City
Tunnel Referendum Eligible for Ballot
In a confusing conclusion to this morning's two-hour-plus hearing on the deep-bore tunnel referendum, King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that part of the ordinance adopting three agreements between the city and state on the deep-bore tunnel can go on the ballot, but will not decide until next Friday whether she has the authority to excise that part and put it on the ballot independent of the rest of the ordinance.
Middaugh ruled that Section 6 of the eight-part ordinance is legislative, not administrative, and thus is subject to the referendum process. She also ruled that the rest of the ordinance is no longer subject to referendum. "If you didn't like [the pro-tunnel policy expressed in the ordinance], you should have filed your referendum in 2009," Middaugh said. "You're stuck with it. It's too late."
Next Friday, Middaugh will hear arguments from the city and groups supporting the referendum and decide whether she has the authority to rewrite the referendum to repeal just one section of the ordinance adopting the three agreements, which are largely technical in nature. "Do we put part of the referendum on the ballot? Do I have the authority to do that? I don't know," Middaugh said.
The city council has until May 24 to put the measure on the August ballot.
That section addresses the process the city council is supposed to go through after the state adopts its final environmental impact statement, and reads, in its entirety, "The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement."
Middaugh, zeroing in on the "notice" portion of the ordinance, determined that "whether to issue that notice to go forward is a policy decision and it is subject to referendum.
"Had council members simply voted on the agreements, rather than agreeing to have a public meeting after the FEIS is issued, the entire ordinance would have been administrative, not legislative, and thus would not be subject to referendum."
Despite the procedural nature of the portion of the ordinance Middaugh determined was subject to referendum, referendum proponents declared victory this afternoon. Calling Middaugh's decision "a victory for the power of referendum," Knoll Lowney, attorney for the local Sierra Club, said "the details are secondary in terms of what goes on the ballot. This was always about allowing people to have a vote on a major policy decision."
However, attorney Paul Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the city, said Middaugh might choose not to send the section of the ordinance she ruled was subject to referendum to the ballot on its own because that would require her to rewrite a referendum that has been certified for the ballot in its entirety. And in any case, he said, "the only issue that the judge thought might be subject to referendum is a process issue---how does the city make its decision when it's faced with the EIS and the record of decision?
"I'm sure the tunnel opponents will try to position anything that goes on the ballot as a referendum on the tunnel, [but] the referendum is not on the substance of the decision. It's a process question," Lawrence said.
Asked what the effect would be if the scaled-back referendum passed or if it failed, Lawrence said, "I don't know."
Middaugh ruled that Section 6 of the eight-part ordinance is legislative, not administrative, and thus is subject to the referendum process. She also ruled that the rest of the ordinance is no longer subject to referendum. "If you didn't like [the pro-tunnel policy expressed in the ordinance], you should have filed your referendum in 2009," Middaugh said. "You're stuck with it. It's too late."
Next Friday, Middaugh will hear arguments from the city and groups supporting the referendum and decide whether she has the authority to rewrite the referendum to repeal just one section of the ordinance adopting the three agreements, which are largely technical in nature. "Do we put part of the referendum on the ballot? Do I have the authority to do that? I don't know," Middaugh said.
The city council has until May 24 to put the measure on the August ballot.
That section addresses the process the city council is supposed to go through after the state adopts its final environmental impact statement, and reads, in its entirety, "The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement."
Middaugh, zeroing in on the "notice" portion of the ordinance, determined that "whether to issue that notice to go forward is a policy decision and it is subject to referendum.
"Had council members simply voted on the agreements, rather than agreeing to have a public meeting after the FEIS is issued, the entire ordinance would have been administrative, not legislative, and thus would not be subject to referendum."
Despite the procedural nature of the portion of the ordinance Middaugh determined was subject to referendum, referendum proponents declared victory this afternoon. Calling Middaugh's decision "a victory for the power of referendum," Knoll Lowney, attorney for the local Sierra Club, said "the details are secondary in terms of what goes on the ballot. This was always about allowing people to have a vote on a major policy decision."
However, attorney Paul Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the city, said Middaugh might choose not to send the section of the ordinance she ruled was subject to referendum to the ballot on its own because that would require her to rewrite a referendum that has been certified for the ballot in its entirety. And in any case, he said, "the only issue that the judge thought might be subject to referendum is a process issue---how does the city make its decision when it's faced with the EIS and the record of decision?
"I'm sure the tunnel opponents will try to position anything that goes on the ballot as a referendum on the tunnel, [but] the referendum is not on the substance of the decision. It's a process question," Lawrence said.
Asked what the effect would be if the scaled-back referendum passed or if it failed, Lawrence said, "I don't know."
