Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Darlene's First Issue of The Strang… | Michael Kinsley Really Did Not Like… »

Friday, June 17, 2011

City / Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Pro- and Anti-Tunnel Groups Claim Small Victories Over Voter's Guide Language

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM

The city's Ethics and Elections Committee elected to stay mostly faithful to City Attorney Pete Holmes’s description of the consequences of a yes/no vote for Referendum 1 this afternoon, after both pro- and anti-tunnel groups (dryly, painfully} made their cases why the language should be changed to suit their particular agendas.

The long and short of today's decision is that the Explanatory Statement voters will read before voting is still long-winded and confusing as fuck.

However, both sides walked away with minor victories. For instance, the voter statement will still begin with: "This ballot measure will neither approve nor reject the deep bore tunnel as an alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct..." which the anti-tunnel group Protect Seattle Now lobbied to have stricken.

And the voter statement will still end by explaining that the city council could proceed with tunnel agreements "only by enacting another ordinance, which would be subject to a potential veto and potential referendum." Kymberly Evanson, the lawyer representing pro-tunnel group Let’s Move Forward, argued hard to have the section removed, stating repeatedly this morning that, "We don’t think [another] ordinance is required... The city made its policy decision in 2009."

Apparently, Evanson was wrong. If voters reject Referendum 1, the council will have to adopt another ordinance. Three cheers for endless process!

Comments (5) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

If it's so meaningless, why are the Yes Build The Tunnel proponents lobbying so hard and posting so much ...

Methinks it is meaningful, and a few crack lawyers could have a field day getting it enforced.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on June 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

In my office, we occasionally have attorneys that act as arbitrators in civil matters.

We joke that the only way to know if they've done a good job with their judgment and award is if both sides are unhappy.

Pete Holmes clearly did a good job, and the SEEC affirmed that today.

Posted by michaelp on June 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

When everybody wins nobodies a winner

Posted by Chef Thunder on June 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Really, Will...?

If it's so meaningless, why are the [ - fill in the blank - ] proponents lobbying so hard and posting so much ...

That's the best ya got???
Whatta'ya tired or something? For shame!

(Cuz it's not like anyone could turn that argument back around on the other side, effortlessly, or anything... )

Posted by Timrrr on June 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM