Opinion

Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

  • 441 A.2d 889
  • 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 378
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Oct 8, 1981
Status
Published
On the bench
Newman, Kelly, Kern, Nebeker, Harris, MacK, Ferren, Pryor, Gallagher
Cited by
42 cases
Authority
More cited than 89.3%

concluding that the IPA mandate that the Board exclude from the ballot a referendum measure that would negate a budget-request act “comports with the Charter Amendment limitations on the initiative right [and that] the reliance of the Board ... on that provision was entirely proper”

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that the IPA mandate that the Board exclude from the ballot a referendum measure that would negate a budget-request act “comports with the Charter Amendment limitations on the initiative right [and that] the reliance of the Board ... on that provision was entirely proper”
  • incorporating by reference the rationale of the opinion Chief Judge Newman wrote for the division majority, see 441 A.2d 871, 876 (D.C.1980) (“the power of the electorate to propose laws through the initiative is co-extensive with the power of the legislative branch of government to pass legislative acts, ordinances, and resolutions”)
  • explaining that voters' power to legislate by initiative can be no broader than the Council's legislative power
  • "As implementing legislation, the Initiative Procedures Act is valid, of course, only insofar as it conforms to the underlying Charter Amendments"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Outline op the Plurality Opinion

Page

I. Summary op Decision___892

II. History of the Cases_893

*892 Page

III. The CCRC Initiative Proposes a “Law” -- — . 896

A. The Scope of the Initiative Power-896

B. The Scope of the CCRC Initiative-898

1. The Significance of the Initiative Bill Itself-898

2. The CCRC Initiative-899

3. Postcirculation Revisions-900

C. The Powers of the Council-902

1. Home Rule Powers-903

2. The Budgetary Exception-904

a. The Budgetary Process-904

b. Deauthorization and Defunding-905

D. A Legislative Act_ 907

IV. The CCRC Initiative Proposes a “Law Appropriating Funds” 911

A. “Laws Appropriating Funds”-911

B. The “Dixon Amendment”-914

C. The Invalidity of the CCRC Initiative-915

V.Conclusion__ 916

VI.POSTSCRIPT: RESPONSE TO DISSENT_ 916

Appendix A: Initiative Measure No. 1... 919

Appendix B: Initiative Measure No. 2-920

Appencix C: Initiative Measure No. 3---920

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.