The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission met this morning for a special meeting to hear complaints from both sides of the tunnel referendum ballot measure that the explanatory statement in the ballot language, written by Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, is off base.

Protect Seattle Now, the anti-tunnel camp, claims that the ballot language is “biased” in favor of the tunnel because it “inappropriately speculates” about the impact of a "No" vote—guessing that it could lead to a new referendum on the tunnel itself, for example.

Let’s Move Forward, the pro-tunnel group, argues, conversely, that the ballot language “falsely informs voters that R-1 will determine whether future notices by the City Council to the State will be by ordinance, when in fact R-1 says nothing about that issue.”



Protect Seattle Now attorney Gary Manca makes the case that City Attorney Pete Holmes is misleading voters.

At the hearing this morning, Gary Manca, the attorney for the anti-tunnel campaign, Protect Seattle Now, made the case that the the opening language in Holmes' explanatory statement—"This ballot measure will neither eliminate nor choose the deep bore tunnel as an alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct"—should be stricken because it is inconsistent with what Judge Laura Gene Middaugh stated in the attachment to her ruling that the agreements being considered on the ballot are "far reaching agreements on how to implement a final choice/decision to build the tunnel..."

[pullquote]By saying the referendum isn't about the "far reaching" impacts—such as stopping the tunnel—Manca joked after the hearing,  "[the City Attorney wants to say] there's nothing to see here."[/pullquote]

One Commissioner, Lynne Iglitzin, agreed that the voters need to know what's going on, but that apparently led her to the opposite conclusion. While Manca wanted to strike Holmes' opening assessment, he also wanted to strike Holmes' speculation about the potential fallout from a "No" vote—the possibility of another ordinance, for example. Iglitzin objected to Manca's request to remove language about the potential impacts of a "No" vote. "Voters want to know what's going to happen if they reject this. I find it hard to understand why we wouldn't want a clear and concise statement about that."

The commission also raised objections to the pro-tunnel side—which wants the opening language to stay because 1) politically they don't want the vote to be about the tunnel and 2) legally they think the tunnel decision has already been decided and this referendum is about process.

Ethics Commission Chair Bob Mahon pressed attorney Kymberly Evanson, who was representing Let's Move Forward (the pro-tunnel camp), to defend the notion that the referendum wasn't loaded with meaning about the final decision on the tunnel.

"We have to assume that section six means something," he said, referring to the section of the city council ordinance that Judge Middaugh decided to put on the ballot that governs the process of how the council can proceed on the tunnel agreements. Mahon said  Evanson, who held that it didn't mean anything about the tunnel, needed to establish that position by appealing the judge's decision. "It strikes me that you're arguing for an appeal here," he razzed.

Let's Move Forward has not appealed Middaugh's decision (their co-plaintiffs at WSDOT have decided not to). Let's Move Forward has until Monday. Evanson told Mahon that her team hadn't made a decision yet.

The commission is deliberating and will return with a decision at noon.