Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Published Again for the First Time | The Proles Are Catching On »

Monday, April 25, 2011

Transportation / City Group Says City Attorney Doesn't Have the Authority to Stop Tunnel Referendum

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM

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.”

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Please update as soon as it's over.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on April 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

So, is this just for Referendum 1, or does it also include the separate Proposition?

Posted by Will in Seattle

on April 25, 2011 at 2:37 PM

i love when public officials find themselves in these sort of positions. it's hard work denying the will of the people!

Posted by philosophy school dropout on April 25, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Sounds like putting it on the ballot would be a waste of time and effort.

Like Tim Eyman initiatives, they'll be made invalid due to some technical dumbass reason like, ohh I dont know, the contracts are signed and ground has already been broken.

Posted by Kinison

on April 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM

The city council voted unanimously to delay putting the referendum on the ballot, including Mike O'Brien who's primary interest here is to deny the will of the people on this issue I'm sure.

Posted by Solar System on April 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Im going to go out on a lark and say that most of you didn’t have a problem when the state struck down Tim Eyeman's original car tab / property tax initiative. Ignoring the will of the people, even when the two options were separated and the car tab was once again struck down, nobody cared because Tim Eyeman is a for profit horses ass. Ignoring the will of the voters is ok when it comes to Tim's initiatives, but when its a SCAT initiative, you shake your fist and scream nazi obscenities at the thought of the city or state striking down that vote.

Posted by Kinison

on April 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

McGinn and his crew were warned this would happen. They ignored it. The referendum and the promises given to it's supporters of being able to stop the tunnel was at best idiocy and at worst a complete scam.

Posted by Solar System on April 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Sounds like building the tunnel would be an utter waste of time.

Good thing we never had a public vote to approve funding for that boondoggle.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on April 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

@6

i thought the monorail was a terrible idea, but the people wanted it, so we should have built it. at least we'd have a monorail, even if that wasn't the best usage of the money for transportation. and even wrt/ the eyman anti-tax stuff, outside of an occassional 'wtf, this is insane!!' moment, i support the defunding of the state, even though it is a DISASTER of an idea. but people need to live w/ the government they've asked for if we are going to have any chance to change course.

that said, it is one thing when general citizens are inconsistent wrt/ desiring the will of the people be implemented & it is something else entirely when our elected representatives disregard the populace's sentiments. for example, when a friend asks for medical advice & i think i know something, i say it. i'm probably wrong alot of the time. not a biggie. if i was my friend's doctor, that would be an entirely different situation. it's their job to exercise the will of the people.

Posted by philosophy school dropout on April 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM

oh, at the end there, i should have said that it was our 'elected representatives' job to exercise the will of the people. and they are doing everything they are literally trying to block the expression of the will of the people. that's an anti-democratic activity & i can't support it.

Posted by philosophy school dropout on April 25, 2011 at 5:11 PM

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.

Seattle City Charter, Article XIII, Section 3:

The City Attorney shall have full supervisory control of all the litigation of the City, or in which the City or any of its departments are interested, and shall perform such other duties as are or shall be prescribed by ordinance.

That's pretty broad authority. Doesn't sound like he needs to check in with the City Council or the Mayor.

Also, @3/9/10: An initiative or referendum petition is NOT the "will of the people." At least outside the world of SLOG, the will of the people is not generally determined by some signatures on a petition. There are lots of people who do not want to have all kinds of issues decided by election, including administrative matters and whether or not individual rights should be up for grabs. That's why the Washington courts have made one of the very few exceptions permitting pre-election challenges to initiatives and referenda whether they exceed the scope of the initiative/referendum power.

Posted by kk in seattle on April 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Are you guys still talking about the fucking tunnel. Get over it already. Why not go for a bike ride, drinking a latte, while making fun of fat conservatives? Doesnt that make all cap hill hipsters happy?

Posted by mrbombit on April 25, 2011 at 5:49 PM

@11 thank you and amen. @12, you too.

Posted by crone on April 25, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Gotta chuckle at all these commenters who just KNOW "the will of the people." My suspicion, and it's only a suspicion, is that no one proposal for this highway corridor is supported by a majority of Seattle voters. Put each one on the ballot, and every one will fail to get a majority vote. In fact, we did that already with two proposals (cut-and-cover tunnel and a new bigger viaduct).

And for all the huff and puff about the Council's obligation to put the referendum on the ballot now that signatures have been qualified, there is nothing in the law (Mr. Manca...) that requires them to do that at the earliest possible moment. Council is within the law to delay the vote even until the November election, if they so choose, and the deadline for that ballot is probably in September. So, please, just hold your horses. It's in everybody's best interest for the legal challenge to come to a conclusion.

Posted by Citizen R on April 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM