TO: DistHct or Columbia Board OI DATE: 」

une O.‐
々o091
Elections&Ethics

FROM: Aaron M.Flynn,Esq,

The ProposedMeasure
"A Referendumconcerningthe Jury and MarriageAmendmentAct of 2009,,
ls lmproperSubjectMatterFor a Referendum

on June5, 2009,the Districtof columbiaBoardof Elections and Ethics(,,Board")

published a noticeof publichearing("Notice") regardingthe Board,sreceiptand'intent
to reviewa proposedreferendum measure.Thismeasurewouldseekto invalidate in
parttheJury andIvlaffiageAmendment Act of 2009(the,,Act"),Act No.A1g_0070,
passedby the D.c. councilan_d signedby the Mayoron May'6,2009andcurrentiy
pendingreviewby the Unitedstatescongress. The Act wastransmittedto conoress
on May1 1,2009,andthe reviewperiodis projected to closeon July6, 2009.1
The referendum processin the Districtof columbia("D.c."orthe "District,,)
is
governedby lhe Initiative,Referendum, andRecallcharterAmendments Actot ig7z2
andthe lnitiative,Referendum, andRecallprocedures Act.Ssee generailypricev.
Districtof ColumbiaBd. of Etections & Ethics,645A.2dS94,600iD.C. t dg+). these
slatutesarefurthersupplemented by regulations promulgatedby ihe Board.aAs
described below,thesestatuesandregulations, as interpreted
by the courtsof the
District,requirethe Boardto rejectto proposedreferendumon the basisthat it seet(sto
addressimpropersubjectmatterunderDistrictlaw.

' SeeCouncilof
the Districtof Columbia,LIMS,avaitabteat
http;//www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/legislation.aspx?LegNo=Bl
8-
0010&Description=JURy-AND-MARRtAG E_AMENDMENT_ACT-_OF_2009.__
&lD=21617,
g
^ ..-. ig 9 t"ry2-a6, 2, 24 D.C.Reg.
g2_S-tgt
199(1978),as amendedby pub.L.No.95-526,
9 1!3), -295 . 202s (1978)(codified
as amendedin D.C.Code$S i-281 ro -287andgg
1-2e1to (1992)).

D.C.Law3-1,g 2(c),25 D.C.Reg.9454(1979)(codified

as amendedin
D.C.CodeS$ 1-1320 to -1326 (1992)).
o D.C.Mur.r.
REGS. tit.g, SSlOOO-101S.

Hunton& WilliamsLLP
 l. The SubjectMatterof the Proposalls lmproperlyAddressedThrougha
ReferendumUnderD.C,Law.

Districtlawprohibits
the useof the referendum processin a numberof
circumstances thatareenumerated in relevant
statutes.Thismemorandum addresses
onlytwo of the severalbasesthatcompelthe Boardto refuseto acceptthe proposed
referendum, as describedbelow.lt shouldbe noted,however, thatot'herbasesnot
addressedhereare likelyto alsorequirerejectionof the proposedreferendum.The
Boardmustcarefully considerall potential
basesfor rejecting
the proposal.
Districtlawcompelsthe Boardto refuseto accepta proposedreferendum
wnen:
(1) "[T]heBoardFindsthatit is nota propersubject... under
thetermsof titlelV of the Districtof Columbia
HomeRure
Act;"

(2)'The verifiedstatement
of contributions
hasnot beenfiled
pursuant to SS1-1102.04and1-1102.06;'6
(3)"Thepetitionis notin the properformestablished
in
(a)of [D.C.CodeS 1-1001.16];',
subsection

(4) "Themeasureauthorizes,or wouldhavethe effectof

authorizing,
discrimination
prohibited
underChapter14 of
Title2;"or

(5)'The measurepresented wouldnegateor limitan act of

the Councilof the Districtof Columbia
pursuant to g 1-
204.46."6

' D'c. Mur.r.

REGS. tit.3, s 1000.sfurtherspecifres
thatthe propose(s)of a
referendum measureor anypolitical committee organizedin supportof u r"asur" .rst
filea verifiedstatementof contributionswiththe oificeof campaignFinanceon or
beforethe submission of lhe measureforfiling.D.c. Muru. nee's.in. s, g 1000.6further
indicates thatthe phrase'verified statement of contribution,',
consistsoi thefollowino:
a. The statement of organization,
pursuant
to DCCode
S 1 1 4 1(41 9 8 1 ) ; a n d
b._Thereport(s)of receiptsand expenditures,
pursuantto
DCCodeg 11416 (1981).
td.
6 D.C.Code 1-1
S 001.16(b); SeeatsoD.C.Mur.r. tit.3, g 1001.3,which
REGS.
states:

(continued...)
‐
2‐
 D.c. code g 1-204.101(b)
In addition, imposesa separate
rimitation
on the
propersubjectmatterof a referendum,
stating:
Theterm"referendum', meansthe processbv whichthe
registeredqualifiedelectorsof the Districtof bolumbiamav
suspendactsof theCouncilof the Districtof Columbia
(exceptemergencyacts,actslevyingtaxes,or acts
appropriatingfunds for the generaloperationbudgef unlil
suchactshavebeenpresentedto the registeredqualified
electorsof the Districtof Columbiafor theirapproval
or
rejection.T

whiletheoperative phrases"actslevyingtaxes,or actsappropriating funds',

appearsimilarto the provision, citedabove,prohibiting
referenda'andinitiat]ves
from
negatingor limitingan act of thecouncilenactedpursuant to S 466of the Districtof

Following of the ,,Notice

publication of publicHearino:
Receiptand Intentto Review"in the DC Register,th6 Board,
at a publichearing,shalldetermine whetherto approvethe
measureas propersubjectmattertoran initiative or
referendummeasure,or to rejectit basedon the following
reasons:
a. Themeasurepresented is nota propersubjectfor an
initiative
or referendum
underTitlelV of the SelfGovemment
Act;
b. Thestatement
of organization
andthe reporl(s)
of receipts
andexpenditures
havenotbeenfiledwiththe Offlceof
CampaignFinance;
c. Theformof the measuredoesnotcomplywiththe
requirements
setlorthin g1001.1;
d. Themeasureauthorizes or wouldhavethe effectof
authorizing prohibited
discrimination underthe Human
RightsAct ot 1977;or
e. Themeasurewouldnegateor limitan actof the Council
enactedpursuantto 9446of the Districtof Columbia Self
Govemment andGovernmental Reorganization Act.
7 D.C.Mur'r.
REGS. tit.3,g s.1-204.101(b)
(emphasis added).rt is arsoimponant
to notethatinitiatives
arealsosubjectto tne pr6nioition
againstacisappropriating
funds
for the generaloperationbudget.Accordingly casesaddrissinginitiatives'suuje&
to
thisprohibition
areequallyrelevantto referenda.

‐
3‐
 columbiaself Government andGovernmental Reorganization Act,seeD.c. Murr.
REg:..1,i. 3, S 100_1.3(e),
thecourlsof the Districtof Columbia haveinterpreted the
prohibitions in D.c. code s 'l-204.101broadlyand haveconsistently heldthatthey
prohibitinitiativesand referenda suchas theonecurrently pendingbeforethe Board.
specifically,the Districtof columbiacourt of Appeatsrrai interpreiedthe ,'laws
appropriating funds"limitation'Very broadty, holdingthatit ,e)dend[s]... to thefull
"Dorsey
measureof the council'sro]e]1 District's
budgel process ...:, v. Districtof
lne
columbiaBd. of Etections& Ethics,648 A.2d azs,aiz (D.c 1994)lquotingi"i""y r.
Districtof ColumbiaBd. ot Etections& Ethics,60lA.2d'3,20 (D.i. i'SSfy.-

ln Dorsey,the Districtof ColumbiaCourtof Appealsdetermined thatan initiative

seekingto prohibitthe D.c. governm-ent from"booting"vehiclesandfromcollecting
variousmotorvehicleimpoundment finesviolatedthestatutory
prohibition
againstusing
the referendumandinitiative process.to ila*s approiriating
propose(or invalidate)
funds." The Dorseycourtexplainedthe District,sbudgetaryprocessthuily:'

As partof the annualbudgetary process,for example,the

Mayormustsubmitto theCouncil,,areporton all available
revenues," andthe MayorandCouncilin tum must,,identifv
expensesandrevenues, and...proposea balancedbudget
for Congressional Throughthe ,,laws
approval....',
appropriatingfunds',limitation,
CongressandtheCouncil
ensuredthatthese,,matters relatingto the localbudget
processwouldremainwithinthe controlof the Mayorand
Council,andthatinitiatives[would]notcreatedefiiitsor
interfere
withthe locallyelectedofficials'decisionsabout
howDistrictgovernment revenues shouldbe spent.',
ld. at 677 (intemalcitations..omitted). a//matrersrelatingto the budget
process,including the identification-Accordingly,
o'fbothexpensesand revenues, cannotbe sub.lect
to eitherthe initiative
or referendum process.Further,the courtstated:

Thatthesefundsareonlya tinypartof the District's annual

revenueproiections is besidethe point;theelectorate
mav
no moreeliminatethemby initiative thanit couldabolishor
lowerthe salestax or localincometax_matters integralto the
"powerof the purse',
whichCongressandthe Couniil
reservedexclusivelyto the electedgovernment.
/d' (intemalcitationsomitted).Thus,the amountof the revenues
or expensesat issue
is not relevant.Anyact that wourdhaveevena marginaletfecton revenuesor
expenses"relatesto" the budgetaryprocessand cannotbe properlyaddressedthrough
the referendum or initiative
process.

D.c. superiorcourt.furthererucidatedlhe properapproach to reviewing

initiativesand referendaagainstthe "rawsappropriating funds,jsrandara. n Eesiiurant
Ass'n of Metropolitanwashingtonv. Districiof cotumiia Bd. of Etectionsa gtiics, zooq
wL 21o22og(D.c.super.2004),thesuperiorcourt of the Districtof columbiarevlewed
‐
4‐
the validityof a proposedballotinitialive seekingto prohibitsmokingin all publicplaces.
Thecourtdetermined thatthisinitiative violatedthesubjectmatterlimitation on laws
appropriating funds. Thecourtstated"[t]heword'appropriations' whenusedin
connection withthe functions of the MayorandtheCouncilin the District's budget
processrefersto the discretionary processby whichrevenuesarc identifiedand
allocatedamongcompeting programs andactivities." /d at 3 (emphasis added).The
courtdeterminedthat it was irrelevantthatthe initiativeappeared"neutralon its face"as
a revenuemeasureandinsteadexamined theultimateeffectthatthe initiative would
haveon the Council's ability"toidentifytax revenues ... whenpreparing the Budget
RequestAct." /d. at 4. Becausethe initiative,if approved,wouldhavealfectedtax
revenuesraisedfromrestaurants, the resulting fiscalimpactin the Districtwasfoundto
impermissibly interferewiththeCouncil's abilityto relyuponitstax revenueprolections.
ld. at 4. Moreover, theCourtnotedin particular thatit wasirrelevantif the initiative
was
likelyto resultin increased or decreased tax revenues andthat,regardless, 'the
initiativewouldstillbe considered a 'lawappropriating funds'according to Hessey,"ld.
at 4.

Accordingly,the relevantcaselawmakesa numberof significant pointsrelevant

to the matternow beforethe Board. First,it is well-establishedthat "lawsappropriating
funds"cannotproperlybe enactedvia referendum, andthe prohibition mustbe read
broadly.Second,a proposedreferendum willqualifyas a "lawappropriating
funds"if it
relatesto revenuesor expensesof the Districtgovernment.Third,it is irrelevantif such
a matterappearson itsfaceto be revenueneutral;coudsandthe Boardmustlookto
the practicaleffectof sucha law. Finally,theamountof the revenuesinvolvedand
whetherrevenueswillincreaseor decrease underthe proposalis inelevant; initiatives
and referenda cannotescapeoperation of the"lawsappropriating funds" prohibition
basedon theseoutcomes.

The proposedreferendum violatesthe"lawsappropriating funds"prohibition

becausethe Juryand Marriage Amendment Actof 2009,whichit seeksto overturn, is
an actthatrelatesto the localbudgetary process.Therefore, it is reservedto the D.C.
Councilandthe Mayorof the Districtto addresspoliciesrelatedto marriagerecognition.
Indeed,numerousscholarly articlesexplainthe significant
tax revenueimplications of
recognizing same-sexmarriages.See,e.9.,Christopher Ramos;M.V.LeeBadgett;
Brad Sears, The Economiclmpact of ExtendingMarriageto Same-SexCouplesin the
Districtof Columbla,
THEWILLIAMS lNslrurE (2009);M. V. LeeBadgett,ph.D.,R.
BradleySears,DeborahHo, SupportingFamilies,SavingFunds:An EconomicAnalysis
of Equalityfor Same-SexCouplesin NewJersey,4RUTGERS J. L. & pue. poL'yI
(2006);WilliamP. Kratzke,TheDelenseof MarriageAct(DOMA)ls Bad lncomeTax
Policy,35 U. Meu.L. REV.399 (2005);JonathanBrophy,Deathis Certain,Are Taxes?
AnotherArgumentfor Equalitytor Same-SexCouplesllnder the Code,34 Sw. U. L.
Rev.635 (2005);M.V.Lee Badgett,R. BradleySears,Putflnga price on Equatity?The
lmpactof Same-SexMarriageon California's Budget,16 STAN. L. & poL,yREV.197
(2005);The Associationof the Barof the Cityof NewYork, Reporton MarriageRights
for Same-SexCouplesin New York,1gCoLUM. J. GENDEF & L. 70 (2004);Jennifei
Gerarda Brown, CompetitiveFederalismand the Legislativelncentivesto Recognize
Same-Sex Marriage,6SS. Cnu L. REV.745(199S).Eachof theseanalysesaddresses
differentissuesandcircumstances relevantto variousstates:however.eachconcludes
‐
5‐
 tax revenueimplications
thattherearesignificant to the recognition
of same-sex
marriages.

Further,it is apparentthatD.C.lawwilltreatsame-sex couplesdifferently fortax

purposesdepending on whetherthe policyapproved by the D.C.Councilis suslained or
if tne policypromoted by the referendum is enshrined in law.8Again,it is not relevantif
the motivation behindthe referendum is unrelated to revenues, noris theamountof
revenuethatmightbe gained or losta factorto be considered. Thedeterminative issue
is basicand fundamental; the proposedreferendumbeforethe Boardimplicatestax
revenueconsiderations, raising whalthe Districtof Columbia Courtof Appealshas
termed"thefundamental underlying question" posedby initiativesandreferenda
touchinguponrevenue-related matters:"whois to be in chargeof the District
govemment'slocalfinancialmanagement, the District'selectedofficialsor the electorate
by initiative."Hesseyv. Districtof ColumbiaBd. of Elections& Ethics,601A.2d3, 5
(D.C.1991).Indeed,marriagerecognition is evenmoredirectlyrelatedto the raisingof
tax revenues, sinceit is inextricably liedto the District's taxcode,thaneitherof the
policiesaddressedby the District'scourtsin Dorseyor Restaurant Ass'nof Metropolitan
Washington, whichrespectively addressedparkingviolationsand associatedfees and
overall restaurant income (and thereby, indirectly,tax revenuesresultingfromsuch
income).Maniagerecognition, on theotherhand,directlyimplicates numerous tax
provisionsand is thereforeclearlya matterrelatedto the revenuesof the District.The
courtshavemadeclearthat thesematterscan onlybe addressedby the District's
electedotficials.Therefore,the Boardshouldrefuseto acceptthe proposed
referendum.

ll, The Board'sNoticeWas Inadequateand the Formof the SubmissionMay

Be in Violationof the Law.

Pursuantto D.C.Code$ 1-1001.16(a),anyregistered qualified electoror

electorsof the Districtmayseeka referendum uponfilingwiththe Board"5 printedor
typewritten copiesof the fulltextof the measure, a summarystatement of notmorethan
100words,anda shorttitleof the measureto be proposed in an initiative,or of the act
or partthereofon whicha referendum is desired.'Theproposal is to be accompanied
by "[t]henameandaddressof the propose/'and"[a]naffidavit thatthe proposeris a
registeredqualifiedelectorof the Districtof Columbia,"e Further, as statedabovethe
propose(s)of a referendum measureor any political
committee organized in supportof
a measuremustfile a verifiedstatement of contributions
withthe Officeof Campaign

t D.C.lawcurrently
treatssame-sex couplesin domestic partnerships
differently
thanmarriedcouplesfortax purposes.Forinstance, the Districtdoesnotextendthe
maritalestatetax deductionto same-sexcouples. SeeD.C.Departmentof Health,Vital
RecordsDivision, DomesticPartnership:FrequentlyAskedQuestions, at
available
http://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,3,q,573324,dohNav*GlD,1787,dohNav,/331
10/33
120/33139/.asp#6.
e SeealsoD.C.MuN.REGS.
tit.3, S 1001.1.

‐
6 ‐
Financeon or beforethe submission
of the measureforfiling.loTheBoardmustreluse
to accspta proposedreferendumwhen"[t]hepetitionis not in the properform
established .16(a)]....""
in [D.C.Code$ 1-1001
Accordingly, a proposed referendum mustcomplywithstatute-defined formatfor
submissions andmustbe accompanied by a numberof additional filingsin orderto be a
deemedlegallysufficient.TheBoard'sNoticeprovidesa proposed ShortTitle,
SummaryStatement, andthe legislative textthatis thesubjectof the proposed
referendum.The Noticedoesnot,however,indicatewhether,as a preliminarymatter,
the submittedmaterialsare in compliancewiththe govemingstatutesand regulations,
nordoesit providemembers of the publicwiththe requisiteinformation by whichto
judgethesemattersfor themselves.Indeed,it is unclearwhethertheShortTitle,
SummaryStatement, and Legislative Textweresuppliedby the proposer or by the
Boarditself.Further, thereis no indicationas to whetherthe submission included the
nameandaddressof the proposer and the requiredaffidavitor if the verifiedstatement
of contributions wasproperlyfiled.The Board'sfailureto providethisinformation
preventsadequate publicreviewof the legalsufficiency of the submission andobstructs
full legalargument on criticalissuesthatcouldbe determinative as to whetherthe
proposedreferendum is valid.Accordingly,the Board'sNoticewasinsufficient. The
Boardshould publish an additional noticeaddressing theseissues,andconvenean
additional publichearingto addressanypotential arguments relatedto the legal
sufficiency of the proposal's form.

lll. Conclusion.

Districtlawprovidesa numberof statutory prohibitionson the subjectmatterthat

may be addressed by referenda.The Boardis obligated to addressthe applicability of
eachof thesebasesandmustreachan independent legalconclusion as to the validity
of the proposalunderthe governing law. The lawgoverning the referendum and
processmakesclearthattheseprocedures
initiative are notavailable to enact"laws
appropriatingfunds."Districtcourtshaveinterpreted thisprohibitionbroadlyas
encompassing anymatterthatrelatesto the budgetary processof the District,including
the identification
of revenues.Recognition of same-sex maniageplainlyimplicates this
prohibition,as suchrecognitionwillhavesignificanttax revenueimplications.
Therefore, the proposal mustbe rejected.

t0 D.C.Mur'r.REGS. tit.3, $ 1000.5.D.C.MuN.REGS. lit.3,S1000.6 fulther

indicatesthat the phrase 'consists ofthe foHowin9:
"verifiedstatementof contribution.

a=丁he statement ol organization,pursuant to

DC Code
Sl1414(1981);and

b, Thereport(s) of receipts pursuant

andexpenditures, to
D CC o d e5 1 1 4 1(61 9 8 1 ) .
1 1D . c .c o d eg 1 - 1 0 0 1 . 1 6 ( b X 1 X B ) .

‐
7‐
 In addition,the Board'sNoticeinadequately apprisedthepublicof matters
relatedto the legalsufficiencyof the lormof the proposalandwhetherfilingsrequiredto
accompanythe proposalwereproperlysubmitted.Thispreventsadequatepublic
reviewandlegalargumentregarding an independent of the proposal.
basisfor rejection
Accordingly,the Boardis requiredto preparea correctiveNotice,supplythe publicwith
the requisiteinformation,andschedule publichearingto addressthese
an additional
fundamental issues.

to presentthesecommentsto the Districtof

I appreciatethe opportunity
Columbia Boardof ElectionsandEthics. I wouldbe pleasedto answeranyquestions
you mayhaveregarding thissubmission andcanbe reachedat 202-955-1681 or
aaronflynn@comcast.net.

Respectf
ullysubmitted,

AaronM. Flynn,Esqi
1900 K Street N W`
Suite 1 305
Washington,D.C.20006

-8-