Judge denies motion to force ‘Good Jobs’ proposition onto November ballot
by Jack Mayne
King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas has denied request by the SeaTac Committee for Good Jobs that 248 additional signatures should be ordered checked for accuracy so that the proposition to increase the minimum wage for selected transportation and restaurant industry can be placed on the November general election ballot.
The judge did rule that the SeaTac could send the added signatures to King County Elections for review and certification.
The Committee for Good Jobs said in a statement that, “It is now up to the SeaTac City Clerk to decide.”
It appears that without further action by the city and county elections department, or more court action, the measure will not be on the November election ballot.
Judge Darvas said the reason for the denial was that the City of SeaTac’s was correct in maintaining the motion “is not properly before the court” and nothing in the city’s statutes that requires review of
She also said the proponents of so-called Proposition 1 were incorrect in their contention that a judge must correct an order because she found there was no such error.
Judge Darvas wrote that nothing in the city’s municipal code requires a period of review after new signatures are submitted and approved by the Petition Review Board, which had occurred.
“Absent a clear statutory directive to the contrary, this court is loath to countermand the city’s interpretation of its own Municipal Code.”
She ruled that the state law “specifically requires that any request for judicial relief must be accompanied by an affidavit of an elector” which the proponents of the initiative failed to provide.
Finally, Judge Darvas said proponents or the initiative did suggest it was “prepared to submit additional signatures to the city” if the court found in favor of the lawsuits original plaintiffs, Filo Foods, BF Foods, Alaska Airlines and the Washington Restaurant Association.
“However, the Intervener (the SeaTac Committee for Good Jobs) for did not bring any specific motion before the court concerning whether additional signatures could be submitted following issuance of the writs,” Judge Darvas wrote. “The City of SeaTac had no opportunity at that time to respond regarding this issue, and the court did not feel it was appropriate to make an affirmative ruling on a matter for which there was no specific motion requesting relief before the court.”