FILEDHONORABLE MARSHALL FERGUSON 1 2020 MAR 19 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK 2 3 CASE #: 19-2-30171-6 SEA 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 7 8 9 11 GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; et al., Plaintiffs, 12 and 13 WASHINGTON ADAPT; TRANSIT RIDERS UNION; and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, 10 14 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 18 Defendant, 19 and 20 CLINT DIDIER; PERMANENT OFFENSE; TIMOTHY D. EYMAN; MICHAEL FAGAN; JACK FAGAN; and PIERCE COUNTY, 21 22 23 NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT v. 16 17 No. 19-2-30171-6 SEA Intervenor-Defendants. 24 25 26 27 NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT - 1 20284 00002 jc191c189t Contact Information for Individual Plaintiffs’ Counsel Found Within Signature Blocks Pursuant to RAP 5.1 and RAP 5.2(b), Plaintiffs seek direct discretionary review 1 by the 1 2 3 Washington State Supreme Court of Orders entered by the King County Superior Court on February 12 and March 13, 2020 (copies of which are attached to this Notice), and any order or 4 ruling that prejudicially affects the decisions designated in this notice. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Counsel for Plaintiffs Washington State Transit Association, Association of Washington Cities, Port of Seattle, Garfield County Transportation Authority, Intercity Transit, Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington, Michael Rogers, City of Burien, and Justin Camarata: Paul.Lawrence, WSBA #13557 Matthew J. Segal, WSBA #29797 Jessica A. Skelton, WSBA #36748 Shae Blood, WSBA #51889 Paul.Lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com Matthew.Segal@pacificalawgroup.com Jessica.Skelton@pacificalawgroup.com Shae.Blood@pacificalawgroup.com PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP 1191 2nd Ave, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 206-245-1700 Counsel for Plaintiff King County: David Hackett, WSBA #21236 David J. Eldred, WSBA #26125 Erin B. Jackson, WSBA #49627 Jenifer C. Merkel, WSBA #34472 David.hackett@kingcounty.gov David.Eldred@kingcounty.gov Erin.Jackson@kingcounty.gov Jenifer.merkel@kingcounty.gov KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 500 Fourth Ave, 9th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 206-477-9483 Counsel for Plaintiff City of Seattle: Carolyn Boies, WSBA #40395 Erica Franklin, WSBA #43477 John B. Schochet, WSBA #35869 Carolyn.Boies@seattle.gov Erica.Franklin@seattle.gov John.Schochet@seattle.gov SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 701 Fifth Ave, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104 206-684-8200 Counsel for Defendant State of Washington: Alan D. Copsey, WSBA #23305 Alicia Young, WSBA #35553 Karl Smith, WSBA #41988 Lauryn Fraas, WSBA #53238 Alan.copsey@atg.wa.gov Alicia.young@atg.wa.gov Karl.smith@atg.wa.gov Lauryn.fraas@atg.wa.gov OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 360-753-6200 24 25 26 27 1 All parties have requested that this Court enter final judgment in this matter pursuant to CR 54(b) and that request was filed concurrently with this Notice. In the event final judgment is entered, Plaintiffs will file a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.1(e) NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT - 2 20284 00002 jc191c189t Contact Information for Individual Plaintiffs’ Counsel Found Within Signature Blocks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Counsel for Intervenor-Plaintiff Washington ADAPT, Transit Riders Union and Climate Solutions: Knoll Lowney, WSBA #23457 knoll@smithandlowney.com SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC 2317 E John St Seattle, WA 98112 206-860-2883 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant Clint Didier: Stephen W. Pidgeon, WSBA #25265 spidgeon007@gmail.com STEPHEN W. PIDGEON ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.S. 1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C-350 Everett, WA 98208 425-347-7513 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant Pierce County: Daniel R. Hamilton, WSBA #14658 Frank A. Cornelius, WSBA #29590 Dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.gov Frank.cornelius@piercecountywa.gov PIERCE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301 Tacoma, WA 98402 253-798-7400 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants Timothy Eyman, Michael Fagan and Jack Fagan: Mark D. Kimball, WSBA #13146 mkimball@mdklaw.com MDK Law 777 108th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 425-455-9610 15 16 DATED this 19th day of March, 2020. 17 DANIEL T. SATTERBERG King County Prosecuting Attorney PETER S. HOLMES Seattle City Attorney By: s/ Carolyn U. Boies Carolyn U. Boies, WSBA#40395 Erica Franklin, WSBA#43477 Assistant City Attorneys John B. Schochet, WSBA#35869 Deputy City Attorney 23 By: s/ David J. Hackett David J. Hackett, WSBA #21236 David J. Eldred, WSBA #26125 Jenifer Merkel, WSBA #34472 Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys Erin B. Jackson, WSBA #49627 Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 24 Attorneys for King County 25 PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 Attorneys for City of Seattle By s/ Matthew J. Segal Paul J. Lawrence, WSBA #13557 NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT - 3 20284 00002 jc191c189t Contact Information for Individual Plaintiffs’ Counsel Found Within Signature Blocks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Matthew J. Segal, WSBA #29797 Jessica A. Skelton, WSBA #36748 Shae Blood, WSBA #51889 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Washington State Transit Association, Association of Washington Cities, Port of Seattle, Garfield County Transportation Authority, Intercity Transit, Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington, Michael Rogers, City of Burien, and Justin Camarata 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT - 4 20284 00002 jc191c189t Contact Information for Individual Plaintiffs’ Counsel Found Within Signature Blocks 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I am and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a citizen of the United States, over the age of 21 years and not a party to this action. On the 19th day of March, 2020, I caused to be served, via the King County E-Service filing system, and via electronic mail per agreement of the parties, a true copy of the foregoing document upon the parties listed below: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 For Plaintiff King County: David J. Hackett, Attorney David J. Eldred, Attorney Erin B. Jackson, Attorney Jenifer C. Merkel, Attorney Rafael Munoz-Cintron, Legal Assistant David.hackett@kingcounty.gov David.eldred@kingcounty.gov Erin.Jackson@kingcounty.gov Jenifer.merkel@kingcounty.gov rmunozcintron@kingcounty.gov For Defendant State of Washington: Alan D. Copsey, Deputy Solicitor General Alicia Young, Deputy Solicitor General Lauryn Fraas, Assistant Attorney General Karl Smith, Deputy Solicitor General Kristin Jensen, Executive Assistant Rebecca Davila-Simmons, Paralegal Morgan Mills, Legal Assistant Alan.copsey@atg.wa.gov Alicia.young@atg.wa.gov Lauryn.fraas@atg.wa.gov Karl.smith@atg.wa.gov Kristin.jensen@atg.wa.gov Rebecca.DavilaSimmons@atg.wa.gov Morgan.mills@atg.wa.gov Noah.purcell@atg.wa.gov 21 22 23 For Plaintiff City of Seattle: Carolyn U. Boies, Attorney Erica Franklin, Attorney John B. Schochet, Attorney Marisa Johnson, Legal Assistant Carolyn.boies@seattle.gov Erica.franklin@seattle.gov John.schochet@seattle.gov Marisa.Johnson@seattle.gov For Intervenor-Plaintiffs Washington ADAPT, Transit Riders Union and Climate Solutions: Knoll Lowney, Attorney knoll@smithandlowney.com For Intervenor-Defendant Pierce County: Daniel R. Hamilton, Attorney Frank A. Cornelius, Attorney Dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.gov Frank.cornelius@piercecountywa.gov For Intervenor-Defendant Clint Didier: Stephen W. Pidgeon, Attorney spidgeon007@gmail.com For Intervenor-Defendants Timothy Eyman, Michael Fagan and Jack Fagan: Mark D. Kimball, Attorney mkimball@mdklaw.com For Amicus Curiae San Juan County: Randall K. Gaylord randallg@sanjuanco.com 24 25 DATED this 19th day of March, 2020. 26 Sydney Henderson 27 NOTICE OF DIRECT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT - 5 20284 00002 jc191c189t Contact Information for Individual Plaintiffs’ Counsel Found Within Signature Blocks The Honorabie Marshall l3?erguson Hearing Date: Friday; I'Iebruary 7: 2020 at 9:00 am. With Oral Argument 113113 0 . SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASP-IINGTON OR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION KING CITY OF SEATTLE: WASHINGTON STATE TRANSIT A SOCIATION: AS OF WASHINGTON PORT OF IN AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF MICHAEL CITY OF and MIC IIAEL CAMARATA, Plaintiffs. and WASHINGTON TRANSIT RIDERS and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, Intervcnor-Plaintiffs- v. STATE OF WASHINGTON. Defendant, and CLINT PERMANENT TIMOTHY D. MICHAEL JACK and PIERCE COUNTY, Intervenor?Defendants. ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - I NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 51!} THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 93104 [206] 477-1513 Ix.) I. Introduction and Summari- nl'the (Hunt's Rulinu In the General Election on November 51 2019,, a majority of Washington voters approved Initiative Measure No. 976 On November 14, 2019. Plaintiffs ?led a lawsuit in this Couit seeking a judgment declaring 1?976 unconstitutional on several grounds and permanently enjoining the measure from going into effect. On November 27, 2019, upon a motion by Plaintiffs, the Court entered a preliminary injunction barring 1?976 from going into effect while the lawsuit is pending. Since then? two new plaintiffs and several intervening parties have been added to the lawsuit, The pa?ies and some of the intervenors have prepared and ?led motions for summary judgment which: generally speaking, ask the Court to resolve all legal questions .in the lawsuit in one side?s favor or the other. On February 7= 2020, the Court held an all?day hearing on the following motions and cross-motions: 0 Plaintif?s? Motion For Summary Judgment; - Piaintiff-Intervenors Transit Riders Union, Washington ADAPT, and Climate Solutions? oinder and Motion For Summary Judgment; - Defendant State of Washington and Intervener-Dei?endant Pierce County?s Joint Motion or Summary Judgment; and I lntervenor?Defendant Clint Didier?s Motion For Summary Judgment. For the reasons explained below, this Order: . Denies Plaintiffs? Motion For Summary Judgment in its entirety; Denies Plaintiff-Intervenors Transit Riders Union, Washington ADAPT, and Climate Solutions? Joinder and Motion For Summary Judgment in its entirety; - Grants in part and denies in part Defendant State of Washington and lntervenor- Deihndant Pierce County?s Joint Motion For Summary Judgment; and ORDER 0N CROSS-MOTIONS FOR estimations; SUMMARY JUDGM - 2 51mm AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 [206) 477?1513 La.) 10 ll - Grants in part and denies in part lnterxl'enor?Defendant Didier?s Motion For Summary Judgment. To summarize, this Order dismisses all but two of Plaintiffs? constitutional challenges to 1-976. The remaining two claims are not dismissed because lntervenor-Defendant Didier and Defendant State of Washington have requested the Court?s permission to conduct discovery concerning those two claims, pursuant to Civil Rule 56(1). The Court grants their CR 56(0 requests and temporarily denies all parties? motions for summary judgment as to those two claims Consequently, the Court also denies Intervener-Defendant Didier?s request to vacate the preliminary injunction entered by this Court on November 27. 2019. Since this Order does not dispose of all of Plaintiffs" constitutional challenges to 1?9763 the preliminary injunction barring 1-976 from going into effect shall remain in place until further order of the Court. The parties may renew their motions for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs? two remaining constitutional challenges after the requested discovery has been completed. 11. The Record Before the Court The Court considered the following in ruling on the aforementioned motions: l. Plaintiffs" Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Inj unctive Relief; 2. State of Washington?s Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Inj unctive Relief and Af?rmative Defenses; 3. First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Inj unctive Relief; 4. Defendant State of Washington?s Answer to First Amended. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and Af?rmative Defenses; 5. Piaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment; 6. Declaration of Eric Christensen in Support of Plaintiffs1 Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGE MARSHALLFERGUSON . KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 516 mm, AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206] 477-1513 La.) 7. Declaration of Richard Schober in Support of .Plaintit?fs? Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibit attached thereto; 8. Declaration of Ryan Lopossa in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment. and the exhibits attached thereto; 9. Declaration ofTracy Butler; 10. Declaration of Scott M. Simmons and the exhibit attached thereto; Declaration of Peter King in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; 12. Declaration of David J. Hackett in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; 13. Defendant State of Washington and Intewenor?Defendant Pierce County?s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment; 14. Declaration of Alan D. Copsey in Support of Defendant State of Washington and Intervenor-Defendant Pierce County?s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; 15. Clint Didier?s Motion for Summary Judgment; 16. Declaration of Client Didier in Support of lntervenor Clint Didier?s Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; 17. Plaintiff lntervenoris cinder and Motion for Summary Judgment; 18. 'PIaintiffs? Consolidated Opposition to the State of Washington?s, Pierce County?s, and Client Didier?s Motions for Summary Judgment 19. Declaration of Jessica A. Skelton in Support of Plaintiffs? Consolidated Opposition to State of Washington?s, Pierce County?s, and Clint Didier?s Motions for Summary Judgment; ORDER 0N FOR restatement. SUMMARY - 4 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 93104 (206) 477-1513 Lu U1 6 20. Defendant State of Washington and Interventir-Defendant Pierce County?s Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs? and Intervenor-Plaintiffs? Motions for Summary Jud gment; 2 . lntervenor-Defendant Pierce County?s Response to Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment; 22. Plaintiff Intervenors? Response to Cross Motions for Summary Judgment; 23. intervenor Didier?s Response on Summary Judgment; 24. Plaintiff?s? Reply in Support of Motion for Summary judgment; 25. Declaration of Jenifer Merkel in Support of Plaintiilil?s? Consolidated Reply and the exhibits attached thereto; 26. Supplemental Declaration of Jessica A. Skelton in Support of Plaintiffs? Reply in Support of Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto: 27. Defendant State of Washington and Intervenor?Defendant Pierce County?s Combined Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment; 28. Supplemental Declaration of Alan D. Copsey in Support of Defendant State of Washington and [ntervenor-Defendant Pierce County-?3 Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto; 29. Plaintiff lntervenors? Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; 30. Ititewenor Didier?s Reply on Summary Judgment; Brief of Amicus Curiae San Juan County; 32. The other pleadings and papers on ?le in this matter: and 33. The argument of counsel. The transcript of the February 2020 motion hearing is incorporated as though fully set forth herein. ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 {206) 477-1513 Ix.) Ch .13 La) Although the Court Rules do not require ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law on decisions of motions for summary judgment (see CR the Court provides the following memorandum of its decision for the bene?t of the parties and the public. 111. Factual Background A. Initiative Measure N0. 976 In the General Election on November 5. 2019, a majority of Washington voters approved Initiative Measure No. 976 with 52.99 percent of the votes cast. The following ballot title for [-976 was placed before the voters: Initiative Measure No. 976 concerns motor vehicle taxes and fees. This measure would repeal, reduce. or remove authority to impose certain vehicle taxes and fees; limit annual motor-vehicle-license fees to $30, except voter- approved charges; and base vehicle taxes on Kelley Blue Book value. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes No The text of 1?976 itself is set forth in seventeen sections. Some sections create new statutory provisions, some amend existing statutes, and some repeal existing statutes. Section 1 of 1-976 contains a non?operative declaration of the AND 0171?976. Section 2 creates a new section in RCW Chapter 46.17 that purports to limit motor vehicle license fees to $30 per year, except charges approved by voters after 1?976 goes into effect. Section 3 amends RCW 46.17.350 by reducing the annual snowmobile license fee (which had been $50.00) and the commercial trailer license fee (previously $34.00) to $30.00. Before 1-976, annual motor vehicle license fees in RCW 46.17.350 for passenger cars. sport utility vehicles, and numerous other kinds of motorized vehicles were already set at ORDER ON ROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON .. KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 51mm, AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206) 477-1513 $30.00 or less. 1-976 reduces RCW 46.17.350 fees only for snowmobiles, commercial trailers. and light trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less. Section 4 amends RCW 46.17.355 by reducing the annual license fees for light trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less from between $53 and. $93 (depending on weight) to $30.00. Section 5 amends RCW 46.17.323 by reducing an electric vehicle fee from $100 to $30. and eliminates an additional $50 electric vehicle fee. Section 6 repeals several statutes, including RCW 46.17.365, which imposed a passenger weight fee of between $25 and $72 per vehicle, RCW 82.80.140, which authorized Transportation Bene?t Districts to impose annual vehicle fees of up to $100 per vehicle, and RCW 82.80.130. which authorized imposition of a local motor vehicle excise tax to support passenger-only ferries. Section 6 also repeals RCW 46.68.415, which addressed how the passenger wei fee would be used. Section 7 amends RCW 82.08.020 to eliminate a 0.3 percent sales tax on retail sales of motor vehicles. Section 8 creates a new section in RCW Chapter 82.44 requiring that state and local governments use Kelley Blue Book value to determine a vehicle?s taxable value for vehicle tax purposes. Section 9 amends RCW 82.44.065 to incorporate Kelley Blue Book valuations when persons paying state or local vehicle taxes appeal the valuation to the Department. of Licensing. Section 10 amends RCW 81.104.140 by eliminating the authority to levy and collect a special MVET that can only be levied by Regional Transit Authorities in counties with a population of 1,500,000 people or more.1 and only after a public vote approving the Special MVET. 1 The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, commonly known as ?Sound Transit,? is currently the only Regional Transit Authority in existence that meets the statutory de?nition under RCW 81.104.l60. ORDER 0N mew-tom SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7 SEATTLE WA 98104 (205) 477-1513 rd U1 Section I repeals RCW 82.44.035 and 81 .104.160. eliminating the same special MfVlEi'l" referenced in Section 1 0 and eliminating the existing MVET valuation method. Section 12 creates anew section in RCW Chapter 81.] 12 requiring an RTA charging a special MVET under RCW 81.104.160 to retire early, defease. or re?nance any outstanding bonds, provided that the bond contract permits it, and provided that special MVET funds have been pledged to repay the bonds. As explained below, Section 12 is necessary to implement Sections 10 and 11. Section 13 amends RCW 81.104.160 by reducing the authority for voter-approved RTA MVETs from 0.8 percent to 0.2 percent of a vehicle?s value. Section 13 is a fallback provision in case the RTA in question (Sound 'l?ransit) fails to comply with Section l2. Section 13 .is to take effect on April 1, 2020 ifcomplianee with Section 12 has not occurred by March 3 . 2020. Section .14 requires that l-976?s provisions be liberally construed to effectuate its intent. policies. and purposes. Section 15 provides a se'verability clause. Section 16 sets forth the effective dates for Sections 10, 11, and 13. Section 17 provides the title of the act: "Bring Back Our $30 Car Tabs." 13. Plaintifts? Claims of Harm Caused Bv 1-976 Plaintiffs and Intervcnor?Plaint?ifli?s2 seek two things from this Court: a judgment declaring that 1?976 is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction preventing 1-976 from ever going into effect. In support, of their injunction claim. Plaintiffs have offered supporting declarations and exhibits establishing that. were 1-976 to be implemented, it would harm them 2 For the sake of economy. the Court will usually refer to Plaintiffs and all lntervenor?Plaintiffs collectively as ?Plaintiffs," except in specific instances Where distinguishing between them is necessary. The Court will likewise refer to Defendant State of Washington and lntervenor?Defendant Pierce County collectively as ?Defendants,? because they ?led a joint motion for summaryiudginent. The Conn will always refer to intervenor-Dcfendant Clint? Didier separately. ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 515 THIRD AVENUE WA 98104 (206) 477?1513 in numerous ways, including drastic reductions in funding for public transit, road and highway improvement projects. ferry service, and projects that are critical from a public safety standpoint. As this Court previously concluded in granting Plaintiffs? motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court concludes here that 1?976, if implemented, would result in actual and substantial injury to Plaintiffs. C. The Burien Bonds Following the preliminary injunction proceedings in November 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the City of Burien as a plaintiff.3 Plaintiffs allege that if Section 6 of 1-976 were to be implemented. it would unconstitutionallv impair bond contracts used to ?nance street improvements. In 2009, Burien created a Transportation Bene?t District to finance and facilitate street improvements. The Burien TBD utilized its statutory authority to impose and collect from Burien vehicle owners a $10 vehicle license fee Burien then pledged the VLF funds to service bond debt totaling $8,900,000. Burien contends that it marketed the bond issuance based, in part, upon the City?s pledge of the VLF revenues to repay the bond debt. Burien asserts that bondholders relied upon its pledge in purchasing the bonds. Plaintiffs argue that by extinguishing Burien?s authority to assess and collect the $10 VLF, Section 6 of 1-976 unconstitutionally impairs the bond contacts. As to this issue, Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant Didier respond that there exists a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether bond purchasers relied upon Burien?s pledge funds to debt service on the bonds. Defendants and Intervenor?Detendant Didier contend that discovery is needed as to this issue, precluding summary judgment. 3 Plaintiffs also added Justin Camarata as a plaintiff at that time. ORDER ON FOR JUDGE SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 SEATTLE WA 98104 (206] 477-1513 9 10 ll IV. Plaintiffs? Causes OfAction Plaintiffs seek a pcmianent injunction and a judgment declaring that 1-976 is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates: 0 Article 11, section 19 ofthe Washington Constitution (single?subject rule?); 0 Article IL section 19 of the Washington Constitution (subject-in-title rule); 0 Article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution; . Article X1, section 12 of the Washington Constitution; 0 Article 1, section 19 of the Washington Constitution; .. Atticle VII, section 5 ofthe Washington Constitution; - separation?01Pponfers principles; I Article 1, section 12 ofthe Washington Constitution; and 0 Article I, section 23 of the Washington Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that there exist no genuine issues as to any material facts and that. therefore, they are entitled to entry of ajudgment in their favor as to ail of their claims. Defendants and l'ntervenor-Defendant Didier deny all of Plaintiffs? claims and contend that they are entitled to entry of a judgment dismissing nearly all of Plaintiffs claims. As to Plaintiffs? claims under Article 1, section 12 and Article 1, section 23 of the Washington Constitution (regarding the Kelley Blue Book and the Burien bond issues, respectively), Defendants and l'ntervenor?Defendant .Didier contend that there exist genuine issues as to material facts precluding. summary judgment for any party as to those claims. V. Discussion A. Summars' Standard Summary judgment is appropriate .if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dean v. Fishing C0. afAlaska, 177 ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10 51mm AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206} 477-1513 IQ LI) Up 6 Wn.2d 399, 405, 300 P.3d 815 (2013). When determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court must consider the facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the. light most favorable to the nonmoving party. LS'i-ioffiier v. State. 172 Wn. App, 866, 871?72., 2-94 P.3d 739 (2013). B. Plaintiffs Bear the Burden 01" 9761s Bevond a Reasonable Doubt Washington law is clear, and all parties agree, that in approving an initiative measure, the people exercise the same power of sovereignty as the legislature does when it enacts a statute and they are subject to the same constitutional limitations. Wash. ed (gf't?i'tate Emps. v. State, 127 Wasth 544. 556, 90] P.2d 1028 (?1995); of'Bm'i'en v. Kiga, 144 Washld 819. 824, 31 P.3d 659 (2001). ?Therefore, even if an initiative is approved by a majority olfvoters, it wili be struck down if it violates Washington"s constitution.? Wash. Substance Abuse div Violence Prevention v. State, 174 Wn.2d 642, 654, 278 P.3d 632 (2012) (?li?tSi-?l This Court presumes that 1-976 is constitutional, just as the Court would presume that a statute duly enacted by the legislature is constitutional. 1d. Since an initiative is presumptively constitutional, a party asserting that an initiative violates the state constitution ?bears the heavy burden of establishing its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt." Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183. 205, 11 P.3d 762 (2000) The ?beyond a reasonable doubt? standard applied here is different from the ?beyond a reasonable doubt? evidentiary standard for convictions in criminal trials. Island County v. State, 135 Wit.2d 141,, 147, 955 P2d 377 (1998). Under the standard here, a court may not strike down an initiative measure unless ?fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis," that there is no reasonable doubt that the initiative violates the constitution. 1d; andATU, 142 Wn.2d at 205. A court may not strike down an initiative simply because it dislikes it or disagrees with ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS roa SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206] 477-1513 Ix.) U.) 9 10 11 its policies. As the Washington Supreme Court has made clear: [l]t is not the prerogative nor the function of the judiciary to substitute what they may deem to be their better Jud gment for that ofthe electorate in enacting initiatives unless the errors in judgment clearly contravene state or federal constitutional [CitatiOn omitted] Nor is it the province of the courts to declare laws passed In violation of the. constitution valid based upon considerations of public policy. ATU, 142 Wn.2d at 206. Although the burden of a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute is a heavy ones this Court would shirk its constitutional duty were the Court to allow an unconstitutional law to stand simply as a matter of enmity to the legislature. or to voters? exercise of legislative power via initiative. Ultimately. the judiciary must make the decision. as a matter of law, whether a statute enacted through the initiative process violates a constitutional mandate. Id. at 205?06; Island Cry. 135 Wn.2d at 147. Bearing in mind Plaintiffs" heavy burden. the Court turns to their claims that 1?976 is unconstitutional. C. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden of Establishinu. Bevund a Reasonable Doubt. That I-976 Violates the ?Single Subiect Rule? of Article II. Section 19 of the ashineton Constitution Article 11. section 19 provides: ?No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.? This provision is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislation. li?lxiSAl/Yj, 174 W'n.2d at 654. There are two prohibitions in article 11, section 19: the sin gle-subject rule and the subject-in-titie rule. This section addresses the single?subject rule ofArticle II, section 19. ?The single-subject rule aims to prevent the grouping ot?incompatible measures and to prevent ?logrolling,? which occurs when a measure is drafted such that a legislator 0r voter may be required to vote for something of which he or she disapproves in order to secure approval of an unrelated law.? VP, 174 Wn.2d at 65 5. In determining whether an initiative embraces ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT 12 51mm AVENUE SEATTLE WA 93104 (205) 477?1513 (43 U1 .14 15 l, 6 one subject or multiple subjects. a court begins by examining the initiativc?s ballot title to determine whether the title is general or restrictive broad or narrow- in other words. Id: and Filo Foods; City of'iS?caToc, 183 Wn.2d 770. 782? 35.7 P.3d 1040 (2015). few well- chosen words, suggestive ot?the general subject stated, is all that is necessary.? VP, 174 Wn.2d at 655 (quoting ATU. 142 Wn.2d at 209). Here, 1?976?s ballot title is general, not restrictive. The ox-Perarching, subject matter, identi?ed in the ?rst sentence of the ballot title is ?motor vehicle taxes and fees.? This broad title description is equivalent to initiative titles that the Washington Supreme Court has recognized as general. See Iii-4.524 VP, 174 Wn.2d at 655; Filo Foods2 183 Wn.2d at 142 Wn.2d at 217. Where a title is general. the constitution requires only that there be ?rational unity? between the initiative?s general subject and its component provisions. That is, matters within the body of the initiative must be. germane to the general title and they must be germane to one another. lit/1152417). 174 Wn.2d at 656?, citing City ofBurien r. Kiga, 144 819, 826. 31 P.3d 659 (200D. Courts are to use ?great liberality" in making this determination. :70 Foods, 183 W11.2d at 782. ?'l?here is no Violation of [the single-subject rule] even if a general subject contains several incidental subjects or subdivisions.? 174 Wn.2d at 656, citing lt'ush. For! '12 of Store lamps. 127 Wn.2d at 556. Here, because l~976 generally ?concerns motor vehicle taxes and fees.? its Various substantive provisions need only be germane to that topic and to one another to survive single? subjeet scrutiny. Filo Foods; 183 Wn.2d at 782-83. The Court agrees with Defendants that Sections 2 through 1 1 and Section 13 of 1-976 directly address motor vehicle taxes and fees by repealing, reducing- or removing authority to impose assorted taxes and fees on motor vehicle sales or licensing. Those sections are all ORDER oN CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 SEATTLE WA 98104 (205)4771513 germane to both the general title and to each other. Section 12 is germane to the general subject of motor vehicle fees and taxes because it is intended to ensure that one type of repealed motor vehicle tax. the Special VET levied and collected by Sound ?l'ransit, is no longer collected. Section 12 accomplishes this by requiring that bonds repaid by special MVET revenues must be retired early, defeased. or refinanced.4 A prior initiative measure. 1-776, attempted to eliminate Sound Transit?s authority to collect the speciai MVET by repealing RCW 81.104.160 without requiring bond retirement". The Washington. Supreme Court ultimately held such repeal unconstitutional because it impaired contracts between Sound Transit and its bondholders by eliminating the tax revenues pledged for bond debt repayment. Pierce County v. State, 159 Wn.2d 16, 148 P.3d 1002 (2006) (?Pierce (Sty. In the present case, by making the elimination of Sound Transit?s authority to levy and collect its Special MVET contingent upon Sound Transitis ability to retire, defease, or re?nance its outstanding bonds. Section 12 ofl-976 is a mechanism to avoid the unconstitutional ?aw that the Supreme Court identi?ed in Pierce (Try. If. That is, if Sound Transit were to retire its bonds pursuant to Section 12 before its tax authority is repealed under Sections 10 and 11 of 1-976, then the repeal of Sound 'I'ransit?s tax authority could not and would not impair its bond contracts. Section 12 is a necessary precursor to the repeal of 1le 131? tax authority implemented in Sections 10 and 11. Since Section 12 is necessary to implement Sections 10 and 1 li both of which are germane to the general subject of motor vehicle taxes and fees. Section 12 is likewise germane to the same general subject. Citizens Wildlife ilegmr. 12. Store, 149 Wn.2d 622, 637, 71 P.3d 644 (2003). Section 1 is a nonoperative policy statement. Sections 14 through 17 are non? In general terms. early ?retirement" of a bond means to redeem the bonds from the bondholders or repay the bondholders for the face value (principal balance) ofthe bonds prior to the maturity date. ?Defease? means to set aside cash or other assets suf?cient to keep paying the principal and interest when due. ?Re?nance" means to issue new debt, the proceeds of which are used to replace the existing bond debt ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 14 515mm AQENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 [206) 477-1513 Lil LJJ ix) substantive, procedural provisions that describe the construction, severabilitv, effective dates, and title of l-976. Plaintiffs provide no argument or authority suggesting a court must apply the rational unity analysis to such provisions. and the Court is not aware of any such authority. Sections 1 and 14 through 17 do not establish a violation oi?thc single-subject rule. Plaintiffs argue that 1-976 violates the single?subject rule because, in their View, some of 1?976?3 provisions are continuing and long?term in nature while others are Speci?c. time-limited. and achievable in the near?term. The Court rejects Plaintiffs? argument. Although Washington law certainly recognizes this distinction (see A TU, 142 Wn.2d at 2] 6-17; and limit. To]! Bridge Authority v. State. 49 Wn.2d 520, 523?25. 304 P.2d 676 Plaintiffs? attempts to argue the distinction in this case hinges on ambiguous, subjective characterizations oft-976?s provisions. For example, Plaintiffs contend that :l?tnrcing early retirement of Sound Transit bonds ?is a onetime event concerning, a speci?c local subject.? whereas capping vehicle fees at $30 is a permanent, ongoing. statewide change. Mot. for Summ. .lmt. (Sub. No. 157), p. 30. Yet, inA TU our Supreme Court took nearly the opposite View; characterizing the $30 cap on tab fees in 1?695 as speci?c, while characterizing a different provision as establishing, a long?term, continuing method of approving all future tax increases. 1d. at 217. The Supreme Court?s opinions in and Filo Foods are instructive. ln the Washington Supreme Court concluded that the asserted provisions in 1-1 183 did not violate the single-subject rule, even though the initiative?s numerous provisions called for closing and selling off of state liquor stores and equipment (near?term, non?continuous, changing regulations relating to liquor advertising (long-term. continuous, specific); imposing new distributor license fees (same). altering rules for wine distributors (same), allowing private spirits distribution (same), eliminating both ?encouraging moderation? and the ?orderly marketing of alcohol? as public policy goals recited in a single statute (one?time, speci?c). and ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 15 516 ero AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206) 477-1513 Lu.) Ix.) U1 creating a $10,000,000 annual earmark Fund for public safety programs (long-term; non? speci?c?) Id. at 649-5] . ln Filo Foods. Sea?l'ac Proposition raised the minimum wage. to 5, but also mandated that when any Sea'l?ac employer sold their business. the purchaser would be required to retain existing employees for at least 90 days. 1d. at 783. The Supreme Court did not lind a single-subject violation. id. at 7 83?84. Although Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish by the opinion?s observation that wine and liquor have historically been broadly regulated together, that was not the case in Filo Foods. In this Court?s view, applying ?great liberality? in making this determination, all of .l-976?s provisions operate in a coordinated, conjunctive way to serve a uni?ed legislative goal of repealing. reducing, or removing authority to impose motor vehicle fees and taxes. Id. at 782. They are germane to each other and to 1- 976?s general subject. The incidental variations and subdivisions in the subject matter of .l?976?s provisions do not rise to the level of a constitutional defect under the single?subject rule. l'l-CtlSA VP, 174 Wn.2d at 65 6. Lastly, the Court also rejects Plaintiffs? argument that impermissible logrolling occurs where 1-976 purportedly induces non?Sound-Transit-area residents to vote for ?$30 car tabs? while eliminating Sound Transit taxes that those residents do not pay. it is noteworthy that neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court identi?ed this as a problem with 1-776 in Pierce (1?02me v. State, 150 Wn.2d 422, 78 P.3d 640 (2003) (?Pierce Cry. even though [?776 likewise paired a $30 fee cap with statutory repeal ofSound Transit?s MVET. 1d. at 432 (noting that the trial court found sections 2 and 6 of [?776 were germane to the single general subject of ?limiting the amount of state and local government charges that motor vehicle owners must pay upon the registration or renewed registration 01" a vehicle?). Here. [?9768 $30 limit on motor vehicle license fees and its repeal of a statute authorizing a motor vehicle excise tax are both. measures that alter general laws to eliminate or reduce vehicle license fees and taxes. They are ORDER ON 3 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - if! 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 {206) 477-1513 L.) germane. to each other and to the general subject of limiting the amount of state and local government charges that motor vehicle owners must pay upon the registration or renewed registration ofa vehicle. Id; and 1491514 VP, 174 Wn.2d at 656.5 For these reasons, and based upon the argument and authorities offered by Defendants in their motion pleadings and at oral argument, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 1-976 violates the single? subject rule. ofArtiele 11, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. D. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed'l'lleir Burden nt'Eslahiishina. Bevund a Reasonable Doubt. That l-W? Viol-ates the ?Suhiect?lnil?itle Rule? of Article ll- Section 1?3 ni?the \?i?ashinutim Constitution "The purpose of the subject-in-title rule is to notify members of the legislature and the public of the subject matter ofa measure,? 174 Wald at 660. Initiative ballot titles must accomplish this despite a Ill-word limit on the ?statement of the subject" and a 30?word limit on the ?concise description.? RCW 29A.72.050. A ballot title complies with our state?s constitution ?it' it gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the acti or indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the law.? 1114821 VP, 174 Wn.2d at 660. ?The title need not be an index to the contents, nor must it provide details of the measure.? Id. On the other hand, ?the material representations in the title must not be misleading or false, which would thwart the underlying purpose of ensuring that ?no person may be deceived as to what matters are being legislated upon.? 111., quoting Seymour v. (fifty ofTacomu, 6 Wash. i258. 149, 32 P. 1077 (1893). Objections to a ballot title ?must be grave and the con?ict between it and the 5 In its (unit?us curiae. brief, San .1 mm County similarly argues that 1-976 engages in impermissible logrolling by combing a $311 limit on vehicle license fees with a repeal. in Section 6 oft-976, 82.80130, which authorizes a local motor vehicle excise tax to fund passenger ferry service. As with the Sound Transit MVi'i?l? repeal, 1-976?5 530 cap on motor vehicle license fees and its repeal of the statute authorizing a vehicle tax that funds ferries are both measures that alter general laws to eliminate or reduce vehicle license fees and taxes. The)? are germane to each other and to the general subject of limiting state and local vehicle license fees and taxes. Therefore, 1-976?5 combining ofthose two provisions does not violate the single-subject rule of Article section 19. 174 Wald at 656. ORDER ON ron JUDGMENT - 1,7 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (206)477-1513 L.) La.) U: constitution palpable.? l'l?i'l?ii 11?1". l74 Wn.2d at 66]. like the single-subject rule. the subject- in-title rule is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislation. Pierce Cty. I. 150 Wn.2d at 436. That being said. court should not strain to interpret statute as constitutional: a plain reading must make the interpretation reasonable." ATM. 142 Wn.2d at 225. At the preliminan' injunction phase of this case- this Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their subject?in?title claim. New. upon consideration of the parties? additional arguments and authorities, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their heavy burden ofestablishing a Violation of Article IL section 19 beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally. Plaintiffs contend that 1-976?5 ballot title violates the subject-in-title rule in four ways: l) by misleadingly implying that voters would pay no more than $30 for their car tabs where. in fact. the lowest amount that any voter could pay for car tabs after 1-976 would be $43.25; (2) by misleadingly implying that all existing voter~approved charges would survive 976 and could exceed the $30 fee limit; (3) by misleadingly implying that voter?approved charges could even be possible where [-976 repeals existing mechanisms for mter?apprm-al of TBD VLFs and MVP. 1?s; and (4) by failing to include any reference to either 1-976?5 repeal of the 0.3 percent sales tax on retail Vehicle sales. its repeal of electric vehicle fees, or its requirement that Sound Transit retire. defease. or re?nance bonds. Each of these fails to establish a violation of the subject?in-title rule. 1. Plaintiffs? First Contention: The Ballot Title Misleadinglt' [innlies That Voters Would Pair No More Than 530 or Their Car Tabs Nowhere does 1-976?5 ballot title imply that vehicle owners will receive $30 invoices for their annual vehicle tabs. Rather. the ballot title acourately describes what 1?976 would do: ?limit annual motor-vehicle-license fees to indeed. Section 2 caps motor vehicle license fees at $30 per year. while Sections 3 and 4 reduce vehicle license fees for light trucks. commercial trailers. and snowmobiles to $30. Plaintiffs argue that this is misleading because 1-976 does not ORDER on CROSS-MOTIONS roa SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 SIETHIRDAVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (20a) 4774513 00?} eliminate other vehiele-reltned l?eea found in Chapter in. 7 RFW. namely the speeial.personalized license plate lees under It slit 17.210 {352 initials?S-l? renewal] and =22? tap to the $75 ti'anaportation eleetrilieation fee under RCW 40.1 7.334. the $3 sanitary lee tinder RC?tt" 4o. 7.375 and the $0 abandoned RV disposal fee under 46.17.38?. Those other tees are collected annually. are due at the time at initial or renewal t'ehiele registration. and would show up on a vehicle tab int'oit?e. Theg. are not ?license lees." however. Tlte words "littellat: lee" do not appear in those other the statutes at: their do in $1.173?? and -.355 {the annual license fee. Statutes-it. Moreover. as Correctly pointed out by Defendant's. Seetiona Bill and provide that the license lil't?t in RCW 4a [7.35? and -.355 are "in addition other the or tax required by law." As sue-h, since the text ol?lJWt) ?111th clear that vehicle owners would still pay any applieahle tron?license. 