Accordingly, Seward fails to show that there is no rational relationship between imposing these mandatory fees and assessments against all offenders, and his due process argument fails. Although previous cases, State v. Curry , 118 Wash.2d 911, 917–18, 829 P.2d 166 (1992), and State v. Mathers , 193 Wash.App. 913, 918–21, 376 P.3d 1163 (2016), review denied , No. 93262–0, 186 Wash.2d 1015, 380 P.3d 482 (Wash. Sept. 28, 2016), address and reject similar due process arguments, neither of these cases address the exact argument Seward presents—whether imposing mandatory fees or assessments on defendants before determining whether they have the current or likely future ability to pay these fees rationally serves the State's legitimate interests. II. COMPLIANCE WITH BLANK 'S CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS

No reconsideration motion was ever submitted, and Mathers' petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied. State v. Mathers, 186 Wn.2d 1015, 380 P.3d 482 (2016).