Today in Tunnel Talks™: Protect Seattle Now, the anti-tunnel group that filed a referendum to place the tunnel agreements on the November ballot, has filed a motion to dismiss City Attorney Pete Holmes lawsuit challenging the referendum. The group argues that Holmes doesn't have the independent authority to bring the lawsuit forward and he wasn't directed by city officials to file the suit.

At today's 2:00 p.m. full city council meeting, council members are scheduled to receive a City Clerk report validating the referendum's signatures and thus qualifying it for the ballot. Once that happens, Protect Seattle Now argues that:

...the City Council has a mandatory duty to put the referendum on the ballot. Once a referendum petition is validated, the Seattle City Charter, Article IV, Section 1.K, says, “The City Council shall thereupon provide for submitting the said ordinance … to the vote of the qualified electors.”

“The law on this point is settled,” said Protect Seattle Now attorney Gary Manca. “Even if the City Council believes that a citizen ballot measure is not referable, the City Council still must carry out its mandatory duty to place it on the ballot. Otherwise, the City Council will be breaking the law.”

Full press release after the jump.

Today when the members of the City Council consider the City Clerk’s report that the referendum has enough valid signatures, the City Council has a mandatory duty to put the referendum on the ballot. Once a referendum petition is validated, the Seattle City Charter, Article IV, Section 1.K, says, “The City Council shall thereupon provide for submitting the said ordinance … to the vote of the qualified electors.”

“The law on this point is settled,” said Protect Seattle Now attorney Gary Manca. “Even if the City Council believes that a citizen ballot measure is not referable, the City Council still must carry out its mandatory duty to place it on the ballot. Otherwise, the City Council will be breaking the law.”

Manca further explained, “If the Members of the City Council want a ruling on whether the referendum is lawful, they have to ask their lawyer—the City Attorney—to request a court to consider whether the 28,929 petition signatures should be ignored.”

Protect Seattle Now’s motion to dismiss argues that City Attorney Pete Holmes lacks the independent authority under the City Charter to litigate this lawsuit. Neither the City Council nor the Mayor have authorized or directed Mr. Holmes to bring the lawsuit.

Protect Seattle Now believes that if the City Council does not want to grant voters the opportunity to vote on a project affecting the future of Seattle, they may not hide behind a lawyer who does not have the authority to sue without the Council’s public authorization.

“Unless a court orders that Referendum No. 1 is not proper for an election and must be kept off the ballot, the Members of the City Council have no choice if they want to comply with the law,” Manca said. “The law requires them to vote to put the referendum to a vote.”