City Hall
Anti-Tunnel Groups Respond to Pro-Tunnel Camp's Claims
Attorneys for opponents of the deep-bore tunnel just filed their (Sierra Club's response here; Protect Seattle Now's here
) to briefs filed by the pro-tunnel side (the city, state, and a campaign called Let's Move Forward) earlier this week. Tunnel opponents are fighting to put three agreements between the city and state related to the tunnel on the August ballot.
In their supplemental briefing, the Sierra Club notes that King County Superior Court judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that a portion of the legislation adopting the agreements, known as Section 6, was "legislative" and thus subject to the referendum process. The judge also ruled that the rest of the legislation, which concerns preliminary agreements on the tunnel, was "administrative" and thus not subject to referendum.[pullquote]The court can and should place R-1 [the anti-tunnel referendum] on the ballot as it is written. This is consistent with the sponsors and the signers of R-1, who were always seeking a vote on permanent agreements.[/pullquote]
The Sierra Club is arguing, essentially, that they're fine with the preliminary agreements being stricken from the ballot because they were only ever concerned about permanent agreements, which are addressed in Section 6 of the legislation. That section concerns the city's process for moving forward on the tunnel after a final environmental impact statement is adopted. Because that hasn't happened yet, the anti-tunnel campaign argues, the people still have a right to vote on that process.
"The court can and should place R-1 [the anti-tunnel referendum] on the ballot as it is written. This is consistent with the sponsors and the signers of R-1, who were always seeking a vote on permanent agreements. ... By the time of the election, only the permanent aspects of the ordinance and the agreements will be relevant."
The Sierra Club also argues that the city can't circumvent the referendum process by combining legislative and administrative actions in a single ordinance. If they could, they argue, "any government [could] avoid a referendum at its whim."
In its similar briefing, filed a couple of hours after the Sierra Club's, Protect Seattle Now argues, additionally, that the "overriding purpose" of the referendum is to overturn the portion of the legislation that's legislative in nature, not the administrative portion, which Protect Seattle Now's brief calls merely "incidental" "ornamentation."
Middaugh will hear both sides' final arguments tomorrow at 1:30.
In their supplemental briefing, the Sierra Club notes that King County Superior Court judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that a portion of the legislation adopting the agreements, known as Section 6, was "legislative" and thus subject to the referendum process. The judge also ruled that the rest of the legislation, which concerns preliminary agreements on the tunnel, was "administrative" and thus not subject to referendum.[pullquote]The court can and should place R-1 [the anti-tunnel referendum] on the ballot as it is written. This is consistent with the sponsors and the signers of R-1, who were always seeking a vote on permanent agreements.[/pullquote]
The Sierra Club is arguing, essentially, that they're fine with the preliminary agreements being stricken from the ballot because they were only ever concerned about permanent agreements, which are addressed in Section 6 of the legislation. That section concerns the city's process for moving forward on the tunnel after a final environmental impact statement is adopted. Because that hasn't happened yet, the anti-tunnel campaign argues, the people still have a right to vote on that process.
"The court can and should place R-1 [the anti-tunnel referendum] on the ballot as it is written. This is consistent with the sponsors and the signers of R-1, who were always seeking a vote on permanent agreements. ... By the time of the election, only the permanent aspects of the ordinance and the agreements will be relevant."
The Sierra Club also argues that the city can't circumvent the referendum process by combining legislative and administrative actions in a single ordinance. If they could, they argue, "any government [could] avoid a referendum at its whim."
In its similar briefing, filed a couple of hours after the Sierra Club's, Protect Seattle Now argues, additionally, that the "overriding purpose" of the referendum is to overturn the portion of the legislation that's legislative in nature, not the administrative portion, which Protect Seattle Now's brief calls merely "incidental" "ornamentation."
Middaugh will hear both sides' final arguments tomorrow at 1:30.
