This Note reviews the legal background of the Alderwood controversy, summarizes the court's opinions and analyzes the approaches taken by the plurality and concurrence. It argues that Alderwood reached the correct result, but concludes that neither the plurality nor the concurring opinion provides a satisfactory justification for that result. Two superior alternatives are proposed: (1) direct balancing, in which the state action requirement is explicitly abandoned; and (2) the traditional public function doctrine, in which the state action requirement is retained, but with an exception for private property performing a "traditional public function."
James R. Spady,
Free Speech, Initiative and Property Rights in Conflict—Four Alternatives to the State Action Requirement in Washington—Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council, 96 Wn. 2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981),
58 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol58/iss3/6