IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING ) ))

Transcription

1 1 Honorable Laura Gene Middaugh l8~ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal Corporation, No SEA v. Plaintiff, PROTECT SEATTLE NOW; ANDREW PAXTON, in his capacity as Protect Seattle Now s Committee Chair and a principal Referendum petitioner; SCOTT BRANNON, his capacity as Protect Seattle Now s Treasurer and a principal referendum petitioner; LET S MOVE FORWARD; PHIL LLOYD, in his Capacity as Let s Move Forward s Secretary/Treasurer; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Defendants. ) )) ) LET S MOVE FORWARD AND PHIL LLOYD AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE REFERENDUM I. INTRODUCTION Let s Move Forward, Phil Lloyd, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), hereby file this Consolidated Supplemental Brief Regarding the Scope of Referendum 1. This Court ruled that every section of Seattle Ordinance 32 ( 2011 Ordinance ) was administrative, including authorization of the three agreements attached to the 2011 Ordinance, except one. Only Section 6, which adopted a process for the LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - SEATfLE, WASHINGTON 98101

2 1 City to determine whether to give its intent to proceed with construction of the bored tunnel 2 following consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS ), was deemed by this Court to be legislative. Proposed Referendum 1 ( R-1 ), however, was an attempt to refer the entire 2011 Ordinance and not just Section 6. In these circumstances, to refer R- 1 to 6 the ballot would violate the state constitution and the Seattle City Charter and inappropriately confuse and mislead voters. Accordingly, the Court lacks authority to place proposed R-1 on 8 the ballot as written. 9 There is likewise no legal authority for the Court to re-write R- 1. The Seattle City 10 Charter allows citizens to refer only parts of a legislative Ordinance, but proponents of R- 1 1 chose not to proceed that way. 29,000 citizens signed R- 1 to refer the entire 2011 Ordinance not just the process decision in Section 6. Rewriting R- 1 would require the Court to speculate as to the intent of the R- 1 signatories. 1 Although neither option is lawfully authorized, referring only Section 6 rather than the 16 entire 2011 Ordinance is preferable to minimize voter confusion. 17 II. FACTUAL SUMMARY2 18 In 2009 the City passed Ordinance 33 (the 2009 Ordinance ) which established 19 1 Let s Move Forward and WSDOT respectfully maintain that pursuant to the authorities cited 20 in the Moving Parties Motions for Summary Judgment, Section 6 does not constitute a policy decision and is not within the scope of the referendum power. As with the entirety of the 2011 Ordinance, Section 6 is an administrative action which implements the City s policy set 22 forth in the 2009 Ordinance. Moreover, SEPA decisions are routinely made by administrative bodies of governmental entities and not legislative bodies. See e.g. SMC (Substantive authority and mitigation for Final ElS); SMC (definition of Decision maker in City SEPA implementing regulations). Thus, SEPA decisions are typically 2 administrative. Though Let s Move Forward and WSDOT do not concede the point, for purposes of this brief, Let s Move Forward and WSDOT will address the questions posed by 2 the Court in light of the Court s ruling. 2 facts of this case are fully set forth in Let s Move Forward s Motion for Summary 26 Judgment. For the convenience of the Court, only facts related to the supplement briefing ordered by the Court will be restated here. LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -2 SEATrLE, WASHINGTON 98101

