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

NEWMAN, Judge, Chief Before HARRIS, KELLY, KERN, NEBEKER, MACK, FERREN, PRYOR, Associate GALLAGHER,* Judges, and Associate Judge, Retired. op Plurality Opinion

Outline Page Summary op Decision___892 I. History Cases_893 II. of

* Retired, Judge, Judge changed ary Judge Associate on Febru- GALLAGHER was an Associate argument. court at the time of His status

892

Page Proposes 896 -- — . a “Law” The CCRC Initiative III. 896 Scope Initiative Power- The A. 898 Scope Initiative- CCRC B. 898 Itself- Bill Significance of the Initiative 1. The 899 Initiative- 2. The CCRC 900 Revisions- 3. Postcirculation 902 of the Council- C. Powers Rule Powers- 1. Home Exception- Budgetary 2. The Budgetary Process- a. The Defunding- b. Deauthorization Act_ Legislative

AD. Appropriating Proposes Funds” a “Law The CCRC Initiative

IV. 911 Funds”- Appropriating A. “Laws 914 Amendment”- B. The “Dixon 915 Invalidity CCRC Initiative- of the C. The V.Conclusion__ DISSENT_ TO RESPONSE

VI.POSTSCRIPT:

Appendix No. 1... Measure A: Initiative Appendix No. 2- Measure B: Initiative Appencix No. 3--- Measure Initiative C: FERREN, Judge, (Initiative Associate Act). with whom 1116 to -1119.3 Procedures MACK, Accordingly, KELLY and we must affirm. Judges, Associate con- cur: I. SUMMARY OF DECISION presents questions This case exception- guidance, summary For we offer our al importance legisla- concerning both the II, Case, analysis. History Part of the de- powers tive of the of Columbia District use the recently scribes CCRC’sefforts to Council and the right related of the elector- right to halt authorized of initiative adopt legislation ate to We by initiative. III, In Part project. Convention Center conclude that the to the initiative submitted question address the whether CCRC (the Board) Board of Elections and Ethics and thus proposes initiative a “law” lies by the Convention Center Referendum general scope within the of the initiative (CCRC) Committee construction and bar Amendments, right granted by the Charter operation of a convention center meets the l-181(a). D.C.Code 1980 § requirement threshold the Charter III.A., Scope The particular, In Part Amendments, 1- D.C.Code 1980 Power, princi- Initiative we confirm the 181(a), that an a “law.” propose initiative that, defining ple unless the statute right initiative, however, does not otherwise, pow- right provides initiative legislation extend to all could the Council a “law” er of the electorate to enact enact. We further that the conclude CCRC congruent with the “initiative” is initiative is barred the Charter Amend- (here, Council) legislature adopt exception ments initiatives for precluding Next, “legislative” measures. Part funds,” appropriating excep- “laws id.—an III.B., Scope the CCRC Initiative Amendment,” tion reflected in the “Dixon determining prerequisite —as a whether l-1116(k)(7), Initiative, id. to the Referen- wholly the initiative here is dum, and Recall id. 1- what specifically Procedures character —we analyze §§ electorate accomplish. project. would We Concomitantly, exception conclude that the (1) initiative would repeal the sub- does not bar initiatives that would autho- stantive authorization for construction and (but fund) project, repeal rize not a new operation Center, of the Convention see project (but authorization for a not rescind 1973, 9-220(a); D.C.Code id. 1980 Supp., funding), prohibit its current future -610, (2) 9-601 to prohibit the ex- IV.B., budget requests. In Part The “Dix- penditure of funds for con- Amendment,” on we conclude that the Ini- operation Center, struction and of the properly tiative Procedures Act reflects the well as bar budget requests future for such appropriating “laws funds” appropriations. III.C., In Part The Powers right, properly and thus requires Council, we conclude that in accord- the Board and the courts to withhold from ance with powers its under the Home Rule CCRC’s, the ballot an such as (and Act1 congressional .to agree- proposes such a law. ment), adopt legislation Council could having the same effect as the CCRC initia- summary, because the CCRC initiative tive. Finally, III.D., Legislative Part A effect, merely prospective have a response Act —in argument to a central stop expenditure appropri- but would the District of Columbia and the concurring funds, beyond scope ated it is opinion of Judge Chief NEWMAN —we ex- It right. cannot reach the ballot. plain why such action by the Council is a legislative act and impinge would not

executive II. OF THE Accordingly, functions. HISTORY CASE because the District properly adopt could project The Convention Center first legislation with the same effect reached official status when the Mayor pro- CCRC initiative and would thereby in- posed, and the Council included fringe upon the executive functions of the 1978, amendment act for Fiscal Year a re- Mayor, we conclude in Part III that The quest capital for an initial out- CCRC Initiative Proposes a “Law.” lay of million for an estimated $27 $98.7 In Council, however, contrast with the project.2 million The Council had not electorate, by way of cannot passed, support request, of this a sub- every enact kind of law. IV Part stantive specifically authorizing law con- conclude that the Charter Amendments ex- Center; struction of the it ap- Convention ception to the initiative right precluding parently solely general had relied on the funds,” “laws appropriating D.C.Code 1980 capital authorization for construction in Supp., l-181(a), § bars the CCRC initiative. 1973, 9-220(a).3 Congress ap- D.C.Code § Specifically, IV.A., in Part “Laws Appropri- propriated the million in June 1978.4 $27 Funds,” ating we conclude that this excep- meantime, Amend- In the Charter prohibits tion initiatives that either would electors granting fund a ments Act District or —as is true of CCRC’s initiative, referendum, rights initiative —would expenditure bar the and recall already funds requested 10, or appropriated for had become effective on March 1. District program capital of Columbia Self-Government and A to meet construction Act, Reorganization Governmental 93-198, government Pub. L. No. needs of the of the District of (1973) (codified 87 Stat. hereby pro- in scat- Columbia is gram authorized. Such Supp.), limitation, tered sections include, of D.C.Code 1978 shall without (commonly amended known as Home Rule projects relating to activities to meet Act). education, public in the fields of needs health, welfare, recreation, safety, public Budget 2. See Fiscal Year 1978 Amendment general government other activities. Act, 2-36, II, 201, Reg. Act tit. § 23 D.C. (1977); Government, District of Columbia Act, Appropriations 4.See District Columbia Budget 1978, Amendment Fiscal Year at II, 95-228, Pub. tit. 92 Stat. 281 L. No. (May 1977). CAP-1 to -5 Act, (D.C. 1978). Appropriations 1973, 9-220(a) provides: 3. D.C.Code § Supp., 1-1119.2. The Act also included

