severable — it is separate and distinct and can be easily removed without affecting the other statutory provisions. That only part of RCW 9A.72.010(1) is invalid is not a bar to severing it from the remainder of RCW 9A.72.010(1) and from the rest of the statute. Id. ¶22 The offending language is also functionally separate from the rest of RCW 9A.72.010(1) because the clause “whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law” dictates procedure, while the preceding clause defining “material false statement” dictates substance. When this court has found procedural provisions to be unconstitutional in part, we have upheld the substantive remainder of those statutes. See, e.g., Household Fin. Corp. v. State, 40 Wn.2d 451, 244 P.2d 260 (1952) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. French v. Clausen, 107 Wash.
holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section recognizing that appeal and certiorari were concurrent and alternative remedies and explaining that appeal to the district court was a true trial de novo whereas certiorari reviews the action of the probate court for errors committed by that court  de novo but the issues are confined to errors of the county court specifically set forth in the application for the writ of error holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal