Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Bin Laden Reportedly Used His Own W… | Weird Rumor of the Day: Kucinich In… »

Monday, May 2, 2011

City Conlin Says He Requested Lawsuit to Keep Tunnel Referendum Off Ballot

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin announced today that he—not the city attorney—is behind a lawsuit to keep a ballot measure concerning the $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel off the city's August ballot, according to a declaration filed today in King County Superior Court. "I asked City Attorney [Pete] Holmes if he would file declaratory judgment action on behalf of the City," Conlin says.

In dispute is whether Holmes has the authority to challenge Referendum 1 in a lawsuit that will go before a judge on May 13. Proponents of the referendum asked the court last month to dismiss the suit, alleging that Holmes doesn't have that authority because he was acting independently, without the the council or mayor as a client.

"I have the independent authority to take this action," Holmes had said on March 29 in explaining his decision, "I’ve always acted in this office in consultation and collaboration."

Holmes is no stranger to the latest argument against him—it's a case he's made against his own political rivals. He sued state AG Rob McKenna for filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of national health reform passed by Congress because McKenna was not acting on behalf of the state legislature or governor.

Holmes asked a court today to let his lawsuit proceed, saying he acted at Conlin's request and he had the authority to file the lawsuit even without that request.

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Seattle City Council attacks voters in court, pins hopes on legally silencing them to maintain support of business and oil lobbies.

Posted by Baconcat on May 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Good! All this vote will do is override the Councils Veto Override of the Mayors veto on the Deep Bore Tunnel.

Because if its put up for a vote and it passes, then were 2-4 years away from drawing up new plans (feasability, enviornmental, design, funding, impact, etc) then putting that up for a vote, which we once again risk voting it down and back to square one. By then, we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars pissed away to show for it.

Posted by Kinison

on May 2, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I know that you disagree with these lawsuits and deeply despise the tunnel project, but I just don't see how it isn't better to find out whether these initiatives are legal before voting on them.

Posted by Josh Bis

on May 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM

It's good to know the City Council regards Seattle Citizens as Serfs and not Citizens.

@3 there is no precedent of that ever happening in WA State courts.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on May 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM

"it's costing us money if we delay and we're in a recession, so let's spend money and go to court!"

Posted by Baconcat on May 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Well, was Holmes lying then or is he lying now? What a sleaze pit this whole thing is. Throwing the State/local EIS processes out the window, lying in court...

Posted by cracked on May 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM

@6 the funny part is, effectively, what you have here is an out of control City Council afraid to let their citizens vote on a project so big they can't afford to build it without a public funding vote of the citizens, and ignoring the legal requirements of the State DEIS and the Federal EPA requirements.

Wait until they find human remains and the whole thing costs the City more than the campaign donations of all the developers who profit from this combined ... and still never gets built.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on May 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Maybe he just didn't want to say the council requested it before it was absolutely necessary to either

A. Minimize political fallout
B. Confuse the opposition

Or both. Either way boo for dishonesty.

Unless Holmes had a legal obligation to disclose who requested the suit before it landed in court this is just snakey political maneuvering and nothing more.

Posted by Solar System on May 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM

This is so great to watch.

Tunnel supporters are up to their eyeballs in their own BS but they keep opening their mouths.

Posted by Baconcat on May 2, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Will @4 (ref. @3); yes, there IS precedent. Init. 21 some 30+ years tried to kill the state's I-90 project in Seattle. Signatures were verified, and it was taken to court -- and kept off the ballot.

Whether we like it or not, Holmes does have case law on his side re keeping initiatives and referenda off the ballot when they deal with administrative (ministerial) matters and not policy matters.

Posted by Citizen R on May 2, 2011 at 5:14 PM