See D.C.Code 1980 1-181 to -195.5 That required pass Act the Council to im- Amendment,” provided which the “Dixon plementing legislation September accept any must refuse to the Board 1978. See id. 1-187. The Council failed subject “proper is not a measure this deadline. Convention Center to meet reasons) (among other initiative” because Referendum Committee v. Board of Elec- negate petition presented “the Ethics, tions & D.C.App., 399 A.2d the District of limit an act of the Council of (1979) (Convention I). Center pursuant Columbia [D.C.Code Nonetheless, in an effort to halt 47-224,” governs Supp.,] section Center, movement toward a Convention budgetary process. D.C.Code CCRC submitted its first initiative to the l-1116(k)(7).6 Board of Elections and Ethics in October Following implement- enactment of 1978. See id. accept Board refused to The. 13, 1979, June CCRC ing legislation, on implementing the bill in the absence of Board, second submission made a Id. legislation. Superi- filed suit in CCRC bill, proposed short presenting proposed 1978, seeking or Court in a decla- December title, bearing summary petitions ration that Amendments approxi- the initiative bill and statement of 28, 1979, Id. On self-executing. February 15,000 (This re- mately signatures.7 bill is See id. this court held that are not. A and will be re- produced Appendix 552-53. 1.) No. On ferred to as Initiative Measure 7,1979, On June implement- the Council’s again rejected the July the Board ing legislation, the Initiative Procedures petitions, ground this time on the Act, exempted went into effect. That Act budgetary proposed upon bill intruded procedural require- CCRC from certain improper presented and thus ments, proceed in order allow CCRC virtue of the for an initiative having signatures without to collect new support of its initiative. D.C.Code 1980 “Dixon Amendment.” comprises petition 5. The be circulated and submitted District Charter Title IV of expired; supra Home Rule Board has note 1. Title IV includes Council, (4) clearly provisions petition concerning bears an on its face the Mayor, signatures; Judiciary, Budget or insufficient number the District (5) petition at- Management, Borrowing, sheets do not have Financial and Inde- pendent Agencies. statements of the circula- tached to them the The Charter (h) provided in of this only tors as subsection proce- amended in accordance with the section; or specified Supp., dure 1- in D.C.Code 1978 authorizes, (6) petition or 124, would -125, -128(a). pro- authorizing, the effect of discrimination Rights hibited under the Human (D.C.Code Act of 1116(k)provides: 6. D.C.Code 1980 § 1— seq.); Supp.], sec. 6-2201 et [1978 Upon of an or referen- submission initiative or petition by proposer dum to the Board of (7) presented negate petition or Ethics, Elections and the Board shall refuse of the District of limit an act of the Council accept petition if the Board finds that Supp.] pursuant Columbia to [D.C.Code presented proper the measure is not a Section 47-224. referendum, ap- for initiative or whichever is petition, accept In the case of refusal to plicable, under the terms of title IV of the petition the the Board shall endorse on the District of Columbia Self-Government accepted and the words submitted but not Reorganization Governmental ed, as amend- appeal. date, pending petition and retain the upon any following grounds: exists, grounds If for refusal none (1) the verified statement of contributions petition. accept Board shall pursuant 1- has not been filed to sections 1-1136; or 1134 and whether CCRC is not clear from the record 7.It (2) petition proper material, is not in form precisely ab- had submitted the same section; (g) only signatures, established subsection of this to the Board in October sent 12,500 signa- Approximately verified 1978. (3) required qualify time in sub- limitation established tures would be (j) within section of this section which the for the ballot. CCRC immediately pursuant filed suit both a declaration that its new bill was a D.C.Code Supp., 1-1116(7)8 to chal- “proper subject” for an initiative and an lenge action, the Board’s primarily on the injunction ordering begin the Board to veri- ground that the “Dixon Amendment” went fying petition. CCRC’s beyond the limitations on the initiative 6, 1979, August On CCRCmade a fourth right specified in the Charter Amendments. filing Board, with presenting a third July 31, 1979, On the trial court denied proposed draft of a short title and initiative CCRC’smotion summary judgment for bill. The text of this bill was identical to granted summary judgment appellees, that of Initiative Measure No. and the upholding the validity of the “Dixon summary signed petitions, statement on the Amendment” at prohibits least insofar as it with the addition of a definition section an initiative “to challenge acts appropriat- explicitly limiting the bill to the dictum of ing capital current funds.” Convention (This Convention repro- Center II. bill is Center Referendum Committee v. Board of Appendix duced in C and will be referred to Ethics, Elections D.C.Super.Ct., & Civ. No. 3.) as Initiative Measure No. (July 1979)(Convention Center II). The suggested court in dictum that an day, rejected Later the same the Board seeking prevent the Coun- both of requests reinterpret CCRC’s its cil making budget future requests for initiative to conform to Convention Center capital appropriations would be valid. II. The trial court denied CCRC’s motion for a preliminary injunction the same after-

Acting on this suggestion, CCRC made a noon. See Convention Center Referendum third submission to the August Board on Ethics, Committee v. Board of Elections 1979. It & contained the same short title and D.C.Super.Ct., (August Civ. No. 9874-79 summary as had the second submission on 13; 1979) (Convention III). June In so but this Center rul- third package included a bill, ing, new the trial court held that Initiative summary identical to the state- ment Measure appeared No. like Initiative Measure signed petitions. on the No. (This Amendments, bill reproduced conflicted with the Appendix B and will be implemented referred to as Initiative the “Dixon Amend- Measure No. 2.) ment,” CCRCasked the scope Board to and was therefore outside the construe this second prevent bill to right. the Council the initiative only from The court also de- making future requests for approve Convention clined to Initiative Measure No. 3. Center appropriations, in accordance The court reasoned that to restrict the lan- the Convention guage Center II dictum. On Au- of the initiative to future gust 3,1979, ruled, before the requests Board through judicial CCRC construc- —either filed a Court, third suit in Superior seeking tion of through Initiative Measure No. or 1-1116(7) provides: signatures, D.C.Code 1980 number and as both distribution, prescribed toward in subsection If the Board of Elections and Ethics refuses section, (i) accept was within of this and submitted petition to when an or referendum it, person persons the time limitations established in subsection submitted to the section, (j) submitting petition may apply, this has to the of and attached such within (10) days petition proper ten of the circula- after the Board’s refusal to statements accept petition, (h) Superior prescribed such of tors tion, of this sec- Court subsection the District of Columbia for a writ in the and does not authorize discrimination compel nature of accept prescribed (k)(6) mandamus to the Board to of this section subsection petition. Superior such The negate Court or limit an act expedite shall of pre- consideration the mat- Council of the District of Columbia as Superior If ter. the issue section, Court determines that (k)(7) scribed in subsection of this it presented by petition proper is a requiring shall accept Board to issue order referendum, for initiative or which- petition as of the date of submis- applicable, ever is under the terms of title IV filing. Superior for sion Should the Court of the District of Columbia Self-Government proposer, in favor of hold it shall award Act, Reorganization and Governmental attorney’s court costs and reasonable fees amended, petition legal and that the proposer. apparently requirement form and meets the

896 for program million for this of $1.2 contained in Initia- limiting definitions the fair Measure No. 3—would distort

tive Fiscal Year 1982.12 bill, materially change the meaning of the and mislead by petition, measure circulated INITIATIVE III. THE CCRC 1979, 10, ruling on August the voters. On A “LAW” PROPOSES summary judgment, cross-motions ques of a series presents This case motion and trial court denied CCRC’s whether The first tions of law. appellees.

