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
NEWMAN, Chief Judge,
with whom PRYOR,. Associate Judge, joins, concurring:
I am unable to join the opinion of Judge Ferren.
I agree that the City Council could, by enacting a “law” within the meaning of D.C.Code 1979 Supp., § l-181(a), amend D.C.Code 1973, § 9-220(a) to pro tanto repeal the capital project authorization legislation so as to exclude authorization for the Convention Center. I agree that the citizens, by initiative, could do likewise. *
*921 Now to the areas where I view Judge Ferren’s opinion as plainly wrong. I am satisfied that neither the Council nor the citizens can prohibit the expenditure of con-gressionally appropriated funds. The basic rationale for my view on this question is set forth in the opinion I authored in this case for a division of this court, which was vacated when we went en banc. That opinion is being published at 441 A.2d 871 , simultaneously with this en banc decision. Likewise, based on the rationale of that opinion, I am of the view that a budget request by the District of Columbia, which is transmitted to the Congress as part of the President’s budget for congressional consideration under its powers in Article I of the Constitution is not a “law” within the meaning of D.C.Code 1979 Supp., § 1-181(a), and that the citizens, by initiative cannot prohibit, modify or repeal such a budget request. •
I thus concur in the results reached, i. e., the initiative proposed by Convention Center Referendum Committee, in all the various permutations, was properly rejected both by the Board of Elections and by Judge Ugast.
The practical effect of a repeal of authorizing legislation may be to stop an ongoing capital project. However, this is not necessarily so. There is nothing, except its own rules, which *921 prevents Congress from appropriating in the absence of authorizing legislation. See note 28, supra of Judge Ferren’s opinion.