1rehiele fees under Chapter 46. '3 in addition to lieense Fees. and since [4376 doea limit annual Vehicle license fees to $30. t-Qta's hallot title is not misleading by stating that the initiative will "limit annual fees. to 2. Plaintit'l"a' Second Contention: The Ballot Title hrlialeadinalv lmpliea That All Voter-Approved Charaes Stin'ive [-9715 and Met? Exceed Its Can Vehicle License Fees The ti rat clause ot'the ?eoneise descriptiorf' in 1?9?6's ballot title states; that t-976 "would repeal. reduee. or remove authority to impose certain ehiele taxes and Fees." The second elattse states that 1-?17o would ?limit annual motor-vehiele-lieense fees to $30. exec 1rater-a tt'tt?s'CCl 5 Readers of this Order tether than the partiest might Wonder 't'r'lt} the Court does not examine how l-?l?Tti might have been marketed to voters as promising or implying '53? car tab invoices. For purposes ot'suttieet-in-litle analysis. tioit'et-er. the Court look: only at the initiative ballot title "because it is the ballot title with which the utters are titted in the voting booth. and because it is the ballot title which can be appealed before an election and 1which tliereatter appears on petitions and the ballot." l?ll Wald at ll There in no way For a court to eril} unit an}; L'Crtililti} ohat {Hater ut'eainpaign materials voters might hare seen. read. or heard. the at such marketing upon voter! understanding of t??t'tta. the impacts at" counter-messaging. whether any eainptiign information war. ilCtUtlii) lttl?le?dillg. tr By all voters who voted on [-0376 would hat-e been prmentetl with the ballot title. ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN 19 SEATTLE WA 93104 (206) 477-1513 10 Where a fee is eliminated entirely through repeal, it cannot possibly be ?limited? to $30 because the authority to impose amount of the fee no longer exists. Likewise, where a fee is eliminated entirely, the fee cannot possibly be an exception to the $30 limit as a ?voter- approved charge? because, again, the authority to impose the fee no longer exists. 1?976 repeats and removes authority to impose both VLl-is and the RTA special 1?976, Sections 6, 10, 11. The is a tax and, therefore, is excluded from the second clause of ballot title, which concerns only ?fees?. Even if the MVET were included, since 1?976 repeals entirely both the TED VLF and MVET taxing authority, neither could possibly be ?limited? to $30, as referenced in the second clause of the ballot title. Since neither the TED VLF nor the MVET could be limited to $30, neither could be subject to the charges" exception to the $30 cap. The ballot title does not mislead here. Reading and construing together the ?rst and second clauses oil?976?s ballot title concise description. which inform voters both that some taxes and fees are repeaied and that license fees are limited to $30 except voter-approved charges, the ballot title does not imply either way whether any existing voter?approved vehicle license fees would survive 1?976. Nowhere does the ?voter-approved charges" exception identify with speci?city which ?charges? would be allowed to exceed the $30 annual limit. The second clause does not except ?voteeapproved vehicle license fees,? for example. Nor does it except ?existing voter- approved charges," or ?current", ?past", ?Future", ?local?, ?statewide?, or ?some", ?certain?, or ?speci?c? voter?approved charges. For Plaintiff?s, the absence of any qualitying or quantifying adjective before ?voter-approved? means that the second clause misleadingly implies that a_ll ?voter?approved charges? are excepted from the $30 cap and somehow survive 1-976- That could not. be a plausible implication since, as explained above, fees that are repealed entirely by 1-976, like the 19F, cannot possibly be subject to the $30 limit- nor excepted therefrom. ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 20 516mm AVENUE sramr WA 93104 (205) 477?1513 C?s I.I I OOxll 10 ll sin?4 In) 13 15 16 Ultimately, a plain reading of l-976?s ballot title indicates to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the initiative. and gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act. 174 Wn.2d at 660. Voters wondering whether their favored local fee or tax would survive .l?976 would have received no assurance either way from the ballot title. The ballot title does not con?rm whether on}; specific the or tax would be repealed (as mentioned in the first clause) or merely to limited to $30 (per the second clause). Such voters would have been prompted to took into the body ot?l-976 itselt?. Liberally construing 1?976?3 ballot title in favor of the initiative, as the Court must, the Court concludes that it satis?es the subject-in-title rule. Since the first clause of l?976?s ballot title makes clear that certain fees and taxes would be repealed or removed the second clause does not mislead by indicating that non?speci?ed ?voter- approved charges? would exceed the $30 limit. . Plaintiflis? ?iihird Contention: The Ballot Title Misleadinglv Implies That Charges Are Possible Bum EmiinatesA/Iechanisms For \?oter Approval [-976 eliminates statutory procedures for voter approval of two kinds of vehicle?related taxes and fees: TBD VLFS and the RTA MVET. 1976, Sections 6, 10, and l. The initiative does not specify how, absent those repealed statutes. voters could approve future charges above the $30 limit on vehicle license fees. No authority requires that 1-976?5 ballot title contain such information, however. Plaintiffs argue that il" [-976 were implemented today, there would exist no possibility of voter approval for a vehicle license fee. To the contrary, voters could approve future vehicle license fees either through the initiative process or if the Legislature creates future autlmrity for local imposition of vehicle license fees. It would be speculation for this Court to conclude that those two avenues for voter approval would never occur or are highly unlikely to occur. Both. are possible. Since future voter approval of new or increased vehicle license fees would be legislatively possible after 1-976?3 implementation. the ballot title?s reference to an ORDER ON CROSS-MCWIONS FOR SUMMARY - :1 AVENUE SEATTLF WA 98104 (206) 477?1513 exception for voter-approved charges to the $30 limit is not palpably misleading. Sec VP. 174 Wir2d at 661 (?objections to the title must be grave and the con?ict between it and the constitution palpable?). 4. li?lainti?ft?s? Fourth Contention: The Ballot Title Fails To Mention The Sales Tax Repeal. The Electric Vehicle Fee. Repeal. Or The Requirement 1? Retire [ts Bonds An initiative ballot title ?need not be an index. to the contents, nor must it provide details of the measure.? Iii/18A VP, 174 at 660. ll] VP and A TU, the Washington Supreme Court approved initiative ballot titles that: excluded from their concise descriptions substantive provisions contained in the body of the initiative. VP, 174 Wn.2d at 646-47; 142 Wn.2d at 228-29. In Initiative 1183?s ballot title did not mention anywhere that the initiative changed regulations relating to liquor advertising, eliminated both ?encouraging moderation?1 and the ?orderly marketing ol?alcohol? as statutorily-rccognized public policy goals for the regulation of alcohol, and created a $10,000,000 annual earmark fund for local public safety programs. 1d. at 647-51. the Supreme Court concluded that Section 3 otlnitiative 695. which repealed statutes allocating proceeds of license tab fees to police. ?re, and other purposes and repealed other statutes establishing accounts for deposit and withdrawal of those funds, did not violate the subject-in-title rule. Id. at 228-29. The Court reasoned that 1-695 ?3 ballot title provided ?suf?cient notice that the initiative repealed tastes. and thus, notice. that decreased revenues and loss of funding would result.? Id. at 229. Here, as to both Section 5?s amendment to RC 46.17323 eliminating electric vehicle fees and Section 7?s amendment to RCW 82.08.020 eliminating the vehicle sales tax, 1-976?5 ballot title provided suf?cient notice that the initiative repealed vehicle-related taxes and fees. The ballot title need not have speci?cally parsed out those two fees and taxes. ORDER ON FOR s1 JMMARY JUDGMENT 32 515mm AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 {206) 477-1513 Lfor the absence of any reference in the ballot title to 1?9?76?8 requirement that: Sound Transit retire early, defease. or re?nance its bonds, the Court explained in the preceding section of this Order that Section 12 is necessary to achieve the repeal of the special MVET authorized by RCW 81.104.140 and ?.160. As sucln Section 12?s impact upon existing bonds is directly related to facilitating the tax repeals and reductions mentioned in the ballot title. Section 12 requires only the early retirement, defeasance. or re?nancing of bonds. it does not mandate the creation of new debt or termination of any existing construction projects. Although such outcomes might be foreseeable consequences of bond retirement, defeasance. or re?nancing, no authority cited by any party requires that an initiative or its ballot title describe foreseeable consequences of the measure if enacted. Such a requirement would pose an insurmountable obstacle to virtually any initiative measure. 1-976?5 ballot title provided suf?cient notice that the initiative repealed taxes, and thus: notice that decreased revenues and loss of funding would result. :1 TU, 142 Wn.2d at 229. or these reasons, and based upon the argument and authorities offered by Defendants in their motion pleadings and at oral argument, the Court: concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing. beyond a reasonable doubt, that 1-976 violates the subject? in-title rule of Article 31, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. E. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden_0f Establishing. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. That 1?976 Violatcs Article ll. Section 37 of the \?x?ashinutun Article 11, section 37 of the Washington Constitution proclaims that act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title. but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length.? The purpose of this amendment: is to avoid ?confusion. ambiguity. and uncertainty? by disclosing the ?effect of the new legislation? and its ?impact on existing laws.? ATU, 142 Wn.?2d at 245?46. Article section 37 applies to initiatives. Id. at ORDER 0N CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 23 SEATTLE WA 98104 {206) 477-1513 Ix.) 247. The result ol?eompliance with Article section 37 should be ?that no further search will be required to determine the provisions of such section as amended.? It]. at 245, quoting Flanders v. Morris; 88 Wash2d 83. 180. 