granted summary judgment within the a “law” proposes CCRC appeal notices of timely CCRC filed Amendments, D.C. meaning of the Charter 31, July August the trial of court’s decisions l-181(a). We conclude Supp., 1980 § Code 1973, August 10. See D.C.Code it does. (2)(A); 11(a). R. 4 721(a)(1), D.C.App. §§ 11— motion, this court consolidat- appellants’ On Initiative Power Scope of the A. The appeals. majority

ed these A division judgment fa- of this court affirmed Act, supra, 1 see note Home Rule The Believing this case appellees. vor of no originally contained impor- presents “exceptional a matter of referendum, the Charter or recall. tance,” 40(c)(2), granted D.C.App. R. Act, Supp., 1980 D.C. Code Amendments rehearing en banc. -195, electorate granted the 1-181 to §§ During litigation the Convention instruments direct long-recognized these has continued. In October Center and decision- legislative decisions control of re- in accordance with the Council’s McQuillin, E. generally 5 makers. See quest, Congress appropriated an additional 16.- Municipal Corporations §§ Law of for the million in construction funds $45 Supp.1980). (3d 1969 & .52-.53 rev.ed. 1980, Congress ap- Center.9 In December electors, enables provision The initiative propriated requested the final million $26.7 limits, “laws”: propose prescribed within construction.10 In for Convention Center proc- means The term “initiative” 31, 1980, meantime, as of October the District the electors of ess million of the obligated District had $71.1 (except laws may propose of Columbia million Construc- Convention Center $98.7 funds) present appropriating laws budget. tion regis- directly to proposed such laws started, the Dis- Once construction had of the District qualified electors tered operation began plans for trict to make disapprov- approval Columbia for their adopted the Center. In 1979 the Council l-181(a).] 1980 al. [D.C.Code Washington Man- Convention Center measure, approve an initiative If the voters 9- agement Act. 1980 D.C.Code Council,” id “an act of the requested it becomes 601 to -610.11 The Council Act, government, Board of Appropriations the Convention Center 9. See District of Columbia 96-93, II, 9-602(a). (the ‘Board’).” 713 tit. 93 Stat. Id. § Pub. L. No. Directors Act, 1980); (1979) (D.C. Appropriations powers Fiscal gives to en- statute the Board certain 2-311, Budget Request Year Act operate Center. the Convention able Reg. (1978); D.C. Government “a The statute also establishes id. 9-603. Columbia, the FY District Justifications for (‘the ‘Washington Fund’ Convention Center (Feb.1979). Budget, at BD-CAP-1 fund,” Fund’) enterprise operated as an to be operation 9-605(a), finance “the id. Appropriations 10. See District of Columbia Id. management center.” convention 96-530, Act, 1981, Stat. 3121 Pub. L. No. 9-605(b). explicitly “authorize[s] The statute Act, 1981); (1980) (D.C. Appropriations Fiscal be neces- funds as such to 3-134, Act, Budget Request 27 Act Year 1981 chapter.” sary carry purposes of this out the to (1979). Reg. 119 D.C. Id. 9-609. § having declaring public interest in 11. After necessity of a convention granting the related center and Act, Budget Request Year 1982 Fiscal 12.See powers, see D.C.Code 1980 certain 5315, 3-294, (1980). Reg. 5327 27 D.C. Act 9-601, Supp., an establishes “as the statute § independent agency the District of Columbia of

897 1-185,13 691, v, Logan, through and thus Paget (1963); § “law” the chan- S.E.2d 695 78 designated nel for particular type of act 247, 349, 356, Wash.2d 474 P.2d 251-52 Id.; see adopted. id. 1978 1- Supp., § Heider v. Coun- (en banc); Common (1970) 147(c).14 Wauwatosa, cil of 466, 474, Wis.2d 37 155 power, therefore, The initiative “pow is a 17, generally See (1967). N.W.2d 21 5 E. er legislation” of direct by electorate. 5 McQuillin, supra 16.54-.55. §§ E. McQuillin, supra 16.49, 200. Although acceptance principle of this is analyzing scope right, pro of this universal, virtually application its is diffi- that, ceed from the widely accepted premise an cult. The determination whether action express limitation, absent or implied subject to “legislative” and hence initia- power of the by electorate to act initiative depends substantially par- tive on both the is coextensive with power of the legisla governmental ticular structure and the ini- ture E.g., adopt to measures. tiative measure under consideration. Hite, Simpson v. 125, 129, 36 Cal.2d 222 P.2d Whitehead, supra 150,129 Va. at 204 S.E.2d 225, (en (1950) banc); 228 State ex rel. 695; Salome, supra see 5 E. McQuillin, Frank v. 16.- 766, 774, 167 Kan. 208 198, 48-49, P.2d Whitehead v. H & (1949); 204 .54-57. to C We therefore turn Development Corp., 144, 149, Va. 204 129 facts this case.15 of provides: (d), (e), (f) section, 13. D.C.Code 1979 1-185 and subsections of such majority apply respect any registered qualified If a shall with of concurrent voting any approve disapproving pursuant electors act or adopted in a referendum resolution act adopt legislation by paragraph. then the this approved by initiative (2) any or the act an act ref- In the case of such act transmitted upon erendum shall be of by any Council respect with Act Chairman the certification of 22, 23, the vote on such 24, initiative codified in titles act shall such by or act of District of Columbia Board 30-day period of take effect at the beginning end Ethics, and Elections such and act shall be- day on the such act is transmitted provisions come law to the of section by Speaker the Chairman to the the House of l-147(c). Representatives of and the President of the during only 30-day period Senate if such one l-147(c) provides: D.C.Code 1978 Congress adopt of does House resolu- (c)(1) Except acts of the Council which disapproving provisions tion such act. The submitted to the President in accordance relating pro- expedited of section 1-127 to an Budget Act, Accounting with the and 1921 resolutions, for shall cedure apply consideration (31 any seq.) 1§ U.S.C: et act which the disapproving simple to a resolution according Council determines 1- section specified paragraph. act such as 146(a), immediately should take effect be- emergency circumstances, cause of acts and measure, 15.A careful focus on Act, proposing amendments title IV of this structure, governmental it pecially important to our is es relates the the Chairman shall Representatives, the Council transmit because the District Co Speaker House constitutionally unique. v. lumbia Palmore copy and the President of the Senate States, 411 United 1675, U.S. 93 S.Ct. passed by signed each act the and (1973); 36 Mutual L.Ed.2d 342 National Mayor, by Mayor or vetoed and re- Co., 337 Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer passed by present two-thirds of the Council 582, 588, 1173, 1176, 93 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. voting (and respect and (1949) (plurality opinion); Hepburn v. Ell Mayor’s President has not sustained the 445, 452, (2 Cranch.) zey, L.Ed. 332 U.S. veto), every passed act the Council (1805). It has characteristics of a number May- and or in allowed become effective generally governmental Newman entities. signature. Except provided his without DePuy, Bringing Democracy Nation’s (2), & Last paragraph no act shall such take effect Colony: Self- The District of Columbia 30-day period (excluding until the end of the U.L.Rev. Saturdays, Government 24 Am. Sundays, holidays, Therefore, (1975). despite home day session) the fact that on which either House is not in beginning by day rule the District and on the act is transmitted such only judicial Speaker have received limited its electors the Chairman to the Representatives House interpretation, v. of Columbia see District and the President of the Council, Inc., Washington Ownership during 30-day Senate then Home if such banc); (1980) (en period adopt D.C.App., 415 A.2d 1349 both Houses of do not Columbia, D.C.App., disapproving Bishop v. District of concurrent resolution such denied, provisions 1-127, (en banc), except U.S. act. The of section cert. A.2d 997

