Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Judge Rules that Tunnel Referendum Should Go On Ballot

King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh just ruled that a referendum on a single portion of city legislation adopting three agreements on the deep-bore tunnel can go on the August ballot. Last Friday, Middaugh ruled that the majority of the legislation adopting the agreements was administrative, not legislative, and thus not subject to the referendum process.

Acknowledging that the issue before the voters is limited to whether the city council has the right to accept the agreements by notice, and that it “does not resolve the issue of whether or not there is going to be a bored tunnel,” Middaugh said that nonetheless, “The overriding goal is to make sure that the voices of the people are heard when a policy decision is made.”

“The people of the city of Seattle have the right to be involved in that process.”

However, Middaugh said, “No matter what happens today, this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not.”

The section of the ordinance Middaugh said can go on the ballot, known as Section 6, delegates authority to the city council to issue a notice to proceed on the tunnel after the final environmental impact statement is adopted.

Tunnel opponents characterized the ruling as a victory for proponents of a vote on the tunnel itself. “What’s most important is that the people be heard, and that’s what [Middaugh] said today,” said Drew Paxton, spokesman for Protect Seattle Now. “This is about whether the people of Seattle support the tunnel.”

Tunnel proponents, in contrast, argued that any vote would be on a minor process issue, not on the tunnel itself.

Paul Lawrence, one of the attorneys for Let’s Move Forward, the pro-tunnel group, said “no decision has been made” about whether to file an appeal. Assuming an appeals court doesn’t immediately issue a stay, keeping the measure off the ballot, the city council will have to put it on the ballot Monday.

Assuming that happens, the pro-tunnel camp has until about the end of June to file an appeal—the time when the ballots are printed. A successful appeal would remove the measure from the ballot.

The city council could still potentially put a competing measure on the ballot alongside the referendum on Section 6, including the surface/transit option—which, like the tunnel, does not enjoy majority support in the city, according to numerous polls.


  • http://twitter.com/michaelp_206 Michaelp

    “It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not.”

    Seattle Process at its best!

  • http://www.facebook.com/alexjon Alex-jon Earl

    Huzzah! Let’s do it, Seattle!

  • Peter

    “The people of the City of Seattle have a right to be involved.” 

  • Geologic

    I blame Steve Scher. But it’s a damn fine day for Seattle. Go democracy!

  • Morganb

     a win for the people!

  • http://www.facebook.com/alexjon Alex-jon Earl

    Bad day to be a deep bore tunnel project, they’re unaccustomed to the kind of sunshine and transparency you see with a campaign like this. They usually do just fine when they’re just being concocted in downtown restaurants and pushed with as little public involvement as possible.

    They really don’t like those meddling voters at all.

  • Anonymous

    “The Seattle process” is the bogeyman used to frighten people against challenging decisions by the political elite. 

  • Anonymous

     This is a good day for Seattle and for democracy.

  • Jakers

     …..”about how you make that decision”….”not…whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not.”

  • http://twitter.com/michaelp_206 Michaelp

    FWIW, I’m not commenting on the merits or anything else.  I just think that sentence she said is effing hilarious.

  • Paul Murphy

    This referendum process is something you guys should be incredibly proud of - in Ireland our government issues shady contracts without asking any opinions. If you don’t give them the answer they want, theyll issue another referendum (see Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty).

    I think this referendum deserves a flat out no anyway considering the 4th paragraph on making a decision on how you’re going to make a decision. Don’t let your democratically elected politicians abuse trust and play games with you like this

  • Paul Murphy

    This referendum process is something you guys should be incredibly proud of - in Ireland our government issues shady contracts without asking any opinions. If you don’t give them the answer they want, theyll issue another referendum (see Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty).

    I think this referendum deserves a flat out no anyway considering the 4th paragraph on making a decision on how you’re going to make a decision. Don’t let your democratically elected politicians abuse trust and play games with you like this

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    What will the state do about their highway now?

  • ivan

    The “political elite” in this case were all elected. They did not come to their positions through inheritance. The “Seattle process” in this case is (IMO) the misuse of the initiative and referendum process by trying to substitute it for representative government.

