Is Sound Transit the agency that never was?

By Eric Pryne
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

But does Sound Transit really exist?

No, according to lawyers for Tim Eyman's Permanent Offense organization and several other Sound Transit opponents. The argument is a big part of their legal case to force the agency to stop levying the motor-vehicle excise tax it has collected since 1996.

Here's the short version:

State voters approved Eyman's Initiative 776, which among other things repealed the excise tax, in 2002. The state Supreme Court upheld the initiative a year ago. Sound Transit says it must continue to collect the tax, however, because it signed a contract in 1999 promising lenders it would. Constitutionally, new laws — including those passed by voter initiative — can't impair contracts.

There are no contracts to impair, Permanent Offense contends, because Sound Transit couldn't legally sign them, since the agency never was formed in the manner state law prescribed.

In 1992 the Legislature authorized officials of King, Snohomish and Pierce counties to establish the three-county authority that became Sound Transit. The law also said voters would have to ratify the agency's creation later, at the same time they were asked to approve whatever projects and taxes it proposed.

Voters approved the taxes and projects four years later, but they weren't asked to ratify Sound Transit's formation. That means Sound Transit doesn't exist as a legal entity, according to Permanent Offense attorneys James Klauser and Robert Rowley.

The Legislature passed an amendment in 1993 that removed the voter-ratification requirement. But Klauser and Rowley argue in court papers that, because the amendment was included in a transportation appropriations bill, it's unconstitutional: It violates a requirement that all laws be limited to a single subject.

There's some irony here. The state Supreme Court struck down two earlier Eyman initiatives because they violated the "single-subject" rule.

In court papers, lawyers for Sound Transit and the state offer several arguments to rebut Permanent Offense. Among them:
 
• The 1993 amendment was constitutional because it and the rest of the bill to which it was attached relate to transportation.

• Even if the 1993 amendment was unconstitutional, the Legislature passed a stand-alone bill in 1994 that also removed the voter-ratification requirement.

• The legal existence of a municipal corporation like Sound Transit can be challenged only in a special court proceeding, not as part of some other litigation.

• Under common law, it's too late to raise the issue now.

A court ruling that Sound Transit doesn't exist could affect much more than the agency's motor-vehicle excise tax. Just what would happen?

One possibility is to have a vote finally, Klauser said, but "the remedy is for the court to fashion."

Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231