A lawsuit was sought to not allow this measure to be voted on by city residents. The Superior Court judge agreed to hear this case on May 13 so that if it was allowed it would still make it to the August ballot. Those who petitioned for this measure stated that they felt that none of the arguments presented so far are sufficient enough to get this issue removed from the ballot.
The judge ruled that the measure will be allowed to appear on the ballot, though it is yet unclear what will be asked. Another court hearing was set to happen in the following weeks after the initial date and proponents hoped clarification will be given by the judge. Those opposed stated that they would continue to fight to keep this measure off the ballot at the second court date, though they did not succeed. The judge asked for legal briefs on the proposed measure so that a decision could be made about what would be presented on the ballot.
Though the measure was approved to be on the ballot, the judge stated that the actual vote would not stop the state's project to replace the tunnel which was approved in a vote. The portion of the council ordinance which requires notification of the state's policy decision was up for a referendum vote, a narrow view.
Those opposed to the tunnel want the vote to be more broad, allowing for the project to be halted if there is a vote against it. But those in favor of the tunnel agree that the narrow view is all that petitioners sought so the ruling should stand. The State Department of Transportation stated that it would not seek an appeal to the court to stop this referendum vote. June 17 was when pro and con arguments against the wording of the Official Voter's Guide were heard in court.
What's on my ballot? Elections in How to vote How to run for office Ballot measures. Who represents me? President U. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. A: Many tunnel opponents hope the voting result persuades state lawmakers to change the funding laws to support a mix of transit with improvements to local streets and Interstate 5.
Not likely, says state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle. For just the 1. Current state law says the Highway 99 project, to replace the old Alaskan Way Viaduct, must include a tunnel.
Opponents say lawmakers have the power to change state-funding methods so a greater share goes toward transit. Esther Handy, Protect Seattle Now campaign manager, criticized the ongoing cost of the tunnel, and potential new highway taxes, while the state slashes health care, early childhood education and social services.
The state has prepared for years to build a big Sodo interchange, even before a tunnel was chosen in January That project would include truck lanes to get freight to Terminal 46, and can link to a tunnel, surface or elevated route. If the People try to have government solve all their problems, government will create more problems than the People can stand. Freedom is not given, it's taken. Post a Comment. Download a copy of our state constitution. Government panacea is a defective idea -- why should government run your life?
Article 1, Section 1, Washington State Constitution. Seattle's Referendum 1 is the people's referendum on whether to build a toll tunnel under Seattle to replace the waterfront viaduct. If this projection is as reliable as most government projections, the actual price tag will be much higher. Although everyone in the state will be paying for the tunnel, only Seattle will vote on it.
A limited voice is better than no vote at all, except Even if the voters reject the tunnel by voting no on Referendum 1, it looks like the politicians are going to ignore the people's vote -- claiming voters just didn't understand -- and build the tunnel anyway.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why do Washington State voters keep sending authoritarian politicians to Olympia to sneer at us and waste our state's resources?
As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Does the vote on Referendum 1 really matter? Technically, the vote is immaterial, but it has political ramifications. A loss on Referendum 1 that is that the City Council needs to pass a new ordinance to proceed with the WSDOT agreements will undoubtedly embolden opponents of the project and make the political dialogue much more difficult.
A loss on Referendum 1 will also postpone the project at the very time the nation is trying to put people back to work on infrastructure projects.
0コメント