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