Calling the question before her "extraordinarily nuanced" and "hyper-technical," King County Superior Court Judge Veronica Galvan said today she will rule by the end of the day Monday on whether an initiative banning safe consumption sites can appear on the February ballot. Galvan heard arguments today on a request from safe consumption site supporters for an injunction to stop the measure from appearing on the ballot.

The initiative, I-27, would ban the sites across King County, defying the recommendations of a task force that included public health experts. That task force recommended two safe consumption sites, one in Seattle and one elsewhere in King County. Some smaller cities in the county have already banned the sites, but elected leaders in Seattle still hope to open one here.

When I-27 received the signatures necessary to appear on the ballot, a new group composed of safe consumption site advocates and people who've lost family members to overdose sued to try to stop it. That group, Protect Public Health, argued that the initiative goes beyond the scope of local initiative power because the legislature has delegated public health decisions to the county and its board of health. (The board of health is made up of elected leaders from around the region.)

"Think about what would happen if this was an Ebola epidemic in King County," attorney Knoll Lowney said in court today. "You start seeing—is this OK that an epidemic response plan can be halted and delayed?"

In response, I-27 backers argued the county has already ceded some of its control over siting the safe consumption spaces. Earlier this year, the King County Council said it won't fund safe consumption sites except in cities that specifically invite those facilities. (Lowney argues that only refers to the first two pilot sites and doesn't constitute the county actually ceding its power to a citizen initiative.)

Drew Stokesbary, a Republican state representative from Auburn, represented I-27 backers in court today. He said blocking the initiative from the ballot would “eliminate any ability by [the people who signed the initiative] to have their voices heard.”

About 25 supporters of I-27 sat in the courtroom, occasionally laughing or coughing loudly when they disagreed with a point made by attorneys for Protect Public Health and the city. Some of the initiative backers wore baseball caps to signify their position, but had to take them off because hats are not allowed in the courtroom.