898 form, Scope proper legislative pro- the

B. The of the Initiative ... CCRC posed or referendum initiative measure In order to determine whether the CCRC ” l-1116(c)(l)-(3); id. 1- .. .. see § Id. § “law,” proposes initiative we must first establishment” of these “Upon 186. final legal the scope define of the CCRC initia- elements, l-1116(g); see three Id. id. tive. 1-186, -1116(d)-(f), proposer circu- §§ Significance 1. The of the Initiative Bill containing petitions signature lates “the Itself text and short title summary of the official ” l-1116(gX3); of the measure .... Id. § To scope ascertain the of an initia l-1116(h)-(j). id. how- Apparently, see tive, the Initiative Procedures Act directs ever, proposer has submitted only after attention to the initiative bill itself. This does the signed petitions the Board necessary. focus is not but also sensible Board definitive law, make a determination Because the initiative establish a bill; subject (in thus, matter con- propriety it must include neither form”): truly Board nor the can “proper legislative court determine trast with the whether an limi peti- initiative conforms accept shall refuse to Board “[T]he tations on the initiative unless it scru tion if Board finds that the measure very tinizes the that would bill become presented proper subject is not a initia- law.16 referendum, applica- tive whichever ble,” grounds specified on Under the Initiative Procedures l-1116(k); supra.17 note 6 statute. Id. see proposer of an initiative or referendum first (1) proposer before the circu- Accordingly, files with the of Elections and Ethics Board lates assures that petitions, Board measure, full text of a summary “the ” peti- on the ..., summary printed statement statement short and a title .... bill, accurately tions reflects the l-1116(a)(l). 1980 D.C.Code (2) required peti- then number of prepares impartial Board then “a true and after the title, statement, summary signed presented, a short .... tions ... have been 2943, (1980); Capitol clearly vote initiative or 100 S.Ct. 64 L.Ed.2d 825 if the referendum Moore, Society, Hill Restoration v. Inc. scope D.C. or referen outside the App., (1979); see, Convention 410 A.2d 184 g., Engstrom, Center e. Boucher v. right, dum 528 J., supra; Washington, D.C.App., McIntosh v. 456, (Alaska 1974); Harnett v. Sacra P.2d 460 cautious, (1978), 395 A.2d 749 must be 683, 445, County, 195 Cal. 676, mento 235 P. drawing jurisdictions, precedent from other (1925); Amalgamated Unio n —Divi Transit 448 against special to test our own here. context Yerkovich, 221, 226, Or.App. sion 757 v. 24 545 1401, (1976), proposes P.2d n.7 1404 law Hite, Simpson 127, supra 16. v. 36 Cal.2d at wholly illegal that would be or unconstitution 226; Management Teachers In at & P.2d 222 Council, See, g., Otey v. e. Common al. 281 v. Corp. Cruz, City vestment of Santa 64 Cal. 264, (E.D.Wis.1968); Whitson F.Supp. 275-79 438, 443, 523, App.3d Cal.Rptr. 134 526-27 759, (Alaska Anchorage, v. P.2d 761-62 608 Duran v. 574, Cassidy, (1976); Cal.App.3d 28 League County County 1980); v. Dade Dade n.l, 1, 793, Cal.Rptr. 577-78 & 104 588 ex. 512, (Fla. Municipalities, 514-15 104 So.2d n.1, (1972); Mueller v. 796-97 & 805 ex. 1 1958); Rivergate Corp. Metropol v. Restaurant Brown, 319, 323-24, Cal.App.2d 221 34 Cal. County, 679, (Fla.Dist. itan 369 682 Dade So.2d City 474, People Rptr. (1963); of Centra 476 Fant, ex State rel. Bussie v. Ct.App.1979); City Centralia, 228, 230, 216 lia v. Ill.App.2d 1 217, 58, 66, Frank, (1949); State ex 410, La. 43 So.2d 219 (1953); State ex rel. 117 N.E.2d 411 61, 68-69, Murray, 200-01; supra rel. 769, 144 394 Steen v. Mont. 167 Kan. 208 P.2d at at Hughes Bryan (In 761, (1964) curiam). But (per v. Filed see re initiative Petition P.2d 764-65 18, 1966), 952, 321, April (Okl.1967); Ranjel City Lansing, 953 v. 425 P.2d 417 F.2d 324 Cir.1969); Amalgamated Bolin, 358, Transit Union — Division 757 v. (6th Ariz. v. 98 Im Yerkovich, 221, n.2, Or.App. 705, 24 224 364-65, (en banc); 545 P.2d (1965) 404 P.2d Whitehead, 1401, supra (1976); Commonwealth, 1403 n.2 Secretary Bowe v. 146-47, at 693. Va. 129 S.E.2d (1946); 69 N.E.2d Mass. Madison, City v. State rel. Althouse ex provisions Initiative and referendum in some 110-19, Wis. N.W.2d jurisdictions no authorize matter (1977). screening popular vote. advance may enjoin such states court nevertheless conclusively Board examines the itself of they bill the Act. must Accordingly, satisfy subject determine propriety the subject” the “proper inquiry the under 1-§ matter for the ballot.18 1116(k) by reference to the initiative bill itself.

The unique procedural posture of this case change does not this focus on the bill CCRC Initiative itself controlling as the statement the We turn to the substance CCRC supra, initiative. As indicated in Part II abstract, In we can initiative. the think of the Initiative Procedures provide Act does opponents two in which ways narrow Con- from certain procedural requirements to stop vention Center could seek the “any for petition,” First, CCRC’s, they such as project. could mount substan- that was “circulated on or (a) after attempting October and June tive attack deauthorize before Thus, ....” the Id. 1-1119.2. the Act construction of Convention Center § specifically exempts amending (pro petitions repealing) underly- CCRC tanto from requirement “approval capital of a for ing substantive authorization statement, summary title, construction, legisla short and 9-220(a); D.C. Code § tive form for prior an initiative supra, measure see note exclude Convention the circulation filing petitions Center, (b) and prohibit operation such and its . . . .” l-1119.2(c) added); Id. (emphasis repealing § the substantive authorization for see id. l-1116(c)-(f)!19 Center, § Unlike initiatives operation of the D.C. Code 1980 future, that will be proposed in the there 9-601 to note 11 supra -610. See §§ fore, this case guarantee Second, lacks the that the accompanying and text. could Board proposer negotiat and the will have adopt wholly strategy by (a) fiscal seeking ed a summary statement of appropriations the initiative revoke for bill proposer before the peti (b) circulates the to forbear force from tions to community. making budget requests future for the Cen- ter. however,

