 1900s birthed the citizen initiative process as a check on corrupt or unresponsive government. Is it being quietly dismantled by judicial fiat?
“Letting people suffer [and] die on our sidewalks isn’t compassion — it’s abdication.”
— Brad Barnett, Spokane Business Association President
Legal precedent complicates matters further. The Spokane Police Department had been hamstrung from enforcing anti-camping laws due to the federal Martin v. Boise case, which barred crackdowns when shelters were full. The recent reversal of that federal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court—coincidentally, days before this state-level decision—heightened the urgency among Spokane officials, but also blurred lines of authority between national, state, and municipal governments.
What Next? Homelessness, Progressive Values, and the Limits of Local Control
So, where does Spokane go from here, and what lessons might the rest of America draw? On one hand, the Supreme Court’s ruling has emboldened advocate groups and charities serving the city’s homeless, who see Prop. 1 as a blunt and potentially cruel instrument. Providers like Julie Garcia, a local shelter director, celebrate the court’s move as a triumph of compassion over criminalization—a nudge toward solutions focusing on housing, outreach, and mental health, not just dispersal and enforcement.
Yet anxiety lingers in City Hall and among urban businesses fearing for public order. Mike Cathcart, a city councilmember, floated the idea of simply re-adopting Proposition 1’s restrictions by legislative vote rather than initiative—potentially keeping them alive through a backdoor mechanism. It begs a critical question: Are we content to treat the symptoms of homelessness with ever stricter bans, or do we finally invest in preventing the disease itself?
Across the country, progressive cities have experimented with comprehensive programs—think Houston’s “housing first” model, which has placed tens of thousands directly into permanent homes and cut its homeless population by more than half, according to a 2023 Urban Institute report. These efforts consistently outperform punitive crackdowns in both human and fiscal terms. At a time when social justice demands we treat the unhoused as neighbors rather than nuisances, Spokane’s legal saga should remind us that lasting solutions require more than the ballot box—they demand political courage, cross-sector collaboration, and yes, inconveniently complex policymaking.
Pew Research finds that most Americans, regardless of ideology, agree on the moral imperative of housing all people—but split on how best to achieve that. Ultimately, the story unfolding in Spokane challenges us to rethink not only what compassion and democracy mean, but whether we’re willing to make the investments and sacrifices needed for a truly just society. Can we find the courage for that?
