FILED

-

019

\/^HING I

^STATE

SrtPREMEY^IRT

THE SUPREME

OURT OF

ASHINGTON

GARPIELD

COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY,

KING

COUNTY,

ITY

OF

SEATTLE,

WASHINGTON

TATE

TRANSIT

ASSOCIATION,

ASSOCIATION

OF

WASHINGTON

ITIES,

PORT

OF

SEATTLE,

INTERCITY TRANSIT,

AMALGAMATED

TRANSIT

UNION

EGISLATIVE

COUNCIL

OF

WASHINGTON

nd

MICHAEL ROGERS,

Respondents,

V.

STATE

OF WASHINGTON,

Petitioner.

ORDER

ON EMERGEN Y

MOTION

FOR

TAY

No.

7914-6

King County

No.

I9-2-30I7I-6

SEA

The

Court

eceived

Petitioner s

EMERGENCY

MOTION OR STAY

PENDING

REVIEW

n December

2, 019.

On

ecember

3,

019,

RESPONDENTS'

MOTION FOR

LEAVE

TO

ILE

OVER-LENGTH

RESPONSE

TO

MOTION

nd

proposed

 RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS'

RESPONSE

TO

TATE'S

EMERGENCY

MOTION OR

STAY

PENDING

REVIEW

ere

both

received.

On

ecember

4, 019,

he

REPLY

IN

SUPPORT

OF

MERGENCY

MOTION OR STAY

PENDING REVIEW

as

eceived.

The

Court

has reviewed

he

pleadings

filed

in

this

matter

and

determined

that

the

following

order

be

entered:

Now,

herefore

t

is

hereby

 

Page

97914 6Order

ORDERED:

The

Court unanimously

grants the

motion

or

leave

to

file

over-length response.

The

Court

by

ajority

denies the

emergency

motion

or stay

pending

eview.

DATED

t

Olympia, Washington

his

day

of ecember,

019.

For

he

Court

 ^CUa

CHIEF JUSTICE

 

Garfield

County

Transportation

Authority,

et

l v

State

of

ashington,

97914-6

 Dissent

o

Order)

We

espectfully dissent.

The

King

County

Superior

Court

ntered

a

preliminary

injunction

barring

the

implementation

of

oter-approved

Initiative

976

1-976)

on

December

5,2019,

hile

litigation

challenging

the

initiative s

constitutionality

is

ongoing.

The

State

seeks

a

stay

of

his

injunction

under

R P

.1(b)(3).

We

elieve

a

stay

is

justified

because

the

State

has demonstrated

hat

the

issues

presented

are

debatable

and

hat

the

harms

it

will suffer

absent

a

stay

outweigh

the

financial

injuries

1-976 s challengers

will

face

with

a

tay.

First,

there

can

be

little

doubt

that

the

issues

involved

in

this

challenge

are

debatable.

Delaying

the

effective

date

of

a law

enacted

by

initiative

is

an

extraordinary

measure

and

it

is

debatable

whether

the

challengers

have

shown

a

likelihood

of

uccess

on

heir

constitutional

challenges to

the

initiative.

Granting

a

stay

does not

require

reaching the

merits

of

the

case,

only concluding

that

the

case—in

particular,

the

issuance

of

he

preliminary injunction—^presents debatable

issu s