address system over which the invocation was delivered remained in the actual control of school officials. Id. at 307-08, 120 S.Ct. at 2278. As the State of Washington does not retain analogous control over the Commission, Santa Fe is inapposite. 6 . The Commission asserts that this Court should defer to the Washington State Legislature’s factual finding of comprehensive regulation. While the Court agrees that the Washington State Legislature’s factual findings regarding the Commission are entitled to deference, that deference cannot preclude this Court’s independent judgment of the facts necessary to decide the constitutionality of the Commission's assessment structure. See e.g. Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115, 129, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 2838 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Moser v. F.C.C., 46 F.3d 970, 974
holding that deference to legislative fact finding does not foreclose the courts independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law holding that because the state court made no findings as to the merits of the petitioners claim it is axiomatic that there are no findings to which we can give deference and thus  2254d does not apply holding that no deference is due when findings are based on inferences not grounded in the record or merely personal views of the immigration judge holding that while legislative findings are due deference that cannot foreclose a courts constitutional analysis holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts