Here is a copy of the petition filed today in what we may now simply caption, Brown v. Owen.
Represented by Seattle attorneys Hugh Spitzer and Tom Ahearne, no strangers to this kind of litigation, Brown seeks a "writ of mandamus" compelling Lt. Governor Brad Owen as a constitutional officer of the state to perform his (proposed) constitutional duty to declare Senate Bill 6931 (the $10 million liquor tax increase), having reached the constitutional majority, passed, and thereby forward it to the House for consideration.
Set up this way, the suit perhaps aspires to be decided on an enormously expedited basis, viz., before the scheduled adjournment of the legislature next week. The petition includes a section entitled "Additional Notice to Avoid Delays" which explains some steps taken to apparently expedite review, but more fundamentally, the specific act giving rise to the controversy is whether SB 6931 should or should not have required a two-thirds supermajority to be declared passed.
That gives rise to a further interesting question. Is the case moot if the Legislature adjourns before it has a chance to hear or decide it,** since SB 6931 will have died anyway? Will this policy survive yet another challenge on procedural grounds?
** Probably not. While the court will not dispose of a moot case, requiring for its proper exercise of jurisdiction a live controversy, an exception to that rule regards matters "capable of repetition, yet evading review," which would seem to characterize the situation.