3 1 as City policy the bored tunnel as its preferred solution to the Viaduct Replacement Project. 2 The 2009 Ordinance likewise established the framework for the project through adoption of an agreement with the State setting forth the respective responsibilities of the State and the City. 6 Thereafter, the City enacted the 2011 Ordinance which authorized the City to enter into three agreements with the State related to the Bored Tunnel Alternative Project in 8 furtherance of the City policy set in the 2009 Ordinance. The agreements pertain to utility 9 relocation, rights of way, and preliminary design work relating to the tunnel project. R seeks a referendum on the 2011 Ordinance. This action was filed by the City of Seattle to determine whether R- 1 is beyond the scope of the referendum power.3 See Compl. 1. Let s Move Forward and Phil Lloyd ( Let s Move Forward ), the State, and the City 1 ( the Moving Parties ) moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the 2011 Ordinance 1 was an administrative act by the City Council taken under authority statutorily delegated to 16 the governing body, and therefore beyond the scope of the referendum power. Protect Seattle 17 Now ( PSN ) and the Sierra Club Seattle Group and Scot Brannon ( Sierra Club ) opposed 18 the motion, and also moved for a continuance pursuant to CR 6(f). At a hearing on May, , this Court denied PSN and Sierra Club s CR 6(f) motion and ruled that the validity of R- 1 presented only issues of law that are ripe for adjudication. Recording of Proceedings 22 ( RP ), Disc 1 at 1:10; Disc 2 at 3:. Moreover, the Court ruled that pre-election review of ~ At the May, 2011 hearing, the Court realigned the parties, ruling that the State is the appropriate party plaintiff and that the City of Seattle is properly a Defendant in this action. 26 Let s Move Forward, the Sierra Club, and Protect Seattle Now remain Defendants in this action. RP, Disc 1 at 38:2. LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD ANT) WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 3 SEATI LE, WASHINGTON 98101

4 1 R-1 is appropriate. Id. at Disc 2 at 3:. 2 In evaluating the substance of R- 1, this Court ruled that the 2009 Ordinance set forth the City s policy decision that a deep bored tunnel was the City s preferred alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and that the 2009 Ordinance would have been subject to 6 referendum had petitioners sought to refer it. RP Disc 2 at :37 ( I do find that the 2009 ordinance was clearly a statement of policy....if you didn t like that, you should have filed 8 your referendum in ). The Court further ruled that the three agreements which are the 9 subject of the 2011 Ordinance carry out the City s 2009 policy and therefore are 10 administrative in nature and not subject to referendum. Id. at 8:22 ( The preliminary contracts that were issued pursuant to the 2009 ordinance are not legislative decisions, they are purely administrative decisions. ); 19:0 ( And if I have not made it clear, let me say, I do 1 think [the 2011 Ordinance] is administrative, except for Section 6. ). Finally, the Court also 1 ruled that Section 6 of the 2011 Ordinance, which authorizes the Seattle City Council to issue 16 a notice of intent to proceed with the agreements after the issuance of the FEIS was a 17 legislative decision subject to referendum. Id. at 8:6. 18 III. ISSUES PRESENTED In light of the above rulings, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the following issues: 22 1) Considering the Court s ruling that, except for Section 6, the subject matter of the Ordinance is administrative and not subject to referendum, can the referendum as 2 written be nonetheless placed on the August primary ballot? 2 ~ The Court also rejected the Sierra Club s challenge to Let s Move Forward and the State s 26 standing. Finally, the Court ruled that a declaratory judgment action is proper in this case. RP, Disc 2 at 3:. LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF SEATrLE, WASHINGTON TELEPHONE: (206) 700

5 1 2) If not, does the Court have the authority to re-write the referendum and place a 2 referendum on the ballot that is different from the petition that the voters signed? 6 Let s Move Forward and WSDOT respectfully submit that the answer to both of these questions is no. IV. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT 7 While Amendment 7 to the Washington Constitution gives the people the right to 8 legislate directly at the state level via the initiative and referendum powers, this constitutional 9 right does not apply to municipal governments. Wash. Const. art. II, 1; City of Port Angeles 10 v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 7-8 (2010). Our state legislature has authorized first class cities, such as the City of Seattle, to provide in its charter for direct legislation through the referendum process. See RCW The Seattle City Charter does so, providing 1 that the power to propose... any ordinance... and to enact or reject the same at the polls.. 1. is []reserved by the people of The City of Seattle, Seattle City Charter, art. IV, 1. See 16 Lawrence Decl., Ex. B. 17 The people s power to directly legislate is not without bounds. As this Court 18 recognized, the scope of the referendum power extends only to legislative acts of the City 19 Council, and not to the Council s administrative acts implementing its legislative policies. RP, 20 Disc 2 at 3: ( It s clear that the referendums do not apply... to purely administrative 22 issues, they only apply to legislative issues... ). As such, this Court concluded that the great 23 majority of the 2011 Ordinance was administrative in nature, implementing the City s policy 2 choice set forth in the 2009 Ordinance, and therefore beyond the scope of the referendum 2 power. Id. at 19:0. This Court likewise ruled that pre-election review is appropriate in this 26 case. Id. at 3:0; see also City of Port Angeles, 170 Wn.2d at 7 (courts will review LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF SEATrLE, WASHINGTON 98101