The Initiative Procedures does not exempt petitions (Initiative CCRC’s original from the initiative bill CCRC’s subject” substantive “proper requirement. 1) approaches— Measure No. contains both 1116(k). See id. § accordance with the stopping substantive and fiscal—toward 1— procedural exemptions, pro- the Act does does Convention Center. The bill not ex- vide may that the Board not refuse to ac- plicitly underlying state that it amends cept petitions CCRC’s an presenting capital im- substantive authorization for con- proper the ground peti- on projects, struction D.C. Code 9-§ form,” tions proper are “not in the 220(a), repeals id. or substantive authorization l-1116(k)(2), that “the § time limitation” operation of the Center. See id. 1980 for circulation and submission “has ex- Supp., 9-601 to -610. Section three of §§ pired.” l-1116(k)(3); however, Id. 1- bill, see id. would have effect of Otherwise,. however, 1119.2. statute removing underpinnings the substantive treats petitions CCRC’s like others sub- date Center: “After the effective measure, mitted to the Board after the effective date the District Columbia addition, rejects exempts 18. If the Board be- 19. In the Act either CCRC from petitions obtaining approval petition fore proposer forms are circulated or thereafter Board circulation, compel acceptance see sue to in advance of id. 1- §§ l-1119.2(a), circulating 1116(h)(1), from CCRC has See done. D.C.Code 1980 1-1116(1); petitions only supra. pro- Although after certification and the then within Board note days approval. explicitly vision of that See id. does not focus at- the court’s (3), 1-1119.2(a). 1116(j)(l), excep- appropri- Other §§ tention on the bill we see no 1— ate, petitions require- pro- free the CCRC determining tions ments of alternative basis number, assigned priety the use of an serial scope. of an initiative’s substantive 1-1119.2(b), 1-1116(b), printing supra §§ id. accompanying see note 16 text. 1-1116(g), prescribed id. form. See in a 1-1119.2(d). community. the other circulated to the operate construct or Government shall not On decision, CCRC hand, trial court’s Center, given acquire land for Convention the ballot get could not the initiative place a sub- purpose.” This section would prospective only had unless the measure power the of the Dis- stantive limitation on two Thus, the Board offered effect. CCRC program of construc- to undertake trict “[a] hoped apparently capital needs the alternatives tion to meet the conflicting concerns. Columbia,” satisfy would these government of the District of 1973, 9-220(a), pro- and would D.C.Code § an the Board as First, submitted CCRC operation of the Center hibit Convention summary statement bill alternative is built. id. 1980 once it See (Initiative Measure petitions printed on its would take repealer 9-601 to -610. The to construe 2). the Board No. CCRC asked meas- “after the effective date of this hold future prohibit this new bill to ure,” is, passed measure had once the Be- Center. requests for the Convention popular congres- through required ruled, submitted had CCRC fore the Board sional channels. (Initiative alternative bill still another Initia- 3), incorporated No. which moreover, Measure Initiative Measure No. confined expressly 2 and Measure No. tive for the appropriations revoke would seek to Cen- to the dictum Convention its terms further construc- project. By proscribing additional, an the use of through ter II after the operation tion or Center Board and the section. definitional measure, date” of the section “effective both at- rejected subsequently court trial any ap- prohibits expenditure three the initiative. reinterpret tempts to once the propriated funds for the Center designated popu- measure has traveled had to recognize CCRC While four congressional lar route. Section sys- and untried complicated work with a message that the District explicit makes popu- vehicle for proper tem to achieve possible, as up project is to wind as soon Center, we lar vote on the Convention funds to settle broken using appropriated if the Board court that agree with the trial contracts, expend- no additional making but 2,No. Measure interpreted Initiative had process. itures unrelated to the termination Measure accepted Initiative requested, or that Initiative Appendix A. It follows written, would have its action No. the Coun- prevent Measure No. also illegal. been request for funds making any cil from new neither place, In the first operate to construct or Center. Initiative Procedures nor the Amendments short, No. 1 would Initiative Measure proposers expressly authorizes Act and financial remove both the substantive Board, initiative, courts unilater- or the Center underpinnings of the Convention of an initiative the substance ally to revise end. bring to an immediate to the vot- petitions bill after circulation provide Amendments ers. The Charter 3. Postcirculation Revisions an initiative Board “shall submit that the ” . .. D.C. . without alteration held that measure After the trial court had The Initiative 1-183. § No. 1 was outside Code Initiative Measure provision to initiative, interprets this Act see Con Procedures permissible scope of an technical, but not to make II, attempted permit the Board supra, vention Center CCRC substantive, circulation changes before matching signa to sustain its effort Id. 1- form.” § petitions “proper assure on the tures it had collected Board, 1116(c)(3). responsibility This to the would conform an initiative bill that the bill for to screen duty as its authorizing a as well Center II dictum Convention circulation of after propriety matter presumably rec prospective freeze. CCRC 1116(k); supra, note id. signa petitions, see could not use these ognized that it 1— give proposers the Board to encourage if the bill legitimize the initiative tures before circula- guidance substantive from what CCRC had some materially deviated electorate, tion, say Nor will it do to that the at the approves time the Board statement; summary eventually voting on the could not give but it does perceiving petition- “cure” error authority the Board to revise the substance petition- role signers’ intent. If the circulation, bill after even the re- meaning in the initiative signers is to have quest of proposer. Nor does CCRC’s process, they signed support, the bill grandfather clause, 1-1119.2, see id. give materially one rewritten or contrast with power license) the Board (or CCRC statutory or constitu- redefined to meet a to revise the substance of CCRC’s initiative put objection, must be the bill tional petitions after have been circulated. The voters, put if to the voters all.21 one plain 1-1119.2, language of providing ex- al- Although our refusal allow material emption general procedures, supports harsh may teration of a bill lead to a result no interpretation.20 such broad who, faith, good peti- for those in circulated event, any In it would be mischievous to end, that, containing tions a bill in the read into the Charter Amendments and the ballot, it be an cannot reach would even Initiative a proposer’s right Procedures Act governmental process harsher result for the change the terms of a measure between permit if we were to an initiative onto itself petitions circulation of and signatures submission the ballot on which might based given materially the voters. A a popular threshold of not have been altered level We be convic- support, say as bill. must able with by signatures peti- evidenced on tion, express tions, based on the terms of the is a prerequisite for a vote on an petition-signers what the contem- 1-182, initiative. l-1116(i). See id. In plated acceptable. as most circumstances proposer, neither Board, nor the court could surmise with unitary project of capital In the case a any accuracy confidence or the peti- center, as a have no such convention tion-signers approved a have differ- knowing person basis for whether a who ent version of the initiative from the one halt signed petition calling a for a to the petitions. summarized on the project year sup- in the current also would 20. Even this narrow before the tion. ments member countered should nature of the cil members who felt That’s the kind of formal ment] would waive or petitions the basic be affected bility for into citizens have ment. an or had to conclude that kinds of some guards. [L]ooking I inch this hope Proponents self-executing by ratifying preliminary effect, not, that the Board of Elections will very, very important procedural ^[*] signatures Betty What first considerable safeguards everyone that thousands and thousands adoption legislation at the will effect, a ^[*] procedural exception. Ann Kane period it three-quarter margin signed does in turn sections kinds this on a ^[*] make the will weighed. of that the grandfather because it doesn’t itself, away those were opposition putting amendment, modify, implementing legisla- explained: page support there. stressed ^[*] requirements sections, with which would not Charter Amend- enabling instead it But, I think we all ^[*] actions taken this amend- [the from Coun- very the limited clause en- legislation at the and that contains Council- amend- ^[*] of ten. statute minor possi- reject other have safe- that, top - 21. We do not reach the would have generally, tions of enacted statute with Board pra, circulation (1968) Construction initiative a permissible tains power. 570, vague from three. See Neal v. ed and interwoven” in one sentence severability proper (1964) (per Murray, 144 Mont. 1981). Although severability S.W.2d IV.C. 585, a portions (court provisions severability Cf. measure, single operative 88 S.Ct. permissible infra. 2 C. but impossible); curiam) United States v. court passed § 44.01.20 may sever unconstitutional sec- clause) improper Sands, prior Initiative statute impermissible and thus render could 1209, Still, (same); clause, law impossible (1970) (unconstitutionally scope Statutes and question (4th sever so 1218, State ex 248 Ark. a 394 P.2d if sentence Measure No. 1 con- “mutually popular Jackson, severance of im- any ed. 1973 & legislature Parts III.B.2. of the initiative (with 20 L.Ed.2d sections of here, whether, effects flow event). rel. Steen v. it as to make or without of section congruent vote, Statutory 390 U.S. connect- Supp. likely 1135, after both su- an freeze, petitions of the merely summary a statement port prospective public measure, susceptible waste funds that would result it proposed was not dismantling project well under its only” interpretation. On “prospective way.22 may petition-signers It be true that prohibit expenditure face purported it cannot, event, certainty foretell with funds, budg- future well as capital project the date when a contrast, In Appendix et B. requests. See Moreover, might become effective. we rec- expressly No. 3 while initiative Measure an on ognize upcoming prospec- vote only prospective freeze Con- called for tive-only might encourage admin- imper- funding, was vention it Center plans contingency istrators to make for ter- original missible, substantive revision project, mination of the with the result 1) (Initiative summarized bill Measure No. impact might the actual turn out to be petitions. on the somewhat than re- legally more immediate light of the scheme summary, Nonetheless, quired. there be a sub- original in- Initiative Procedures an initiative discrepancy stantial between initia- proposers the CCRC tention of the that would halt a as soon as tive, inten- language reflecting that and the people spoken and one peti- signers tion presented stop that would at the end of tions, accept- that the Board’s we conclude fiscal year latest for which the Council has 2No. or ance of either Initiative Measure requested Congress has have been Measure No. 3 would Initiative funds.23 can no as to There be assurance Thus, we our con- must address improper. how deal the administrators would with bill, original Initiative the sideration to problem under these different situations. 1, legal effect of which Measure No. therefore, Particularly, when we consider (1) construction would be to deauthorize relating an initiative to an indivisible Center, and of the operation Convention project, timing where ma- stoppage of a funds (2) expenditure further stop to assessment, terial to the there cost-benefit operation construction or appropriated for speculation peti- is no room for whether the stop well as submission project, of the as to tion-signers been with would have satisfied requests Congress. to budget of future substantively proposal. a different an on Because circulated of the Council C. The Powers petitions, lawfully changed any be in cannot of the scope CCRC Having defined respect material to the vot- for submission initiative,'we whether question turn to the ers, the trial were Board and the court lawfully could Council itself District rejecting attempt correct in CCRC’s to sub- pass bill. We first examine (as Initiative such a interpret- mit Measure No. 2 Home ed) powers (as written). Although general and No. 3 Initia- Council’s under tive Measure No. 2 was circulated on the Rule Act. We then consider however, If, petitioner’s respect government up. 22. A with would wind it intentions freeze, halting unitary capital only prospective of a construction called a therefore, project, likely legally are to be difficult more October would not end until street-paving 1982, a to discern than intentions as to program, the first month for which Council example, government budget request yet adopted More a act. stop liquida- budget can at time without material specifically, feeds because District which, completed tion costs and to the extent process, Congressional appropriations into the presumably gain a net commu- would be (1976); 1321 Part III.C. 31 U.S.C. infra, see nity. budgetary far matters must act on year fiscal considera- of the under advance example, suppose 23. For initia- let us that an request Fiscal Year act for tion. The passed building project tive to halt a had at the 1982, September be- which ends and, popular necessary after the con- election 31 on November 1980. See came effective action, gressional today. If became effective Budget (1976); Year 1982 1321 Fiscal U.S.C. the initiative project, called for an immediate end 3-294, D.C.Reg. Request Act project, all on the at whatever work (1980). reached, stop stage today, it had and the powers budgetary process, provisions those for the United States of this as well other statutory limitations which subject the restrictions and Act all appellees prevent contend would the Coun- imposed upon limitations the States cil adopting act like the CCRC tenth section the first article initiative. Contrary appellees’ position, Constitution of the United States. [D.C. we conclude that through the Council its Code 1978 § 1-124.] powers, substantive and fiscal act. could so legislative power vested this Council, but, 144(a),24 1- see id § 1. Home Rule Powers its comply order constitutional In establishing self-government for the duties,25 Congress a in the retained role Columbia, District Congress wished “to process. The ordinary Council’s greatest possible, extent consistent with legislation effective after becomes the constitutional mandate relieve [to] [it- 30-legislative-day layover Congress, legislating burden of es- upon self] disapproval concurrent reso- local sentially District matters.” D.C.Code l-144(e), during period. lution Id §§ l-121(a); see District Co- -147(c)(1); Washington see Home Owner- v. Washington Ownership lumbia Home 1351-52; Council, Inc., supra ship at New- Council, Inc., D.C.App., 415 A.2d 631-34; DePuy, supra man note 14 & (1980) (en banc); Washington, McIntosh v. supra.26 D.C.App., (1978). 395 A.2d Various review, Although subject congressional of Congress members apparently had in mind different govern- powers ordinary legislation models for the Council’s new broad; structure, including only by speci mental agen- federal are limited cy, state, exceptions require a municipality, territory, general and a fied city-state. DePuy, Bring- See Newman & legislation ment that consistent with the ing Democracy Colony: to the Nation’s Last and the Home Rule Act. U.S. Constitution Columbia, District of Columbia Self-Government Bishop v. District of D.C. Act, (1975). 24 (en banc), Am.U.L.Rev. 556-69 App., 411 A.2d 999 cert. Congress ultimately delegated denied, to the Dis- 446 100 S.Ct. 64 U.S. trict control over most own McIntosh, of its (1980); supra L.Ed.2d 825 at affairs: sense, In the resem 751-54. this District

