In light of the problematic nature of the void-for-vagueness doctrine, this note argues that a defendant should never have standing to challenge a statute as unconstitutionally vague unless sufficient facts have been established to allow the court to review the statute in its actual application to the defendant. If, however, Washington courts insist upon reviewing a challenged statute on its face, they should be alert to the possibility that judicial review under the void-for-vagueness doctrine will become unduly expansive. This note suggests that courts can minimize potential abuse by carefully framing the constitutional issue and by appropriately construing the challenged statute.
Jeffrey M. Evans,
Void-for-Vagueness—Judicial Response to Allegedly Vague Statutes—State v. Zuanich, 92 Wn. 2d 61, 593 P.2d 1314 (1979),
56 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol56/iss1/6