The Seattle City Council is trying to stop voters from, well, voting.

Mind you, they're fine with you voting for them. After all, five council members are seeking reelection this August in the primary election. But what they don't want you to do is vote—on that same ballot on which their names will appear—on whether the city should approve or reject state contracts to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel.

The anti-tunnel campaign, Protect Seattle Now, contends that the public should vote. On March 29, the group submitted 28,929 signatures for a referendum that would place the proposed deep-bore tunnel on the ballot—12,426 more signatures than required. Meanwhile, anti-tunnel Initiative 101 is on the brink of submitting enough signatures to make the ballot, too. Proponents point out that the tunnel will cost at least $4.2 billion (including $930 million from Seattle), risks cost overruns, and, state studies show, would divert nearly two-thirds of viaduct traffic onto city streets.

But after working with the council over the past couple of weeks, City Attorney Pete Holmes filed a complaint in King County Superior Court on March 29 to keep the referendum off the ballot. "I declare that proposed R-1 may not be placed on the ballot because it is beyond the scope of local referendum power," Holmes wrote.

At issue: a tunnel ordinance passed by the council on February 28 that authorized three agreements with the state pertaining to rights-of-way and utility relocations for the tunnel project. The referendum and initiative could nix those agreements. However, Holmes argues that ordinance is exempt from a citizen vote; he and the council contend it is an "administrative act," not subject to a vote, because the ordinance follows through on resolutions and ordinances the council approved in 2009 and 2010. That may or may not hold water before a judge—the city charter says "any ordinance" is subject to referendum.

Whether or not Holmes can win, his willingness to oppose a public vote appears to stand at odds with his 2009 campaign rhetoric that vowed to put the public interest ahead of the political agendas of elected officials.

"It's time for a City Attorney who insists that our elected officials' priorities match our own," his campaign website says. "Too often the interests of the people take a backseat in the City Attorney's Office."

And Holmes said in a campaign ad: "I'll put the people of Seattle first as your city attorney."

So what do the "people of Seattle" want in all of this?

The opposite of what Holmes wants to give them: a vote on the issue. Elway Research, a local polling firm, reported on March 28 that 55 percent of Seattle voters say we should vote on the tunnel, while only 40 percent say we shouldn't (the poll also found that none of the options for replacing the viaduct—tunnel, new viaduct, or improving surface streets—has majority support).

Nevertheless, most members of the council have attempted to stop the voters from having their say. A couple of weeks ago, council president Richard Conlin circulated a document among his colleagues that considered ways to kill the initiative and referendum. One of the options: "Council could file the petitions and take no action on them," thereby requiring proponents to assert their rights in court. This position has been no secret. Every council member except Mike O'Brien voted against a resolution on February 28 that would have let voters weigh in on the project.

Legal questions aside, a vote could come with a cost to the state. "If the agreements do not go into effect next week or are delayed for any reason from here forward," state transportation secretary Paula Hammond wrote on March 28 in a letter to transportation leaders in the state legislature, "we estimate the cost impact to the project would be up to $54 million, and the schedule to open the tunnel would be delayed four months."

A delay may be inevitable. As The Stranger went to press, a court schedule announced that a trial on the referendum is set for September 2012; Holmes's office did not respond to questions before press time asking what happens to the tunnel ordinance—whether it remains intact or on hold—in the interim.