Except 1-126, general full provided city as in bles a “home rule” sections 1-147, 47-228, except powers govern and affairs legislative power the local limitations, of the District a limit rightful express shall extend to all in contrast with subjects of legislation corpora within city municipal the District ed “home rule” aor with the granted only Constitution of tion which a state has enu- consistent l-144(a) Supp., provides: Supp., l-121(a). 1978 § 24.D.C.Code 25. Arti- § See D.C.Code 1978 I, Constitu- cle section 8 of the United States Subject specified to the sec- limitations part: Congress provides tion “The shall 1-126, 1-147, 47-228, 1-127, tions and Legislation in ... To exercise exclusive Power legislative power granted by to the District whatsoever, (not over all exceeding such District by Cases this Act is vested in and shall be exercised square) may, by ten Miles as Cession the addition, Council accordance with this Act. States, Acceptance except and the of provided of Particular in this otherwise Congress, granted imposed Seat of the all become the Government functions to or ” upon, or of United States vested in or Dis- .... transferred to the Council, trict of Columbia as established Reorganization shall ap- Plan Number 3 of 1967 power to 26. also reserved Charter, be carried out Council in accordance prove see the District amendments to provisions with the of this Act. l-125(b), Supp., affirma- and § D.C.Code 1978 (“The power Cf. 1-162 id. § executive legislate tively Wash- the District. See ”); Mayor shall District be vested .... Council, Inc., supra Ownership ington Home app. 431(a) (“The judicial power id. tit. 11 § of n.9; Supp., 1978 1-126. § 1352 D.C.Code District vested in the District of Colum- Appeals Superior bia Court and the Court Columbia.”). the District of 904 powers. generally Budgetary 2 E. a. The Process