6 1 referendum to determine whether proposed law is beyond the scope of the initiative power). 2 A. The Court Lacks the Authority To Place R-1 As Written On the Ballot 3 Because It Is Predominantly. Beyond the Scope of the Referendum Power This Court may not place R- 1 on the ballot as written because the vast majority of R- 1 is beyond the scope of the referendum power. See e.g., Ruano v. Speilman, 81 Wn.2d 820, (1973) (power of initiative and referendum extends only to matters legislative in 8 9 character as compared to administrative actions. ). This Court has already ruled that the three agreements adopted in the 2011 Ordinance are not referable because they are administrative. 10 RP, Disc 2 at 9:9 ( I find that the preliminary decisions can t be referred. So a referendum that says...they don t have the authority to enter into those contracts, []you can t do that. ). Accordingly, those agreements cannot be the proper subject of a public vote. See Bidwell v. City of Bellevue, 6 Wn. App. 3, 6-9 (1992). Though this Court has also ruled that 1 Section 6 of the Ordinance is within the referendum power, the city is not required to place 1 the entire proposal on the ballot if [only] some of the provisions are valid. City of Seattle v Yes for Seattle, 2 Wn. App. 382, 39, 93 P.3d 176 (200). As in Yes for Seattle, the City is 18 not required to place the entirety of R- 1 on the ballot where only a tiny fraction of the subject 19 ordinance is properly referable. 20 As circulated to the voters, R- 1 sought a referendum on the entire 2011 Ordinance. The R-1 petition states: 22 We, the undersigned registered voters of The City of Seattle, State of 23 Washington, respectfully direct that Ordinance No. 32 [Council Bill ] entitled: AN ORDINANCE relating to the State Route 99 Alaskan 2 Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program; entering into certain 2 ~ The entire 2011 Ordinance contains 61 words, while Section 6 of the Ordinance contains 26 only 0 words. As such, this Court found that just 3% of the text displayed to voters with the R- 1 petition is actually subject to referendum. See Lawrence Decl., Ex. A. LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -6 SEATI LE, WASHINGTON 98101

7 1 agreements with the State of Washington as provided in RCW , RCW Chapter 7., and other applicable law; and ratifying and confirming certain 2 prior acts, a true and correct copy of which is included, be referred to the 3 voters at the next municipal election. ~ Declaration of Paul Lawrence ( Lawrence Decl. ) Ex. A. As required by law, attached to the petition is the complete text of Ordinance 32. See RCW 3A (Referendum 6 petitions shall contain a true copy of a resolution or ordinance sought to be referred to the 8 9 voters. ). The complete text of the 2011 Ordinance contains eight discrete sections pertaining to the agreements adopted along with the processes for City acceptance, performance and 10 future amendment of those agreements. Lawrence Decl., Ex. A. (Sections 1-, 7-8). In Section 1, the Ordinance specifically sets forth the titles of the agreements adopted therein, including: 1) Memorandum of Agreement No. GCA 686, SR Alaskan Way Viaduct, Property, 1 Environmental Remediation, Design Review, Permitting and Construction Coordination Agreement for SR 99 Bored Tunnel Project; 1 2) Memorandum of Agreement UT 0176 SR Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Bored 16 Tunnel Project SPU Facilities Work; and 17 3) Memorandum of Agreement UT 017 SR 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement 18 Bored Tunnel Project SCL Facilities Work. 19 See Lawrence Deci., Ex. A. Under this Court s ruling, none of these agreements are within 20 the scope of the referendum power. Likewise, Section 8 sets out the effective date of the 2011 Ordinance as March 30, The Court also determined that this section was 22 administrative By contrast, this Court ruled that Section 6 is the only section of the 2011 Ordinance that is potentially referable. Section 6 provides: 26 The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 7 SEATFLE, WASHINGTON 98101

8 1 public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2 Lawrence Decl., Ex. A. Though under the Court s analysis, this small fraction of the 2011 ~ Ordinance may be the proper subject of a referendum, the remaining 97% of the Ordinance is not. Under Washington law, this Court lacks the authority to place a non-referable issue on 6 the ballot just because a very small portion of the proposed referendum is valid. See Yes for 8 9 Seattle, 2 Wn. App. at 39 ( [nb Washington case supports this proposition [that a ballot measure with valid portions must be placed on the ballot in its entirety], and in fact, the 10 Washington courts discussion of the severability of initiative provisions is [to the] 11 contrary... ). In sum, this Court cannot place the entire text of R-l on the ballot. B. Placing R-1 On the Ballot As Written Would Cause Voter Confusion and Violate City and State Law 1 if the Court places the entire text of R- 1 as written on the ballot, voters will believe 1 they are voting on the City s adoption of the three inter-local agreements, when in fact they 16 are only voting on whether the City Council may issue a notice of intent to proceed in a 17 certain way after the FEIS is issued. See Lawrence Decl., Ex. A. This result would both 18 cause voter confusion and contravene city and state law governing the referendum process. 19 Both the Seattle Municipal Code and state law require that a referendum petition set 20 forth a true and correct copy of the ordinance or part thereof to be referred. See SMC (setting forth a standard form for referendum petitions and requiring inclusion of text 23 of ordinance to be referred); RCW 3A.Ol.00 (setting forth requirements for sufficiency of 2 petitions, requiring true copy of ordinance to be referred).6 By requiring referendum For the convenience of the Court, the cited sections of the Seattle Municipal Code and RCW 3A.0l.00, 3A. are attached to the Declaration of Paul Lawrence as Exhibit C. LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -8 SEATI LE, WASHINGTON 98101

9 1 petitions to set forth a true copy of the ordinance at issue, the law ensures that voters are 2 fully informed about the subject the proponents seek to refer. See e.g., SMC (use of standard form for referendum petitions meant to reduce error caused by omission of essential elements). At a minimum, it should be clear to voters just what the effect of a yes vote or a 6 no vote is with respect to whether they support or oppose the project. Allowing a vote with ~ respect to only Section 6 does not do that. 8 Voters are not presumed to look beyond the text of the proposed ballot measure to 9 ascertain its meaning. See, e.g., Washington Citizens Action, 162 Wn.2d at (initiative 10 invalidated where error in text of initiative misled voters); Wash. Fed n of State Employees v. State, 7 Wn.2d,, 901 P.2d 1028 (199) (acknowledging that many voters do not read the Voters Pamphlet when evaluating an initiative or referendum); Amalgamated Transit 1 Union Local 87 v. State, Wn.2d 183, 20, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000) (Where 1 interpretation of the meaning of the initiative is required, court interprets language as the 16 average informed voter voting on the initiative would read it. ) Likewise, state constitutional 17 restrictions on the referendum process are intended to prevent voter confusion and deception. 18 See Washington Citizens Action, 162 Wn.2d at 19 (article II, section 37 requiring that 19 initiative set forth full text of law to be amended was designed to protect voters and 20 legislators from confusing or misleading information and to maintain the integrity of the law- 22 making process. ). 23 Sending the entirety of R- 1 to the ballot when only a small fraction of the text is 2 actually subject to referendum would contravene these statutory and constitutional objectives 2 and undermine the integrity of the law making process. Id. 26 Washington Citizens Action v. State provides a helpful analogy. In that case, Initiative LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 9 SEATFLE, WASHINGTON TELEPHONE: (206) 700 FACSIMILE: (206) 70

10 1 77 ( 1-77 ) relating to property tax levies was struck down as unconstitutional for failing to 2 set forth the full text of the law it proposed to amend. The underlying property tax scheme had changed between the time the 1-77 petitions were circulated and when it appeared on the ballot. As such, 1-77 claimed to reduce the general property tax levy limit from two percent 6 to one percent, but in reality it reduced the limit from six percent to one percent. Id. at 1. The Court struck down the initiative on the grounds that it violated article II, section 8 37 of the state constitution, which requires that no act shall ever be revised or amended by 9 mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full 10 length. Id. at 11. Because 1-77 did not accurately set forth the text of the law to be amended, the Court held that the text of the initiative misled voters about the substantive impact of the initiative on existing law. Id. at 16. The Court further held that [a]rticle II, 1 section 37 is intended both to ensure disclosure of the general effect of the new legislation 1 and to show its specific impact on existing laws in order to avoid fraud or deception. Id. at 16 (citing Wash. Ass n ofneighborhood Stores v. State, 19 Wn.2d 39, 373, 70 P.3d (2003); Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 19 Wn.2d 622, 631, 71 P.3d 6 18 (2003)) The Court acknowledged that there is no mechanism for amendment of the text of an initiative after an initiative is filed. Id. at 93. Initiative sponsors faced with a change in the 22 law they seek to amend must file a new version of the initiative under a different number and 23 gather signatures on only their preferred version. Id. Though the Court recognized that this 2 would result in delay for initiative sponsors, the Court held that where we must weigh delay 2 for initative proponents against constitutionally prescribed clarity for the voters, the 26 constitution must prevail. Id. at 9. The same is true here. Protect Seattle Now has made LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - 10 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101

11 1 much of the fact that 29,000 Seattle voters signed proposed R- 1. But the petition the voters 2 signed differs dramatically from what this Court has now ruled is properly referable. Placing all of R- 1 on the ballot where only one small section of the 2011 Ordinance is subject to a vote would only further confuse the voters and frustrate the intent of the people s referendum 6 power. 7 C. R-1 Does Not Properly Seek A Partial Referendum on Section 6 And This Court Should Not Re-Write It To Achieve That Purpose 8 While it is true that a referendum may be held on a portion of an ordinance, see Seattle 9 10 City Charter, art. IV, 1, SMC (C), R-1 does not concern only a portion of the 2011 Ordinance. Though the proponents could have elected only to gather signatures for a referendum on Section 6, the proponents of R- 1 sought to refer the entire 2011 Ordinance. Because R- 1 does not meet the requirements for a partial referendum, the Court lacks the 1 authority to create a partial referendum where the proponents did not. 1 SMC (C) sets forth the form of petition for a partial referendum on a portion of an ordinance. In contrast to the language employed in the R- 1 partial referendum should state: petition, the petition for a 19 We, the undersigned registered voters of The City of Seattle, State of Washington, respectfully direct that Section [or item or part, as the case may 20 be] [insert section number(s), item(s) or phrase(s) to be referred] of Ordinance No [insert number of ordinance], entitled [insert title of ordinance], a true and correct copy of which is included with matters to be 22 deleted shown as stricken, be referred to the voters at the next municipal election SMC (C) (emphasis added). In order to demonstrate the impact of the proposed partial referendum, the code requires that [t]he text of the ordinance should be printed on the 26 reverse side of the petition or attached to the petition with the language to be deleted enclosed LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - 11 SEATFLE, WASHINGTON 98101

