Sierra Club loses first case linked to Prop. 1

The Sierra Club is in favor of mass transit, but definitely not roads, cars and carbon monoxide.

So when it comes to Proposition 1, a $47 billion combined regional transit measure heading to the Nov. 6 ballot, the environmental group is in a tough spot. It wants to support the Sound Transit/light rail portion of the ballot issue, but not the Regional Transportation Improvement District part, which seeks more money to expand and repair roads and highways.

Since a split vote is not possible -- pairing the items was mandated by the Legislature -- the Sierra Club is reluctantly urging a "no" vote on both.

"We've tried to get the two issues separated," said Mike O'Brien, the local Sierra Club chairman. "When we heard about the shotgun wedding the Legislature created, we knew there was going to be a problem."

Roger Townsend, a Sierra Club lawyer, said the group "would love to see this decoupled."

"We'd tell all our members to vote yes for Sound Transit and no for RTID," Townsend said.

"But the governor and the Legislature said all or nothing; if they don't both pass, they're both dead ... it's a bind we're in."

A hearing Friday in King County Superior Court was the opening salvo in a battle nobody really wants. Judge Richard Eadie ruled against the Sierra Club on a technicality regarding voters guide language.

So the group plans to return to court Sept. 12, hoping to unlink the two issues by challenging the legality of Proposition 1 under laws requiring single-ballot measures.

The Sierra Club, the main force behind the NoRTID campaign, asked the court Friday to decide whether the "con" statement in the King County voter's pamphlet is legal. The group says it omits an environmental point of view on the RTID portion of the ballot measure, falling short of fully informing voters.

Townsend said the "con" statement, written by citizen activist Will Knedlick, Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman and Phil Talmadge, a former state lawmaker and state Supreme Court justice, is primarily an anti-light rail and anti-tax stance, failing to adequately address the issue of more roads and highways.

"We are working to ensure the voter's guide will fairly represent RTID's opponents," said Kathleen Ridihalgh, a spokeswoman for the NoRTID campaign. The voters guide deadline is Sept. 17.

"As it stands, the opposition statement against Proposition 1 only expresses opposition to light rail," she said.

Geoff Patrick, a spokesman for Sound Transit, said the "con" committee was appointed by the Sound Transit Board of Directors from among those who attended meetings, volunteered and "who the board knew would be opposed."

Patrick would not speculate on the effect the Sierra Club's opposition may or may not have on the ballot issue.

He added that the Legislature sought a single roads-and-transit package to make it less confusing to voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, since the RTID and Sound Transit districts do not match completely. The area covered by RTID, for example, extends to Arlington while the Sound Transit area extends to Everett.

"It was going to be two different votes, but there was concern that it was confusing," Patrick said.

"The Legislature changed the approach; it's a single ballot measure. ... We're just focusing on election mode."

Townsend said the measure remains problematic.

"The environmental wisdom is that if you make more roads, you get more traffic, urban sprawl, and greenhouse gases; it's not a sustainable solution," Townsend said.

"The 'con' statement needs to truly represent the cons of building more roads, instead of just saying there's not enough money," Townsend said.

Eadie ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding Sound Transit's argument that because the Legislature created a joint measure, a single "con" argument suffices for both parts of the ballot.

Judge John Erlick is scheduled to hear the case Sept. 12 in King County Superior Court.