merated See McQuillin, 9.01-.08b, supra 10.08-17. §§ unique Act The Home Rule establishes rule, general As a construe strictly courts for the complex budgetary procedure and powers municipal corporations, see outline, which, proceeds as District in broad 10.18a-.24, they liberally id. whereas §§ proposes the initially The Mayor follows: ' read authority of full “home rule” D.C. budget and submits it the Council. id. construing cities. See 10.25.27In § 47-221(a). The 1978 Supp., Code § delegation legislative power to the Coun- and fifty days in which to consider then has cil, however, pay this court must substantial Id. “adopt” budget by “act.” District the unique attention to nature of the Dis- transmits this 47-224. The Council then § polity, in- supra, always trict’s see note see “budget request Mayor, act” back to terpreting the Home Rule Act “with a cen- l-144(e), pow- veto id. who has line-item § Congress.” tral focus: the intent of Wash- l-144(f). can er. id. The Council § Inc., Council, ington Ownership Home supra vote. veto a two-thirds override such (footnote omitted). at 1351 final Id. then Mayor The submits President. Id. budget request act 2. Budgetary Exception 47-224. § general delegation One to the Management After the Office of federal legislative authority budg- concerns budg- Budget and has reviewed the District etary process. D.C.Code 1978 47- et, 2, 16, (1976), the see 31 §§ U.S.C. provides part: in relevant version President submits the final to Con- Nothing in Act be construed shall 11(a). gress. After committee See id. § law, making existing any change in consideration, Congress passes and trans- regulation, procedure and prac- basic Ap- D.C. mits to the President the annual relating respective roles tice propriations Act. See U.S.C. President, Congress, the Federal Of- An (1976); 47-224. D.C.Code Management Budget, fice of appropriations underlying item that lacks Comptroller General of the United States substantive authorization review, submission, preparation, in the Represent- order in the House of point of examination, authorization, appropri- atives.28 ation total District Act Appropriations annual authorizes government. Columbia 47- [Id.

228(a).] obligate expend District officials to See, Ninety-Sixth Congress, g., City Valley H.R. e. of Grass v. Walkin the United States shaw, 595, 598-99, 95-403, Cong., 34 Cal.2d 212 P.2d 2d Doc.No. (1979). 95th Sess. (1949) (en banc); 896-97 Hutchinson Human 1, XVI, Relations agement, v. Man Similarly, Commission Midland Credit prohibits Rule § Senate Inc., 313-14, 308, 213 Kan. 517 P.2d appropriations bills lack amendments to 158, Cable, City (1973); Capitol 162-63 Inc. v. underlying substantive authorization: 885, 152, 159-60, Topeka, of 209 Kan. 495 P.2d general appropriation bills be All should (1972); Corp. Avenue 891-92 1426 Woodward Appropriations, on referred the Committee Wolff, 352, 369-70, v. 312 20 Mich. N.W.2d any no shall be received to and amendments 217, (1945); Jersey 222-23 v. New Whelan general appropriation bill the effect of which Co., 251, 237, Light Power 45 N.J. 212 A.2d & already appropriation will be to increase an 136, Bradford, (1965); Greenberg City 143 v. of bill, a of contained in the or to add new item 611, 51, (1968). 432 Pa. A.2d 53-54 616. 248 carry appropriation it made to out unless law, treaty existing provisions of some or the XXI, provides: 28. House Rule § act, previously stipulation, or or resolution any appropriation reported shall be in No session; by passed during or the Senate bill, general appropriation be in order as or by aof unless the same be moved direction thereto, any expenditure an amendment for Senate, standing or select committee law, previously authorized unless pursuance proposed sub- or of an estimate appropriations pub- continuation for such of mitted in accordance with law. objects already lic works as are Administration, Unit- on Rules and Committee progress. Senate, Manual, Senate S.Doc.No.95- Constitution, ed States Brown, W. Jefferson’s Manual 1, Cong., (1977). 1st Sess. 17 95th Representatives and Rules of the House of Act, approved pro- Appropriations revenues the for mental & Rescission District grams, 47-224, 96-304, 1980, IV, 857, Supp. see D.C.Code 1978 ch. Pub.L.No. 94 Stat. § may Mayor (1980). also authorize the to bor- row capital projects. funds finance See Defunding b. Deauthorization (“Interim id. 47-241 & note Loan Author- § 723, ity”) (Home Act, VII, supra, Rule tit. § whether, question presented The as amended Act Pub. of Oct. structure, given the Council 95-131, Thus, 1155). L.No. 91 Stat. § (1) capital project an ongoing can halt although the programs Council authorizes amending repealing underlying or the sub and approves budget the trans- District for budget for the item stantive authorization President, mission the Congress itself Congress appropriated after has funds for finally appropriates the funds. gener- See it, (2) halting expendi simply by or further ally Newman DePuy, supra & at 591-94. project ture funds for the appropriated course, (and, of declining to make future permits The Home Rule Act also revisions it). budget requests for We conclude that of the District budget through essentially Council, pursuant powers to its of ordi original budget. same as the legislation, remove nary can the substantive “The Mayor from time to time may prepare but, project; authorization a funded and submit such proposed Council has extent funds supplemental deficiency budget recom- project, for the the Council can halt further as in judgment mendations his are neces- through expenditure only the more elabo sary on account of laws enacted after trans- requirements process, budget rate mission budget otherwise though formally even project been the public Supp., interest.” D.C.Code 1978 deauthorized.29 47-221(c); (1976). § see 31 U.S.C. §§ If the adopts supplemental Council budg- a Rule Council Under Home act, et request Supp., see D.C.Code 1978 taking begin by could either a substantive 47-224, it, the Mayor may approve § see id. project approach halting or a fiscal a l-144(e), veto, or subject § it to line-item of a fiscal during year. course l-144(f) see id. Council in turn § pould Council, for example, initially invoke may override. See id. The Mayor trans- ordinary repeal or legislative power its mits the final version the supplemental project. amend the law that authorizes the budget request act to the President. See 1-124, -144(a). See D.C.Code 1978 §§ id. 47-224. The of Management office vary of such action would de- effect act, and Budget examines the see 31 U.S.C. If pending stage program. (1976), §§ President then project before Council deauthorized submits to Congress. 11(g). act, See id. budget request adopting Congress ultimately approve sup- must no If the presumably go further. plemental appropriations budget act. adoption acted after of a Council (1976); U.S.C. request congressional pas- D.C.Code 1978 act but before act, Although “sup- 47-224. absence sage appropriations term plemental” implies request authorizing legislation could additional of substantive appropriations, point also use leave item request appro- such an to see Representatives, act reductions in order in the House See, ;30 priations. otherwise, g. Sup- supra congres- e. Year Fiscal 1980 note 28 plemental Budget Request process Act of Act would contin- appropriations sional 3-170, (1980); 27 D.C.Reg. Supple- 1368 § ue. recognize capital legislation Only possibility appropriation

