City
Tunnel Opponents File Formal Appeal of Ballot Language
Protect Seattle Now, the anti-tunnel group, is appealing an explanatory statement for the anti-tunnel referendum written by City Attorney Pete Holmes' office, arguing that Holmes---who sued to keep the anti-tunnel referendum off the November ballot---has written language that is inscrutable and biased against the campaign.
In a statement, Protect Seattle Now argued that Holmes' ballot language "does not inform the voters adequately about what their approval of the referendum would do. It inappropriately speculates about the vote’s significance and what would happen if the voters reject the referendum."
The city's proposed explanatory statement reads in part, "This ballot measure will neither eliminate nor choose the deep-bore tunnel as an alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Rather, as explained below, your vote may affect how the City Council will decide whether to proceed with current agreements on the deep-bore tunnel beyond preliminary design work, after environmental review is completed."
A "yes" vote on the referendum would approve one section of a 140-page ordinance adopted by the city council, known as Section 6, stating the process by which the council will accept three agreements with the state on the tunnel. That section says the council shall "give notice" whether to proceed on the tunnel project after the final environmental review is done.
When King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that one section of the agreements was legislative in nature, and thus could go on the ballot, last month, she said, "this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not."
Tunnel opponents, however, have argued that a vote to reject Section 6 would bar the council from approving the tunnel agreements.
In a statement, Protect Seattle Now argued that Holmes' ballot language "does not inform the voters adequately about what their approval of the referendum would do. It inappropriately speculates about the vote’s significance and what would happen if the voters reject the referendum."
The city's proposed explanatory statement reads in part, "This ballot measure will neither eliminate nor choose the deep-bore tunnel as an alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Rather, as explained below, your vote may affect how the City Council will decide whether to proceed with current agreements on the deep-bore tunnel beyond preliminary design work, after environmental review is completed."
A "yes" vote on the referendum would approve one section of a 140-page ordinance adopted by the city council, known as Section 6, stating the process by which the council will accept three agreements with the state on the tunnel. That section says the council shall "give notice" whether to proceed on the tunnel project after the final environmental review is done.
When King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled that one section of the agreements was legislative in nature, and thus could go on the ballot, last month, she said, "this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not."
Tunnel opponents, however, have argued that a vote to reject Section 6 would bar the council from approving the tunnel agreements.
