of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819, 664 P.2d 1227 (1983) (“When interpreting a statute, every presumption favors validity of an act of the Legislature, all doubts must be resolved in support of an act, and it will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly appears to be so.”); State v. Leek, 26 Wn. App. 651, 658, 614 P.2d 209 (“[A] statute is presumed constitutional and will not be judicially declared otherwise unless its repugnance to the constitution clearly appears.”), review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1022 (1980); see also In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 59, 857 P.2d 989 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 11 In RCW 9.94A.836(1) and .837(1), the first
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that the basic statutory scheme for civilly committing sexually violent predators does not violate substantive due process after a searching inquiry holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim