Hon Marshall Ferguson
February 7, 2020 9 a.m.
2020 JAN 30 04:13 PM

FILED

1
2

KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE #: 19-2-30171-6 SEA

3
4
5
6
7

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT;
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS,

15

Plaintiffs,

16
17

v.

18

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

19

Defendant.
_____________________________________

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No: 19-2-30171-6 SEA
PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS’ REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

21
22

Transit Riders Union, Washington ADAPT, and Climate Solutions (“Plaintiff

23

Intervenors”) hereby submits this reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. This

24

reply addresses several issues related to Sound Transit. Plaintiff Intervenors join in Plaintiffs’

25

reply on all other issues.

26
27
28
29
REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 1

 1

A.

2
3

DEFENDANTS1 FAILED TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS’
ARGUMENTS.
.
As discussed in Plaintiff Intervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment, they represent the

4

unique interests of the voters who helped pass the local measures authorizing the establishment

5

and funding of Sound Transit and the local Transportation Benefit Districts. Plaintiff

6

Intervenors’ motion focused on several issues that have a particularized impact on those voters

7
8

who reside in the Sound Transit taxing district.
First, the ballot title for Initiative No. 976 (“I-976”) gave no notice the measure would

9
10

overrule the decision of central Puget Sound voters in passing the Sound Transit 3 funding

11

proposition (“ST3”). This violated the subject in title requirement of the State Constitution.

12

Second, I-976 violated the single subject requirement of the State Constitution by

13
14
15

combining a one-time issue about a regional matter (Sound Transit) with the remainder of the
initiative that involves an ongoing issue that impacts the entire state (vehicle fees).

16
17

None of the Defendants responded to these issues, so summary judgment should be
granted to Plaintiff Intervenors on this issue.

18

1.

19
20

Defendants did not try to explain how the title meets constitutional standards despite its

21
22

The title was constitutionally defective for failing to give notice that the
initiative would overturn the will of the voters in central Puget Sound.

failure to give any notice that it would severely impact Sound Transit. Voters in the Sound

23

Transit District had approved the ST3 measure and had a right to know that I-976 would

24

effectively overturn that recent vote. But the title said nothing about Sound Transit and gave no

25

notice that it would overturn the ST3 election. I-976 is constitutionally defective for this reason.

26
27
28
29

1

“Defendants” as used herein includes parties intervening as defendants.

REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 2

 1
2

2.

3

Defendants provided no defense to Plaintiff Intervenors’ argument that I-976 violated the

4

Defendants failed to respond to the measure’s “scope” defects.

single subject rule by including subjects of different “scope.” Defendants argued, wrongly, that

5
6

the different subjects are germane to each other, but this does not address the scope defect, which

7

constitutes a distinct prohibition under the single subject rule. I-976 suffers from two scope

8

problems.

9
10
11

First, the measure suffers from the traditional scope defect of addressing both a “onetime
event that [is] narrow in scope” (overturning the ST3 election and requiring termination of ST3

12

bonds) with a subject of a “long-term and continuing nature” (reducing taxes and fees). This is

13

just like the defects in Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. State, Wn.2d 520, 523-25, 304 P.2d

14

676 (1956) and City of Burien v. Kiga, 144 Wn.2d 819, 827, 31 P.3d 659 (2001) (“[p]articularly

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

problematic [in Washington Toll Bridge] was the fact the creation of the state agency was longterm and continuing in nature while the funding provision was a onetime event that was narrow
in scope.”).
The second problem is that the two parts of the initiative have different geographic
scopes. This is admittedly a case of first impression, but critically important to giving meaning to
the single-subject rule’s purpose to “prevent ‘logrolling,’ or pushing legislation through by

23

attaching it to other necessary or desirable legislation.” Lee v. State, 185 Wn.2d 608, 620, 374

24

P.3d 157 (2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

25
26
27
28

The combination of Sound Transit and vehicle fees inevitably resulted in logrolling.
People outside of the central Puget Sound region had no interest in overturning the ST3 vote or
requiring Sound Transit to dispose of its ST3 bonds. They did not get a chance to vote on ST3

29
REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 3

 1
2

because they don’t pay the taxes. But they were given a forced choice. To lower car tabs, they
had to also vote to gut Sound Transit’s funding. That is quintessential logrolling.

3

The map of the Sound Transit district1 illustrates the issue:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

1

https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/stdistrictmap07_10.pdf

REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 4

 1
2

In the ST3 vote in November 2016, approximately 1.3 million voters cast a ballot,

3

passing ST3 with 54.05% approval.1 In contrast, 3.36 million votes were cast statewide.2 While

4

voters across the state care about vehicle fees, the initiative’s Sound Transit provisions only

5
6

impact those voters residing the Sound Transit district. They are the only ones who really care

7

about sections 10-13 and 16 of I-976 because of the localized geographic scope of those sections.

8

See RCW 81.112.020. It is only their votes that would be overturned by the passage of I-976.

9
10
11

Had the two subjects of Sound Transit and car tabs been presented separately, as the
Constitution required, presumably few voters outside of the Sound Transit area would have cared

12

enough to vote on ST3 taxes or bonds. See RCW 81.112.030(8) (Legislature determined that

13

only voters in Sound Transit district had an interest in Sound Transit taxes). Presumably the

14

Sound Transit district voters would have stood by their strong approval of ST3. The attack on

15
16
17

Sound Transit was only successful because it was bootstrapped to the statewide provisions.
While it appears that Washington Courts have never addressed this type of logrolling before,

18

combining provisions with such distinctly different geographic scopes clearly violates the

19

policies behind the single subject rule.

20

The Court should grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Intervenors.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

1

Regional Transportation Authority Proposition No. 1 Light-Rail, Commuter-Rail, and Bus Service Expansion".
King County Elections. November 29, 2016.
2
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20161108/Turnout.html

REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 5

 1

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January 2020.

2

Smith & Lowney, pllc

3

By:

4

/s/ Knoll Lowney_
Knoll Lowney WSBA No. 23457

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff Intervenors Transit
Riders Union, Climate Solutions, and
Washington ADAPT.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
REPLY OF PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS - 6