55 8 P.2d 769 (1977). Washington courts use a two-pronged test to determine Whether a law violates Article 11. section 37. First. the court must decide whether the new law is a complete act, one in which ?the scope of the rights or duties created or affected by the legislat?ve] action can be determined without referring to any other statute or cnactrnentl?l? ATU, 142 W11.2d at 246; and El Centre De La Raza v. Slate, 192 l03, I29. 428 P.3d 1143 (2013). Here. 1-976 satis?es the ?rst prong of Article 11, section 37. 1?976 is complete because the rights and duties of government. subdivisions that charge, levy, or collect vehicle fees and taxes are ?readily ascertainablc" from the. words of the initiative alone. E1 Cami-'0, 192 Wn.2d at 129, quoting Citizens/or Respomible Irlriildlif'e Mgmt. 149 Wn.2d at 642. Second. the court addresses whether ?a straightforward determination of the scape of rights or duties under the existing statutes [would] be rendered erroneous by the new 142 Wn.2d at 246. The second prong ensures that voters are aware of an initiative?s impact on existing laws. El Centre, 192 Wn.2d at 129. The second prong ?is not ?intended to prohibit the passage of a law which declared fully its provisions without direct reference to any other act. although its effect should be to enlarge or restrict the operation of some other statutes.? A TU. 142 Wn.2d at 248. quoting State v. Theme. 129 Wn.2d 736? 755. 921 P.2d 514 (i 996). Put another way. Article 11, section 37 wili not necessarily invalidate a complete act even though the act: ?may by implication operate to change or modify prior acts." ATU, 142 Wn.2d at 247-48. But, where an initiative greatly restricts or eliminates existing statutory rights or duties without explicitly showing how the initiative relates to the statutes it amends the initiative violates Article 11. section 37. El Centre, 192 Wn.2d at 132. ORDER ON (:Ross?Mcrl IONS FOR SUMMARY .IUDG 24 516 SEMTLE WA 98104 (206) 477 1513 U1 Plaintiffs contend that 1-976 fails the second pron because it amends certain vehicle fee provisions in Chapter 46.17 RCW without disclosure and renders erroneous a straighttiorward determination of rights and duties under those statutes. The Court disagrees. The Court?s conclusion requires a detailed examination of Chapter 46.17 and of Sections 2, 3. and 4 Section 2 of 1-976 declares that ?[sjtate and local motor vehicle license fees may not exceed $30 per year for motor 1?976, See. Sections 3 and 4 of 1?976 reduce to $30 the "vehicle license fee" for snowmobiles and commercial trailers in RCW 46.17.350. and the ?license ee? for trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less in RCW 46.17.355. Subpart (2) of Section 2 defines ?state and local motor vehicle license fees? as "the general license tab fees paid aminall}r for licensing motor vehicles, This annual fee must be paid and collected annually and is due at the time of initial and renewal vehicle registration.? 1d,, See. Other statutes in Chapter 46.17 also impose additional fees that may appear on a vehicle owner?s annual invoice for ?general license tab fees." These fees include the special/personalized license plate fees under RCW 46. l. 7.21 0 ($52 initial/$42 renewal) and -.220 (up to the $75 transportation electri?cation fee under RCW 46.17.324- the $3 sanitary RV disposal fee under RCW 46.17.375 and the $6 abandoned RV disposal fee under RCW 46.17.380. Although these other fees are collected annually, are due at the time of initial or renewal vehicle registration, and would show up on a ?general license tab? invoice; they are not ?license fees.? The words "license fee? do not appear in those other fee statutes as they do in RCW 46.17.350 and -.355. As correctly pointed out by Defendants, Sections 3(2) and 4(4) of 1-976 provide that the S30 license fees in RCW 46.17.350 and -.355 are "in addition to. . .any other fee or tax required by law.? 1-976 adequately distinguishes between ?license fees? and the non- lieense fees required by other sections of Chapter 46. 7, which are not subject to the $30 cap for ORDER ON roe SUMMARY JUDGMENT 25 SEATTLE WA 98104 (206] 477-1513 license fees in Section 2 of L976. Accordingly. 1?976 does not render erroneous a straightforward determination of rights and duties under the abtwe?refereneed Chapter 46.17 non?license fee statutes. Plaintiffs further argue that 1-976 impliedly amends RCW 36.73.040 and 36.73 .065. The Court concludes that 1-976 does not render erroneous a straightforward determination of rights and duties under those statutes either. The effect of 1-976 on those statutes is manifestly straightforward: TBDs are no longer authorized to impose any amount of the $100 vehicle fee authorized by RC 8280.140. 'I?herefore, RC is impliedly. unambiguously no longer effective. Likewise. all subparts of RCW 36.73.065 referencing the fee authorized by RC 82,80,140 are no longer effective. Subpart (6) 36.73065, which does not contain a reference to RCW 82.80.140, applies only to ivehicle fees other than the fee authorized by RC 8.180.140, which no longer exists. That there might not currently exist any other vehicle fee to which Subpart (6) applies does not render erroneous a straightforward determination of rights and duties under that subpart. or these reasons, and based upon the argument and authorities offered by" Defendants in their motion pleadings and at oral argument. the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt. that 1?976 violates Article ll. section 37 of the Washington Constitution. F. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden ol?Establishinn- Bevond a Reasonable Doubt. That 1-976 Violates Article X1. Section 12 ofthe Washington Constitution Article XI, section 12 of the Washington Constitution states: The legislature shall have no power to impose taxes upon counties. cities. towns or other municipal corporations, or upon the inhabitants or property thereof. for county, city. town, or other municipal purposes. but: may. by general laws, vest in the corporate authorities thereof. the power to assess and collect taxes for such purposes. Plaintiffs contend that where the Legislature ?tests? in a local government the authority ORDER on CROSSJVIOTIONS FOR SUMMARY .1 unomam? 26 516 Wort/Ewe SEATTLE WA 93104 (206] 477?1513 U1 16 to impose any tax, and where the local government then exercises its taxing authority by imposing a tax, the constitution does not allow the Legislature to rescind such taxing authority unless and until the purpose for which the local government has exercised its tax authority is ful?lled. The Court disagrees. ln Pierce in 1. the Washington Supreme Court observed that: Article XI- section 12 permits the state to legislate what taxes and fees local governments are authorized to impose: "l?he legislature may, by general laws. vest in the corporate authorities of counties. cities, towns or other municipal corporations]- the power to assess and collect taxes.? Each local government, in its discretion. then decides whether to impose the taxes and fees authorized by the State?s general laws. The legislature or the people legislating by initiative may rescind by general laws the authority previously granted. When that happens, as here, no violation of article XI, section 12 occurs. Pierce Cry. 1, 150 Wn.2d at 440 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court in Pierce Cry. 1 was never presented with laintiffs? arguments interpreting the word ?vest? as a restriction on the l..egislature.7 That might be so. but this Court wi ll not overlook the Supreme Court?s unambiguous declaration that an initiative may rescind by general laws tax authority previously granted, especially where that Court quoted the ?vest" language in Article X1. section 12 before reaching its conclusion. 1-976 reseinds by general laws the Legislature?s vesting of authority in local governments to impose an assortment of motor vehicle taxes and fees. Under Pierce Cg?: I, there is no constitutional violation. Plaintiffs rely heavily upon State v. Reed, 166 Wash. 132, 6 P.2d 619 (1932), but Sid/e v. Redd does not decide whether the legislature may rescind tax authority once vested. Rather. that opinion examines whether the Legislature may vest local tax authority in an entity other Iiirm a local government. fat, 166 Wash. at 139 ("The constitutional provision is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to delegate the right of local taxation to any other than the local authorities of the county. city. town. or other municipal 7 hiten-'enor-Dctendant Pierce County makes a similar argument and contends that this Court should deny Plaintiffs? motion for summaryjudgment as to Article X1. section 12 on the ground that this area oflaw is ?unsettled." Pierce City?s Response to Mot. for Summ. Jnu. (Sub. No. 165). pp. 2-3. That an area oiz?law might be unsettled is not necessarily a basis for denying summary judgment. Nonetheless. the Court denies Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment as to this issue on different grounds. on FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 27 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (205} 477.1513 corporation concerned?). Plaintiffs have. failed to satisfy their burden of establishing- beyond a reasonable doubt, that 1-976 violates Aiticle XI- section 12 of the Washington Constitution. G. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden ol'Estahlishinn. Bcvond a Reasonable Doubt. That 1?976 Violates Article 1. Section oi" the Washinuton L'onstitulion Article I, section 19 of the Washington Constitution provides that Elections shall be free and equal, and no power. civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise ofthe right of suffrage.? Plaintiffs contend that 1-976 violates this section by using a statewide vote to interfere with and attempt to undo the results of two local elections in 2014: Seattle voters? approval of a VLF in Proposition l2 and central Puget Sound?area voters? approval of motor vehicle excise tax in 3T3. Defendants correctly argue. however; that Article 1. section concerns the manner in which elections are held. Nothing in Article 1, section 19 guarantees that a measure receiving local voter approval will remain in effect permanently, or for an length of time at all. As for Plaintiffs" argument that 1-976 ?dilutes" the weight of local votes, it is worth noting that the questions put to voters in those 2014 local elections were not identical to the question put to voters by 1?976. In the local votes, the question was whether local voters consented to a local government entity?s exercise of a statutorily-created taxing power. By contrast, in L976 the question was whether such statutorily-created taxing power should exist in the ?rst place or be repealed. When deciding on l?976. statewide voters did not vote on any local imposition of fees or taxes. nor did they vote to revoke local voters? consent to be taxed. Moreover: it is the Legislature that created the statutory taxing authority to impose VLFs and the MVET in the ?rst place. legislators statewide participated in their enactment. Where the Legislature creates a statutory power to tax. no ?dilution? of local votes occurs where the Legislature (or the people legislating via initiative) rescinds such general laws. Likewise. local ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 28 516 mm Aims WA 98104 [206) .177 .1513 voters? consent to be taxed under a statutolily-created taxing authority cannot strip the Legislature, or the people. oftlteir power to rescind such statutorily-created authority. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing. beyond a reasonable doubt? that 1?976 violates Article section 19 of the Washington Constitution. 11. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden oilistulnlisltine. Hevond a Reasonable Doubtt That 1?976 Violates Article V11. Section 5 ol?" the Washington Constitution Article 11, section 5 of the Washington Constitution states: "No tax shall be levied except in pursuance ot" law; and every iat-v imposing a tax shall state the object of the same to which only it shall be applied." [-976 does not levy or impose any tax. "lo the contrary the Initiative repeals and removes authority to impose certain vehicle taxes. Article VII, section 5 goes further though, rendering unconstitutional actions taken to divert. taxes assessed for a special purpose into some ?whoily unrelated project or fund." Sheehcm v. Cent. Puget Sound Reg"! Yi'cmsirAutht 155 Wn.2d 790, 804. 123 P.3d 88 (2005). l- 976 does not expressly mandate diversion of any tax money. Plaintiffs argue, however, that Section 12 oft?976 would force Sound Transit to divert voter-approved tax revenues away from transit construction projects and toward retiring its bond debt. Plainti 1:1"5? argument is not persuasive. Section 12 is effective only if the Sound 'l'ransit bond contracts include terms that allow for early retirement, defeasance, or re?nancing. 1-976, Section 12(2). it" the contracts so allow, L976 would not mandate diversion of Sound Transit revenues to some ?wholly unrelated project or fund.? S/ieehan, supra. At most, 1-976 could be viewed as mandating that MVET revenues be used to perform enforceable contract terms that are contained in ?nancing instruments for the very same. Sound '1"ransit projects. Such would not violate Article VII. section 5. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing- beyond a reasonable doubt, that L976 violates Article 11. section 5 of the Washington Constitution. ORDER ON CROSS-M OTIONS FOR Kf?f?gm?ftj?ggfg?g?; SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 29 TWHIRDAVENUE SEATFLE WA 981 04 1206147741513 U1 6 10 ll L03 l. Plaintiffs Have Not Satis?ed Their Burden oli?l'istablishing- Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. ?l?hat l-976 Violates Separation?C)li?Powcrs Princip? The state initiative power is coextensive with its legislative power and is limited only by the federal and state constitutions. Copperno/I Reed, 155 Wit2d 290, 299. 119 P.3d 290 175 Wn.2d at 545. As explained above. the power oi?the Legislature, and therefore of the people legislatin by initiative- to rescind taxing authority granted to a local jurisdiction is inherent in Article XI. section 12. Pierre Cain I. 150 Wn.2d at 440. 1?976 is well within the state initiative power and does not interfere with separation?of?powers doctrines. More speci?cally. 1?976 does not violate the separation of powers by addressing administrative matters properly left for the executive branch of government, as Plaintiffs argue. Plaintil?l?s rely upon Rmmo v. 81 Wn.2d 820. 505 P.2d 447 [1973), and City of?l?ort Angeier v. (7m- li'l?ater?Our (f?hoieef. 170 Wn.2d 1, 239 P.3d 589 (2010), to argue that state initiative power cannot intrude on local administrative decisions. But Roam; involved a local initiative. The opinion does not discuss. let alone create, limitations on state initiative power. In any event. L976 does not purport to administer the law. It is a legislative act as de?ned in Rumm. because it enacts ?new law or policy? that changes the taxing authority legislatively granted to certain municipal corporations. Nor does 1-976 improperly delegate legislative power by including effective date contingencies in Section 16. That section clearly addresses what will happen it? a Regional Transit Authority retires. defenses. or re?nances its outstanding bonds by March 31. 2020, and what will happen if it does not. The Washington Supreme Court has routinely upheld legislation that is conditioned on action by third parties, even where that action involves the exercise. of judgment by those third parties. Brewer v. State. 137 Wn.2d 44, 969 P.2d 42 (1998); Diversified [ma ship r. [36,197 Health Semis. 113 Wn.2d 19. 775 P.2d 947 (1989); State 1: Storey, 51 Wash. 63.0. 99 P. 878 (1909). ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 0 516 THIRD AvtNue WA 98104 (206) 477-1513 ix) LJJ LA 20 Section 16 establishes a valid contingency. which is not an improper delegation of legislative authority. It is a "clearly recognized" legislative power of long standing. Brow-er. 137 Wn.2d at 55. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing. beyond a reasonable doubt, that l-976 violates separation?of-powers principles. .1. Pursuant To Defendants; and Intervener-l'Jel'endant Didn?t-?s ?uff) Request. All Parties" Motions For Sununarv Judgment Regarding Article 1. Section 13 of the \K?ashinuton (?onstitutinn and the Ilse of Kellev Blue Book Valuations Are Denied \?t'ilhnut i?l?ciudice Article 1. section 12 of the Washington Constitution states: ?No law shall be passed granting to any citizen. class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations." Section 8 of 1?976 requires the government to use a Kelley Blue Book valuation to determine the taxable value of a vehicle when imposing a vehicle-related tax. See also 1-976 Ballot Title (?This measure would base vehicle taxes on Kelley Blue Book value"). Materials provided to the Court by Plaintiffs establish that the KBB valuation method is a proprietary product owed by a private corporation. Declaration of David .1. Hackett (Sub. No. Exhibit 4. KBB is currently owned by an automotive subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a multi?billion?dollar international conglomerate. 1d,. Ex. 5. Plaintiffs contend that because 1- 976 would require the Washington Department 0 ceasing to use product in computing taxes. the State would be required to enter into a single-source contract with K88 and Cox Enterprises, due to the many thousands of valuations that the Department must make each year. Plaintiffs argue that the granting ofa special contractual privilege to a corporation like Enterprises under such circumstances violates Article 1. section 12. Neither Defendants nor .Intervenor-Defcndant Didicr have provided affidavits diSputing the facts asserted in Plaintiffs? affidavits concerning KBB and its proprietary valuation method. ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3.1 516mm AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 {306) 4?7-1513 Lu L11 6 Both in pleadings and at oral argument on February 2020. Defendants and Intervenor- Defendant Didier argued that; due to both the expedited summary judgment schedule and the parties? agreement that: no discovery would occur during that time, the defense has been unable to obtain affidavits essential to justify their opposition to Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment regarding KBB. Defendants and Didier contend that. in fact it might not be the case that the State would need to enter into a contract with KB B/Cox Enterprises in order to utilize KBB values. if such could be shown, then there would exist a genuine issue as to a material fact regarding l?laintiffs? claim under Article 1. section 12 of the Washington Constitutimt precluding summary judgment for Plaintiffs. Defendants and intervenor- Defendant Didier request leave of court to conduct discovery regarding this issue. Court rules provide a remedy. Under Civil Rule 56(1), ?[s]hould it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that for reasons stated, the party cannot present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party?s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit af?davits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.? CR 56(1). Here. for good reason shown, it appears the Defendants and lntewenor?Defendant Didier cannot present by af?davit facts essential to justify their opposition. Accordingly, this Court denies all parties? motions for summary judgment as to the Article 1., section issue. The denial is without prejudice to any party renewing the motion in the future after pertinent discovery is accomplished. Leave of court to conduct discovery as to this issue is granted. K. Pursuant To lntervenor-Defendam Didier?s 5am Reuuest. All Parties? Motions ,l-"or Judgment Regarding Article Section 23 of the Washington Constitution and the Burien [Solids Are Denied Without I?reiudiee Article 1. section 23 of the Washington Constitution provides that the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.? The test for ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JU DGM em 32 51.5 mm.) SEATTLE WA 98104 [206) 477-1513 'J?l 6 contractual impairment is well established: does a contractual relationship exist, (2) does the legislation substantially impair the contractual relationship, and (3) if there is a substantial impairment- is it reasonz-tble and necessary to serve a legitimate public purpose.? Pierce ("13:1 11, 159 Wn.2d at 28. Plaintiffs generally contend that substantially impairs the contractual relationship between the City ofBurien and its bondholders. With respect to municipal bond contracts, a law substantially .impairs the contract if it "detrimentally affects the ?nancial :liramcwork which induced the bondholders originally to purchase the bonds, without providing alternative or additional security." r. Danie/s. 124 Wn.2d 146, 153-54, 874 P.2d 1374 (1994). Plaintiffs assert that Burien?s TBD vehicle license fee was part of the ?nancial framework that induced bondholders to originally purchase the bonds. In brie?ng and at oral argument. lntervenor?Defendant Didier contends that, due to both the expedited summary judgment schedule and the parties? agreement that no discovery would occur during that time, he has been unable to obtain at?l'idavits essential to justify his opposition to Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment regarding the Burien bonds. lnteryen(Jr-Defendant Didier contends that. in fact. it might not be the case that 'Burien?s bondholders relied upon the existence of Burieu?s TBD vehicle fee in deciding whether to purchase the bonds. If such couid be shown, then there would exist a genuine issue. as to a material fact regarding Plaintifts? claim under Article 1. section 23 of the Washington Constitution. precluding summary judgment for Plaintiffs. Mr. Didier requests leave of court to conduct discovery regarding this issue. Here, for good reason shown, lntervenornDefendant Didier cannot present by af?davit facts essential to justify his opposition. Accordingly, pursuant to lnteryerror-Defendant"s CR 56d) request, this Court denies all parties? motions for summary judgment as to this Article 1, section 23/Burien bond issue. The denial is without prejudice. to any party renewing the motion ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 33 gammy/ms SEATTLE WA 98104 [206) 4177-21513 in the future after pertinent discovery is accomplished. Leave of court to conduct discovery as to this issue is granted. ORDER For the reasons enumerated above, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs? and lntc?rvenor?Plaintiffs? motions for summary judgment are in their entirety, provided that such denial is without prejudice to Plaintiffs and lntervenor-Plaintiffs renewing their motions for summary judgment solely as to their claims under Article 1, section 12 and Article 1, section 23 of the Washington Constitution (regarding KBB and the Burien bonds, respectively). It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant State of Washington?s and Intervenor?Defendant Pierce Joint Motion For Summary Judgment is GRAN TED IN and DENIED IN PART. Such denial is solely as to their request for summary dismissal of Plaintiffs? and linteryenor?Plaintiffs" claims under Article 1, section 12 and Article 1, section 23 of the Washington Constitution regarding KBB and the Burien bonds. Such denial is without prejudice to Defendants renewing their motion for summary judgment as to those claims. It is lilrther ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that lntei'yenor-Defendant Clint Didier?s Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ML Didier?s motion is granted only to the same extent as Defendants? motion. Mr. Didier?s motion is denied both as to his request for summary dismissal of Plaintiffs? and Intervenor-Plaintiffs? claims under Article 1, section 12 and Article 1, section 23 of the Washington Constitution regarding KBB and the Burien bonds, and as to his request that the preliminary injunction entered by this Court on November 27. 