Section 21 of the Washington State Constitution states:
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties interested is given thereto.
RCW 4.48.010 goes on to state in part:
The court shall order all or any of the issues in a civil action, whether of fact or law, or both, referred to a referee upon the written consent of the parties which is filed with the clerk. Any party shall have the right in an action at law, upon an issue of fact, to demand a trial by jury. No referee appointed under this chapter may preside over a jury trial. The written consent of the parties constitutes a waiver of the right of trial by jury by any party having the right.
However, RCW 3.50.135 imposes a restriction where it states in part:
In all civil cases, the plaintiff or defendant may demand a jury, which shall consist of six citizens of the state who shall be impaneled and sworn as in cases before district courts, or the trial may be by a judge of the municipal court: PROVIDED, That no jury trial may be held on a proceeding involving a traffic infraction.
Similarly, RCW 35.20.090 states:
In all civil cases and criminal cases where jurisdiction is concurrent with district courts as provided in RCW 35.20.250, within the jurisdiction of the municipal court, the plaintiff or defendant may demand a jury, which shall consist of six citizens of the state who shall be impaneled and sworn as in cases before district courts, or the trial may be by a judge of the municipal court: PROVIDED, That no jury trial may be held on a proceeding involving a traffic infraction.
Question: Does the wording of 3.50.135 and 35.20.090 impose a limit on the individual's right to demand a trial by jury, or is it instead a restriction on the ability of traffic courts to conduct a jury trial? The wording would seem to indicate the latter because individuals do not hold trials or proceedings, but courts do.
And if my interpretation is correct, what would be an appropriate response or course of action on the part of the traffic court if the defendant in a traffic case insisted on their right to a trial by jury?