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

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 8, 1981 · 441 A.2d 889

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645696

## Case

- **Full name:** CONVENTION CENTER REFERENDUM COMMITTEE, Et Al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 8, 1981
- **Citations:** 441 A.2d 889; 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 378
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman, Kelly, Kern, Nebeker, Harris, MacK, Ferren, Pryor, Gallagher
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645696

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 p…
- explaining that voters' power to legislate by initiative can be no broader than the Council's legislative power

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645696. Public record. Not legal advice.