The opinion is not up on the court website yet, but crack Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eli Sanders managed to snag a copy from super secret sources. Just started reading it, but here's the first money quote:

We affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court's decision regarding the justiciability and the constitutionality of the Supermajority Requirement. Article II, section 22 states that "[n]o bill shall become a law unless ... a majority of the members elected to each house" vote in its favor. The plain language, constitutional history, and weight of persuasive authority support reading this provision as setting both a minimum and a maximum voting requirement. Therefore, the Supermajority Requirement violates article II, section 22 by requiring certain legislation to receive a two-thirds vote. However, we reverse the trial court's decision that the Referendum Requirement presents a justiciable controversy. Because the Referendum Requirement is not justiciable, we make no determination as to its constitutionality.

UPDATE: The opinion is now online (PDF): 6-3, with Justices Owens writing for the majority and justices Chambers, Fairhurst, Madsen, Wiggins, and Gonzalez concurring. Justice Johnson, of course, wrote the dissent. Justice C. Johnson wrote a dissent signed on by Justices Stephens and J.Johnson, while Justice J.Johnson also wrote a separate dissent.

UPDATE, UPDATE: Rather than continue to update this post, I'm just going to read through the opinion and dissent at my leisure, and follow up with analysis in a separate post. That said, via Twitter, Eli is rightly pointing out the significance of the King County vote in recent judicial elections: This decision might have looked very different without Justices Wiggins and Gonzalez.