City Hall
Pro-Tunnel Camp Responds to Judge's Ruling
THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED.
In their response to King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh's ruling last week that only one section of city council legislation adopting three agreements with the state on the deep-bore tunnel is subject to referendum (the rest, she ruled, is administrative, not legislative, and can't be overturned by voters), the pro-tunnel campaign, Let's Move Forward, and the pro-tunnel state Department of Transportation argue that Middaugh does not have the authority to rewrite the existing tunnel referendum and refer a single section to voters. (The original referendum submitted by anti-tunnel advocates from Protect Seattle Now would repeal the entire council ordinance adopting the tunnel agreements.)
The section in question, Section 6, says the city will hold a public meeting to adopt a notice to proceed on the tunnel after the state releases its final environmental impact statement.
The pro-tunnel faction argued today that the city charter does not allow a judge to strip out a single portion of a referendum and put that on the ballot. "The Seattle City Charter allows citizens to refer only parts of a legislative Ordinance, but proponents of R- 1 [the tunnel referendum] chose not to proceed that way. 29,000 citizens signed R- 1 to refer the entire 2011 Ordinance, not just the process decision in Section 6. Rewriting R- 1 would require the Court to speculate as to the intent of the R- 1 signatories," Let's Move Forward argues in its brief. "[T]he City is not required to place the entirety of R- 1 on the ballot where only a tiny fraction of the subject ordinance is properly referable."
Arguing that putting only a portion of the agreements on the ballot would create "voter confusion and ontravene city and state law governing the referendum process," Let's Move Forward's brief continues, "if the Court places the entire text of R- 1 as written on the ballot, voters will believe they are voting on the City’s adoption of the three inter-local agreements, when in fact they are only voting on whether the City Council may issue a notice of intent to proceed in a certain way after the [final environmental impact statement] is issued."
The city makes a similar case in its own supplemental memoranda (Middaugh removed the city as a plaintiff in the case last week, so the city doesn't have standing to file a formal response), arguing that "nothing in the referendum petition itself or statements in support of the petition indicate that voters signing the petition would have anticipated a Section-6-only referendum," but that if Middaugh does choose to put anything on the ballot, it should only be Section 6, not the entire proposed referendum.
"A determination by this Court that Section 6 is referable should not shoehorn the rest of the ordinance-which this Court deemed administrative and nonreferable-into referable status," the city writes.
The anti-tunnel campaign will file its response to the pro-tunnel side's arguments tomorrow.
In their response to King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh's ruling last week that only one section of city council legislation adopting three agreements with the state on the deep-bore tunnel is subject to referendum (the rest, she ruled, is administrative, not legislative, and can't be overturned by voters), the pro-tunnel campaign, Let's Move Forward, and the pro-tunnel state Department of Transportation argue that Middaugh does not have the authority to rewrite the existing tunnel referendum and refer a single section to voters. (The original referendum submitted by anti-tunnel advocates from Protect Seattle Now would repeal the entire council ordinance adopting the tunnel agreements.)
The section in question, Section 6, says the city will hold a public meeting to adopt a notice to proceed on the tunnel after the state releases its final environmental impact statement.
The pro-tunnel faction argued today that the city charter does not allow a judge to strip out a single portion of a referendum and put that on the ballot. "The Seattle City Charter allows citizens to refer only parts of a legislative Ordinance, but proponents of R- 1 [the tunnel referendum] chose not to proceed that way. 29,000 citizens signed R- 1 to refer the entire 2011 Ordinance, not just the process decision in Section 6. Rewriting R- 1 would require the Court to speculate as to the intent of the R- 1 signatories," Let's Move Forward argues in its brief. "[T]he City is not required to place the entirety of R- 1 on the ballot where only a tiny fraction of the subject ordinance is properly referable."
Arguing that putting only a portion of the agreements on the ballot would create "voter confusion and ontravene city and state law governing the referendum process," Let's Move Forward's brief continues, "if the Court places the entire text of R- 1 as written on the ballot, voters will believe they are voting on the City’s adoption of the three inter-local agreements, when in fact they are only voting on whether the City Council may issue a notice of intent to proceed in a certain way after the [final environmental impact statement] is issued."
The city makes a similar case in its own supplemental memoranda (Middaugh removed the city as a plaintiff in the case last week, so the city doesn't have standing to file a formal response), arguing that "nothing in the referendum petition itself or statements in support of the petition indicate that voters signing the petition would have anticipated a Section-6-only referendum," but that if Middaugh does choose to put anything on the ballot, it should only be Section 6, not the entire proposed referendum.
"A determination by this Court that Section 6 is referable should not shoehorn the rest of the ordinance-which this Court deemed administrative and nonreferable-into referable status," the city writes.
The anti-tunnel campaign will file its response to the pro-tunnel side's arguments tomorrow.
