In anticipation of tomorrow's hearing on whether the ballot language he submitted for the tunnel referendum is biased in favor of or against the tunnel, city attorney Pete Holmes just sent out a Q&A clarifying his position on several issues related to the referendum.

Here it is, edited for length:

Q: Does the City Attorney have a position on whether the Alaskan Way Viaduct should be replaced with a tunnel, another viaduct or a combination of surface/transit?

A: No, the City Attorney is neutral on the choice for replacing the viaduct. The City Attorney’s Office is also not taking a position on whether Referendum 1 should be approved or rejected.

Q: How can the City Attorney’s Office really represent the Mayor and the City Council if the two branches have different views?

A; The City Attorney’s Office provides advice to all clients within the City and keeps confidences between Councilmembers and the Mayor where asked to do so. The office created a screen in connection with the referendum lawsuit, so lawyers who advised the Mayor’s Office on issues related to the lawsuit did not participate in the lawsuit.

Q: What legal actions did the City Attorney take against proponents of Referendum 1 and Initiative 101, and why?

A: In two separate lawsuits, the City Attorney asked King County Superior Court for a declaratory judgment determining whether Referendum 1 and Initiative 101 were subject to Seattle’s referendum and initiative powers.

Q: What was the judge’s ruling in the referendum case?

A: The judge decided that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Ordinance 123542 were not subject to a referendum vote and were in effect as of March 30, 2011. This applies to the agreements themselves, which were accepted by Section 2 of the ordinance. The judge decided that only Section 6 of the ordinance is subject to referendum.

Q: What did the City Council do after the judge ruled?

A: The City Council placed Section 6 of Ordinance 123542 on the ballot for approval or rejection in a referendum vote.

Q: Why can’t the referendum proponents write the ballot title?

A: State law (RCW 29A.36.071.) requires the city attorney to write the ballot title.

Q: Is there an opportunity to appeal the City Attorney’s ballot title?

A: Yes, after a ballot title prepared by the City Attorney’s Office has been filed with King County Elections, any person dissatisfied with the ballot title has 10 days to appeal to the King County Superior Court. No appeal was filed with reference to the ballot title for Referendum 1.

Q: Whose responsibility was it to write the explanatory statement for the voters’ pamphlet for the referendum measure, and how does it read?

A: State and City law require the City Attorney to write the explanatory statement for the voters’ pamphlet.

Q: Why is the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission now involved?

A: City law allows the City Attorney’s draft of the explanatory statement to be appealed to the Ethics and Elections Commission. Protect Seattle Now (the political committee supporting a “reject” vote on R-1), Let’s Move Forward (the political committee supporting an “approve” vote on R-1) and the Washington State Department of Transportation have all challenged the explanatory statement. The 7-member commission will hear arguments on this challenge at 9:30 a.m. Friday June 17. The commission’s decision is the City’s final decision on the explanatory statement.