In a highly anticipated court ruling this week, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik found that the Teen Dance Ordinance (TDO) is constitutional. On Monday, April 29, Lasnik dismissed a lawsuit brought by music industry activists from JAMPAC that claimed the 1985 city ordinance violated the First Amendment. Not so, says Lasnik. Relying on a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a Dallas, Texas teen dance ordinance, Lasnik ruled that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting teens by regulating dances.

While Lasnik's ruling is disappointing, his closing words were dead-on: "Presentation of the TDO to this court... represents a failure of the political process to come to grips with policy arguments in the arena where they belong--the legislative and executive branches of city government. All of the various interest groups... deserve better from their elected officials."

Amen.

Lasnik's closing words offer a stinging slap to Seattle City Council President Peter Steinbrueck. Indeed, in federal court at the March 27 TDO hearing, Lasnik asked a basic question "Why is this case necessary?" He then proceeded to lay out the political reality: Things had changed since JAMPAC filed its lawsuit against the city two years ago. Back then, Mayor Paul Schell vetoed a 7-1 city council vote to replace the TDO with JAMPAC's pro-dance All Ages Dance Ordinance (AADO). However, the new mayor, Greg Nickels, supported the repeal. It looked like a no-brainer to Lasnik, who encouraged the parties to take care of business at city hall.

That never happened. On Friday, March 29, Nickels sent the AADO to the Seattle City Council--the exact same TDO repeal the council passed 7-1 in August 2000. No matter that this was the same council that responded to Schell's veto with five defiant votes to override; under the direction of Steinbrueck, AADO 2002, entered onto the legislative agenda by Council Member Nick Licata, was tabled.

(By the way, the five override votes--Richard Conlin, Nick Licata, Judy Nicastro, Heidi Wills, and Peter Steinbrueck (!)--weren't enough to override Schell, but were still enough to pass the ordinance for a supportive mayor--like, say, Greg Nickels--to sign.)

Steinbrueck's reluctance to act was inexplicable. Some council members--Richard Conlin and Heidi Wills--told me Steinbrueck didn't want to pay JAMPAC's attorney's fees, and so didn't want to settle (read: pass the AADO). If that was actually the case, waiting for Lasnik's ruling was ridiculous. Steinbrueck, who didn't return our calls, could have easily passed the AADO as regular council legislation (not as part of a settlement) and paid no one. That's what legislative bodies do. Waiting for Lasnik to decide actually heightened the chances that the city would have to pay attorneys' fees--i.e., what if Lasnik had ruled in favor of JAMPAC?

Meanwhile, it was risky business to wait for Lasnik's ruling. Here's what a Stranger editorial said on April 18: "Waiting for Lasnik is risky. Who knows what Lasnik will decide? Any ruling, short of tossing out the TDO, will confuse the political landscape and possibly derail a TDO repeal. Steinbrueck should bring the repeal to a vote now, forcing Lasnik to declare the case moot."

Oops. Not only did Lasnik not toss out the TDO in whole or in part, he upheld the TDO as is. What this means, of course, is that it's going to be a hell of a lot tougher to pass the AADO now.

Steinbrueck, however, isn't the only incompetent tactician here. JAMPAC also screwed up--big-time. This was readily apparent thanks to JAMPAC's ever-shifting stance. Over the course of the TDO debate, JAMPAC has had three different opinions about the AADO. Originally, JAMPAC supported the AADO. Indeed, they practically wrote the thing back in 1999-2000, during an 18-month public process with the city's Music and Youth Task Force. (Gleeful JAMPAC activists toasted the AADO over drinks at Linda's when the AADO briefly replaced the TDO in August 2000.)

However, they quickly abandoned the AADO in what would be the first of two flip-flops. Both flip-flops, as far as I can tell, were dictated by a common denominator: money.

Flip-flop #1: After basically writing the AADO in 1999, JAMPAC rejected the ordinance in 2002--urging the new mayor and the council not to pass it. JAMPAC argued that waiting for a court ruling would "set a precedent" against any teen dance guidelines. But the real reason they wanted a court ruling was to assure that they would win attorneys' fees. Call me cynical, but this became obvious to me when they pulled flip-flop number two.

Flip-flop #2: After a March 27 hearing on the TDO, JAMPAC suspected Lasnik might make an unfavorable ruling, and suddenly embraced the AADO again. Fearing that they would lose in court, JAMPAC now wanted the council to pass the AADO--but only if the council passed it as part of a settlement, which would result in JAMPAC getting their attorneys' fees.

(As I was told by a JAMPAC board member at JAMPAC's Baltic Room fundraiser, the group's attorney, David Osgood, "needs to get paid.")

Osgood refused to comment for this story. JAMPAC did not return our calls.

Ultimately, JAMPAC's "turning the boat this many times" (as one mayoral staffer put it) led to the current mess--and established a precedent of a different kind. By forsaking the legislative process and relying on the courts (where payment is at issue), JAMPAC and Steinbrueck embodied Lasnik's "failure of the political process." And thanks to Lasnik's pro-TDO ruling, JAMPAC may have fatally undermined the anti-TDO case, giving TDO proponents like Council Member Margaret Pageler ammunition to shoot down any future or meaningful repeal.