2019 be vacated. Since this Order does not dispose of all of Plaintiffs" claims ORDER ON cnoss?Mtrrious FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 34- AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 (205) 477-1513 In.) that l-976 violates the Washington Constitution, the preliminary injunction shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the of Plaintiffs? and Intervenor?Plainti?? claims against Defendants and Intervener-Defendants in the above- eaptioned lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice: Violation of Article .11, section 19 of the Washington Constitution (single-subject rule: 2. Violation of Article 11, section 19 of the Washington Constitution (:subject?inwtitle rule); 3. Violation of Article II. section 37 of the Washington Constitution; 4. Violation of Article XI, section 12. of the Washington Constitution; 5. Violation of Article 1, section. 19 of the Washington Constitution; 6. Violation of Article VII, section, 5 of the Washington Constitution; and 7. Violation of separation?of-powers principles. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, pursuant to the CR 56G) requests by Didier and Defendant. State of Washington, discovery relating to Plaintiffs? and Intervenor?Plaintiffs? claims under Article I, section 12 and Article I, section 23 of the Washington Constitution regarding KBB and the Burien bonds is authorized. The parties shall confer with each other and the Court regarding case schedule deadlines for discovery and, if necessaryi additional dispositive motions. DATED this 12th day of February, 2020. item JUDGE ORDER ON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 35 515 THIRD AVENUE .SEAWLE WA 98104 (205} 477-1513 The Honorable Marshall Ferguson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION KING CITY OF WASHINGTON STATE TRANSIT ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON PORT OF INTERCITY AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF MICHAEL CITY OF and MICHAEL Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON TRANSIT RIDERS and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, Intervcnor-Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, and CLINT PERMANENT TIMOTHY D. MICHAEL JACK and PIERCE COUNTY, lntervenor-Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I ?t NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 516 THIRD AVENUE . 3 I SEATTLE WA 98104 . H: I (205)477?1513 .5. .. K13 THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Plaintiffs? Motion For Reconsideration, and the Court, having considered the Motion For Reconsideration, Defendant State of Washington And Intervenor-Defendant Pierce County?s Response To Plaintiffs? Motion For Reconsideration, Intervenor?Defendant Clint Didier?s Response To Plaintiffs? Motion For Reconsideration, Plaintiffs? Reply, and the Court file; and the Court being fully advised as to premises therefor, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs? Motion For Reconsideration VLLH Exit/F JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON is DENIED. DATED this 12th day of March, 2020. ORDER DENYING JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 515 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 {205]471-1513 The Honorable Marshall Ferguson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION KING CITY OF WASHINGTON STATE TRANSIT ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON PORT OF INTERCITY AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF MICHAEL CITY OF and MICHAEL CAMARATA, Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON TRANSIT RIDERS and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, Intewenor-Plainliffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, and CLINT PERMANENT TIMOTHY D. MICHAEL JACK and PIERCE COUNTY, Intervenor- Defendants. ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 12 ISSUES JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RECONSIDERATION REGARDING (x I a . 515 THIRDWENUE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 12 ISSUES - h] SEATTLE wnaama {206} 4711513 THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Defendant State of Washington And Intervenor-Defendant Pierce County?s Joint Motion For Reconsideration Of Ruling Addressing Washington Constitution, Article 1, Section 12 (?Joint Motion For Reconsideration?), and also on Intervenor-Defendant Clint Didier?s Motion For Reconsideration, and the Court, having considered the Joint Motion For Reconsideration, Plaintiffs? Response to the Joint Motion For Reconsideration, State/Pierce County?s Reply, Mr. Didier?s Motion For Reconsideration, the supporting Declarations of Clint Didier and Tim Eyman with exhibits thereto, Plaintiffs? Opposition to Mr. Didier?s Motion For Reconsideration, Mr. Didier?s Reply, and the Court ?le; and the Court being fully advised as to premises therefor, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that State/Pierce County?s Joint Motion For Reconsideration and Intervenor-Defendant Didier?s Motion For Reconsideration are both GRANTED IN PART, in that Section V., Subsection .1 of the Court?s February 12, 2020 Order On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment (?Order On Cross-Motions?) containing the Court?s ruling as to Anicle 1, section 12 of the Washington Constitution is hereby VACATED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs? Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART, in that Sections 8 and 9 of Initiative Measure No. 926 976") are unconstitutional on the ground that they violate Article 1. section 12 of the Washington Constitution. It is further ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AND DECREED that Sections 8 and 9 of 1-976 are severable and are hereby severed from the initiative as enacted. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Order Granting Plaintiffs? Motion For Preliminary Injunction entered by this Court on November 27, 2019 (Sub. No. 63; the ?Preliminary Injunction?) is hereby VACATED AND MODIFIED IN PART as follows. As to all parties other than plaintiff City of Burien, and as to all other persons and political subdivisions of ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON KING coumrr SUPERIOR COURT RECONSIDERATION REGARDING 516 THIRD AVENUE ARTICLE I, SECTION 12 ISSUES - 2 WA 93104 [205}427-1513 state and local government, the Preliminary Injunction is vacated. The injunction against implementation of is lifted, except as to the severed Sections 8 and 9, which shall not be implemented because they are unconstitutional. The vacation of the order and the lifting of the injunction are suspended, however, as explained further below. The Preliminary Injunction is not vacated, in any respect, as against plaintiff City of Burien. Implementation of 1-976 shall remain enjoined in its entirety as against plaintiff City of Burien until further order of this Court. Plaintiff City of Burien has demonstrated that it possesses a clear legal and equitable right because it is likely to prevail on the merits of its constitutional challenge to I-976 based upon Article 1, Section 23 of the Washington Constitution. Neither Defendant nor the intervenor-defendants were able to produce any af?davits opposing the City of Burien?s motion for summaryjudgment regarding Article I, section 23. Indeed, the only reason this Court did not enter summary judgment in favor of the City of Burien is that the defendants requested a continuance for discovery on the issue under CR 560?). The City of Burien has a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of the rights afforded by the Washington Constitution due to implementation of 1-976. If Section 6 of [-976 were to be implemented, it would extinguish Burien?s Transportation Benefit District authority to assess and vehicle license fees pledged to repay bond debt, thus impairing the bond contracts used to finance Burien? 5 street improvements. Such impairment would result in actual and substantial injury to plaintiff City of Burien. In balancing the equities, interests, and the relative harms to the parties and the public, the Court concludes that the harms to the City of Burien resulting from the implementation of 1-976 outweigh the harms faced by Defendant State of Washington, the Intervenor-Defendants, and the public if implementation of 1-976 is stayed as against plaintiff City of Burien. If! If! ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON RECONSIDERATION REGARDING aggregates?? ARTICLE I, SECTION l2 ISSUES - 3 SEATTLE WA93104 {206} 4??-1513 Plaintiffs contend on reconsideration that they are still entitled to a preliminary injunction and they request that the Court either maintain the preliminary injunction to preserve the status que or issue a stay to allow plaintiffs to obtain an appellate injunction. Sub. No. 212, pp. 12?13. Plaintiffs? request, made in a responsive memorandum, is not properly before the Court. Pursuant to RC 7.40.210, the Court possesses discretion to allow a motion to reinstate an injunction and to set a time for hearing the motion. In order to provide a hearing for Plaintiffs? above-referenced requests. the Court grants to Plaintiffs leave to bring a reinstatement motion, which may be noted for a hearing before the undersigned Judge to occur on Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:30 pm. Until then, the parts of this Order vacating and modifying the Preliminary Injunction are suspended. RCW 7.40.210 (?Until the hearing of the motion to reinstate the order of injunction, the order to dissolve or modify it, shall be suspended?). Nothing in this Order prohibits Plaintiffs from petitioning an appellate court for injunctive relief. 15/ DATED this 12th day of March. 2020. JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON RECONSIDERATION REGARDING ??16 ARTICLE 1. SECTION 12 ISSUES - 4 {20614711513