    It’s OK to be opposed to the tunnel. It’s OK to organize opposition to it. It is NOT OK to attack representative government by calling it “political elitism” every time elected officials do something you don’t like.Vote them out in the next election if they have offended you so.

    But it won’t happen, of course. Not one single legislator who voted for the stadium packages was unseated as a result of that vote, and not one single pro-tunnel City Council member will be unseated either.

  • Scatinitiative

     SEATTLE CITIZENS AGAINST THE TUNNEL
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
          While it may not be a popular position, Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel takes the following position post today’s ruling: We are not convinced that only one section of the Ordinance was administrative, and, even if that were true, to gut the Referendum 1 this way flies in the face of the “contract” that signers of the petition entered into. 
          Some 30,000 people signed the referendum based on one or more parts of the petition, in whole or in part, we cannot know.  In the end however by signing the petition they demonstrated that they agreed with or supported the referendum as a complete package.  Where the referendum limited to “Section 6”, would they have been interested in signing it even?  And therein lays the problem with attempting to second guess, play the Monday morning quarterback as what is happening in this matter.
          To come back now and essentially declare that everyone that signed the petition only did so in support of Section 6 is wrong.  It essentially nullifies the signatures of who knows how many of the thousands of people that signed; it is an affront to the referendum process.  Either the whole referendum should be referred for a vote, or the whole referendum should be held back.  If a portion of it is unconstitutional, the State’s higher courts would have sorted that out after the vote.  That is how it should have been.  That is what would ensure the integrity of the referendum process and the public’s confidence in direct democracy.
         This is the problem with seeking to pre-empt the referendum.  It’s great for a special interest to act out and play the spoiler, as the City Attorney and Richard Conlin did, as WSDOT has, but democracy and citizens’ confidence in government is murdered with this kind of activity. 
         Successively it has happened in the bored tunnel matter (the 2007 vote that was tampered with (by the City Council and Mayor), and in other similar situations (the stadium vote), the people’s right to vote is nullified or abridged in some way. 
         Here we go again.  What many of SCAT members signed, Referendum 1, is not what is going on the ballot (yes, if it goes).  How is this sort of thing any better than a bait-and-switch con job really?  In many ways it isn’t. 
         Time will tell, hopefully the more august and learned appellate court or and supreme court of Washington will sort this out – both in terms of the competing “it’s administrative”/”it’s political” claims, and in terms of the legality of judicially, cherry picking apart qualified, valid referendums that are ready to be voted on.     
     

  • Guest

     Do what?

  • Guest

     A win for the people because they get to decide whether the council has to make this decision by ordinance instead of resolution?  How is that a win for the people? 

  • Godwin

    “this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a
    tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about
    whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not”

    YES! A solid victory. A referendum on process minutiae. This is what everyone fought so hard to see.

  • Anonymous

    Political elites, not “political elitism”. And they are political elites, albeit democratically elected ones, you correctly point out. 

    The distinction between the (elected) political elite and the common voter is not of my creation, rather the right to referendum itself enshrines this distinction. The referendum process is designed with the intent that members of the public should be able to challenge individual decisions and (if a majority of the public agrees) overturn those decisions.  Thus challenging the tunnel is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the referendum process was created for. You of course have the right to disagree with the referendum, and will be able to indicate your displeasure on your ballot.

  • Anonymous

    Political elites, not “political elitism”. And they are political elites, albeit democratically elected ones, you correctly point out. 

    The distinction between the (elected) political elite and the common voter is not of my creation, rather the right to referendum itself enshrines this distinction. The referendum process is designed with the intent that members of the public should be able to challenge individual decisions and (if a majority of the public agrees) overturn those decisions.  Thus challenging the tunnel is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the referendum process was created for. You of course have the right to disagree with the referendum, and will be able to indicate your displeasure on your ballot.

  • ivan

    You are mistaken. This referendum will not be legally binding on WSDOT. It is a futile charade.

  • Anonymous

    She was describing her role as a judge, which is to make decisions on what is allowed an not allowed in the democractic process. And yes, this was fought hard, but only because the city attorney and the state fought hard to stop it. They could have just as easily shrugged their collective shoulders and allowed it onto the ballot. 

  • sarah

    It is the clearest way to express it.   

  • Anonymous

    This is a different argument than the one you made above. As to its legality, of course this isn’t legally binding on WSDOT, I don’t think anyone has been arguing it will be. As to being a “futile charade”, (not being a lawyer) it’s not clear to me what exactly the legal ramifications will be for the city but it does seem that the city council agrees that it will have political implications. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have fought so hard to prevent the vote.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    Futile charade?
    I was going with “Hollow victory”, I suppose it is both a futile charade punctuated by this hollow victory.
    Yes, that it.

  • sarah

    Ms. Campbell, neither  the august and learned Appellate Court nor the even more august and learned Washington State Supreme Court will be interested in hearing a challenge to Judge Middaugh’s very narrow procedural ruling.     

  • Mongoose

    I love the idea of the city council putting the surface option on the ballot!  This could turn out to be very funny.

  • Comment

    Nothing. 

  • Mongoose

    This is a great day for Tim Eyman!

  • pro-people

    The Discovery Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Seattle Association are not elected. 

  • pro-people

    The Discovery Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Seattle Association are not elected. 

  • pro-people

    The Discovery Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Seattle Association are not elected. 

  • Mongoose

    Clearly, you don’t have a clue what people mean by the term “Seattle Process”.

  • Comment

    They’ll probably capitulate to any demand we can dream up. 

  • Anonymous

    What do they mean then? 

  • don’t quibble

    yes just like eyman’s illegal two subject init. striking down car tab taxes.  that was illegal, so it was totally ineffective, that’s why we have those 500 car tab taxes today.   

  • Jakers

    And what about SCAT, The People’s Waterfront Coalition, Protect Seattle Now, Cascade Bicycle Club?

  • snore….snore….snore….

    i think to answer that question, first we should solicit input on what values we’d like to see reflected in our answer.  we should be careful to include values that are traditionally underrepresented.  then our govt. will hire a 200 K conultant to hold a big series of meeting where they let us speak at microphones and put big smiley faces on things we like.  we’ll only be allowed to put MORE smiley faces on things we like MORE, we won’t be allowed to put mr. yuk faces on things we “don’t like” as that’s deemed less “productive in reaching consensus.”  then we’ll hve more input follwoed by a committee recoemmendation.  then the council will what they want anyway, knowing that being at large no one can chalelnge them who not in line iwth the liberal branch of the DSA …you know, pro gay rights, pro mild environmentalism but basically pro corporate status quo, also huge highways.   then when someone tries to initiatie it, they’ll have the city attorney sue to stop it.  then…..

  • J McCarthy

    yes, also tar brushes!   

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    That would be a first.

  • Mr. X

    And for an elevated replacement for the AWV.

  • Nemo

    And neither is the head of the King County Labor Council. That “election” is not open to everyone. 

  • Nemo

    They are the opposition. But not everyone belongs to them all.  You expected yes-men votes? Sorry to burst the bubble.

  • Nemo

    It would be a second. The State did not have a preference, until the “stakeholders” made theirs.  Then they capitulated on the rest of the original package out of “frustration,” slapped on tolls, and gave some of the money to keep the 2 contractors interested, and some to the 520.

    They are not frustrated enough to do the right thing, yet.

  • Nemo

    Or very surprising. 

  • DA

     I don’t like that this judge has a cute little pink individual water dispenser (probably Sanrio or Hello Kitty brand).  Judge’s sit on high and wear robes because they’re supposed to be respected.  There’s a pomp that’s deliberate.  And if you want to be a judge, you have to buy into that.  Play the part.

  • Jakers

    @nemo, “But not everyone belongs to them all.” Does everyone belong to The Discovery Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Seattle Association? Nope. Point is, there are lots of unelected political elites from various private organizations representing a wide-range of interests.

  • Shaggy

     The judge is the wife of Adam Kline. 

  • Chill Pill

    Amen.