12 1 in double parentheses and stricken through in the manner of City ordinances. Id. As with full 2 referenda, proponents of a partial referendum must gather the number of signatures equal to eight percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Mayor at the last preceding municipal election. Seattle City Charter, art. IV, 1 (H); see Lawrence Decl., Ex. B. 6 While the law does not require a certain petition form, city referendum petitions must ~ comply with applicable provisions of state and city law. SMC Here, both state and 8 city law require that a petition for a partial referendum include a true and correct copy of 9 the resolution or ordinance sought to be referred to the voters. See RCW 3A ; SMC (C). R- 1 contains the full text of the 2011 Ordinance accepting the inter-local agreements with the State, where only the Section 6 notice provision would actually be subject to a vote. As such, on the petitions signed by the voters, the copy of the ordinance 1 sought to be referred is not true or correct. The proponents of R-1 could have sought a partial 1 referendum on only Section 6. They failed to do so, and the Court should not rewrite the 16 referendum on their behalf now. 17 The undersigned have found no cases where the courts have re-written an initiative or 18 ordinance. To the contrary, in at least three cases, the courts have refused the invitation to re 1 write an initiative to conform it to lawful subjects. In City of Seattle v. Yes for Seattle, 2 20 V Wn. App. 382, 93 P. 3d 176 (200), after the Court found most of the initiative at issue 22 beyond the initiative power, the proponents asked the court to place those parts that were 23 within the initiative power on the ballot. The court refused noting the invalid sections were 2 pervasive and play[ed] the central role in the initiative. Here, the administrative aspects 2 of R- 1 are pervasive and the administrative agreements play the central role in R- 1. See 26 also Priorities First v. City of Spokane, 93 Wn. App. 06, 11, 968 P.2d 31(1998) (refusing LETS MOVE FORWARD. PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101

13 1 to put part of an initiative on the ballot). 2 Similarly, in Coppernoll v. Reed, 1 Wn. 2d 290, 30, 119 P.3d 318, 32 (200), the Supreme Court refused an invitation to edit three challenged sections of an initiative raising concerns about the initiative signers intent. Such editing, the Court noted would raise 6 obvious questions whether the newly-edited initiative remains true to the intent of those who ~ signed the proposed initiative to qualify it for certification to the legislature. In this regard, 8 and as evidenced by the briefing of Protect Seattle Now, the proponents of R- 1 viewed it as a 9 referendum on the agreements attached to the 2011 Ordinance which allegedly bound the City 10 to the tunnel project. Section 6, in contrast, does not bind the City to any particular decision on the tunnel project. It only establishes a potential process that the City Council can use following the Final Environmental Impact Statement. D. If the Court Decides to Place Any Portion of R-1 On the Ballot, Only Section 1 6 Is Referable 1 For the reasons detailed above, Let s Move Forward maintains that no portion of R should be placed on the primary ballot. However, in the event the Court disagrees, the Court 18 should only place Section 6 of the 2011 Ordinance on the ballot. In cases where a Court finds 19 that part of a ballot measure is invalid, the Court may place the valid portions of the measure 20 on the ballot if the valid portions are severable from the invalid portions. See Priorities First, 93 Wn. App. at (citing Leonard v. City of Spokane, 7 Wn.2d 19, 201, 897 P.2d (199)). However, as noted above, the reasoning in Yes for Seattle suggests Section 6 is not appropriate to put on the ballot alone in this case. V. CONCLUSION 26 The people s power to legislate directly is limited by the State Constitution and the LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - SEArrLE, WASHINGTON 98101

14 1 City Charter. In recognizing these limitations, this Court previously ruled that the majority of 2 R- 1 concerns an administrative act by the City Council and is therefore beyond the scope of the referendum power. Accordingly, this Court lacks the authority to place the entirety of proposed R- 1 on the ballot. Moreover, placing R- 1 on the ballot as written would only 6 confuse the voters and undermine the integrity of the law-making process. The Court should likewise refuse to send only Section 6 to the ballot, as the proponents of R- 1 have not 8 properly petitioned for a partial referendum under applicable state and city law and there is no 9 support in the case law for a court to re-write what the citizens signed. 10 In the event the Court disagrees, Let s Move Forward respectfully requests that the Court authorize only a referendum on Section 6 of the 2011 Ordinance alone. Respectfully Submitted this 17th day of May, PACIFICA ROUP LLP By~~9~ 17 Paul J. Lawrence, WSBA# 7 Kymberly K. Evanson, WSBA # Attorneys for Defendants Let s Move Forward and 19 Phil Lloyd 20 ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General 22 s/bryce E. Brown BRYCE E. BROWN, WSBA # Senior Assistant Attorney General LET S MOVE FORWARD, PHIL LLOYD AND WSDOT S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -1 SEATrLE, WASHINGTON 98101