State Supreme Court upholds billions of dollars in transit funding

SEATTLE — The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld vehicle registration tax increases in the Puget Sound area, a decision that preserves billions of dollars in voter-approved money earmarked for light trail and other projects.

Seven people had sued to overturn a rate increase by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, known as Sound Transit.

Voters in 2016 approved the rate hike to fund the Sound Transit 3 expansion project. The voter-approved expansion project aims to build 62 miles of light rail, reaching Everett in the North, Tacoma and new neighborhoods in Seattle and cities fast-growing cities to the east, including Kirkland and Redmond.

>> Judge rejects most of challenge to Eyman’s $30 car tab measure

The lawsuit sought a refund of millions of dollars in car registration fees collected through the increase to help pay for the $54 billion expansion.

In a 7 to 2 decision, the high court justices found that the motor vehicle excise tax used to pay for the Sound Transit projects was constitutional.

Many people who live within in Sound Transit taxing district, which stretches from Everett to south of Tacoma, have long complained their car registration fees were excessive and didn't accurately reflect the value of their vehicles. Lawyers for the people who sued argued the law authorizing the car fees was vague and the MVET increase was illegal because it wrongly changed the way Sound Transit determined how much vehicles were worth for taxing purposes.

>> Supporters want more Sound Transit lines; cost questions remain

Writing for the majority, Justice Susan Owens said the law authorizing the tax hikes was valid and that it was clear in the text of the statute how cars would be valued for taxing.

Two justices, Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Debra Stephens, dissented.

Gordon McCloud wrote that the underlying statute governing the vehicle tax increase was illegally vague. “The MVET statute therefore violated the constitutional mandate designed to provide clarity to the legislative process,” she wrote.

Comments on this article