29. a We for the first by by challenge project for lack the Council or an be to the electorate would infringe underlying could on the authorization. See executive functions vested substantive Mayor. Supp., supra. in the See 28 D.C.Code 1978 note -163, 47-226, to §§ 1-162 -241. We conclude present this initiative not a does such problem. See Part infra. III.D. 906 Dis- in the Congress undermine the role of the substantive repealed If the Council We governmental structure. trict’s Congress after project for a authorization Council, improperly, permitting be (or if the Council appropriated funds

had track to legislative relatively easy use a with- appropriation, repealed it before the ap- Congress project a which interdict request act in repealing budget out also acquies- taking step beyond a proved by order), the Coun- point of a the absence the affirm- program authorization: cence in halt repealer cil’s alone would not id. 47- of funds. See § appropriation ative have to rescind the project; Congress would 228(a). project appropriation, in order to end The struc- during year. therefore, the current fiscal conclude, that a substan- We compels this ture of the Home Rule Act can halt by the Council tive deauthorization process, fiscal legislative the current ordinary project during view. In the a funded supplemental by a passive: implemented a deauthori- if year the role of congres- by a budget request act followed effective by zation the Council becomes act re- appropriations supplemental sional acquiescence through congressional mere transferring appropriations scinding or See D.C.Code during layover period. See 31 program. U.S.C. the deauthorized -147(c)(1). l-144(e), In the Supp., §§ 11(b) (1976); D.C.Code § contrast, Congress has budget process, by 47-221(c), -224.31 for the key appropriations retained a role: congres- affirmative depend District on an once question: an obvious There remains id. 47-224. If we were to See funds, sional act. § can the Congress has permit construe the Home Rule Act using budget project by halt the Council the Council deauthorizing legislation by alone, begin by repeal- rather than process congressional (even 30-day if it authoriza- underlying survived substantive ing the could con- yes; to undercut the affirmative the Council layover) tion? We answer request act appro- budget gressional approval adopt supplemental reflected in the appropria- or transfer project, seeking we would rescission priation of funds for a (subject congressional authority re- authority adopt supple- mate 31. Pursuant to its budget, acts, view) as re- budget requests annual see D.C.Code over the District’s mental (cap- 47-224, paragraph § can add first the Council flected in the § appropria- budget”): request “At for rescission or transfer of of annual tioned “submission any supple- direct, Mayor tions for a deauthorized such time as the Council request proposed budget act prepare mental each to the Council shah and submit Mayor 47-221(c), provides in public, under id. year, § an an- to the and make available may pre- part: Mayor time time “The budget the District of Columbia nual pare proposed such 47-221(a) (emphasis and submit government added). § . ...” Id. deficiency budget supplemental recommen- (c) Paragraph is subordi- of 47-221 necessary judgment on dations as in his prerogative of the to this fundamental nate transmission of account of laws enacted after Council. public budget in the inter- or are otherwise appropri- supplemental to a As an alternative est.” act, Congress a transfer consider could ations 47-221(c) gives Mayor Although discre- “reprogramming” through appropriations propose supplemental recom- Appropria- tion to mendations, proposal and Senate Reprogramming to the House understand the statute Policy we do not tions committees. authority grant Mayor to deter- exclusive 3-222, D.C.Reg. Act of D.C.Law budget request supplemental act mine when a is Mayor, 47-283); (to (1980) codified at D.C.Code 47-221(c) grants necessary. Section Report Appropriations, on House Committee executive, to initi- as the chief Appropria- Accompanying District of Columbia give proposal; but it does ate such a 96-443, Bill, 19_, H.R.Rep.No. 96th tions Mayor authority budgetary to use the (1979); Cong., House Commit- 1st Sess. 15-16 program to block the Council’s Accompanying Report Appropriations, tee on funding adjustments refusing mid-year to facilitate Bill, Appropriations of Columbia District veto, subject (other use of the than 92-684, Cong., H.R.Rep.No. 92d 1st Sess. override, supplemental budget re- once a Appropriations, (1971); Senate Committee quest adopted). read such has been To act Ap- Accompanying Report District Columbia 47-221(c) authority would be § exclusive contrary into 92-550, Bill, S.Rep. propriations No. 92d statutory frame- to the fundamental (1971). Cong., 1st Sess. 25 Council, Mayor, giving not the ulti- work tions for See 31 U.S.C. year. the fiscal acts “legislative” acts the electorate 11(b) (1976); by D.C.Code 1978 can adopt § initiative? 224; 47-221(c), supra.32 note 31 Use of Legislative A Act D. budget process a project to end

respect the role of Congress the District’s corollary is a rule that There fiscal affairs and comport thus with the power by of the electorate to act initia Rule Act. See id. § Home 47-228(a).33 tive legislative pow is coextensive with the er: an to adminis initiative cannot extend In summary, consistent with the Home supra McQuillin, 5 E. See trative matters. Act, Rule the Council could seek to halt an Although many courts have barred 16.55. § ongoing project during the current fiscal ground initiatives from the ballot on (1) year by repealing the substantive autho- “administrative,” proposed the act legislation, rizing by followed a supplemen- “legislative,” not conclude budget tal request seeking act rescission or CCRC does not run afoul of this (2) transfer of appropriations; or initially corollary. adopting a supplemental budget request act seeking rescission or appropriat- transfer of The of “legislative” test and “administra- ed question funds. The remains: Are jurisdictions such tive” matters that other most Similarly, adopted budget permissive, mandatory. if the Council a This statute is request including particular act availability appropriated item but had of funds for continued construction of a of thoughts passed second before public had building falls far short act, appropriations an a the Council irrevocably could enact requiring expenditure. their revoking request. amendment Appropriations The District of Columbia 11(g) (1976); U.S.C. D.C.Code 1978 merely general Acts the rule of this reiterate Supp., § 47-224. statute; they irrevocably do not mandate the expenditure appropriated capital of funds for provision 33. No other of the Home Rule Act projects. example, Appropria- For the D.C. any precludes nor from federal statute the Council Act, 978, 5, 1978, approved provides: tions June deauthorizing capital project or at- Notwithstanding foregoing, all authoriza- tempting, through budget process, to re- capital outlay projects, except tions for those financing project scind Congress for an authorized after projects by the covered first sentence of sec- appropriated funds. The Home 23(a) Highway tion Aid Act Federal may Rule Act does mandate that amount “[n]o (Public August approved Law 90-195 obligated expended by any be employee officer or 23, 1968) provided for which funds are govern- of the District of Columbia paragraph, expire September shall on approved ment unless such amount has been projects except authorizations for Congress, only according Act of and then obligated in which funds have been whole such Act.” D.C.Code 1978 47-224. part prior expiration Upon to such date. feut this statement does not mean that the project such authorization the funds irrevocably spending District is committed to provided lapse project such shall herein for appropriated simply funds. It means that the Act, 1978, supra, Appropriations .... [D.C. may obligations District not incur unless autho- tit. 2.] congressional appropriations rized act. Appropriations Acts and 1981 D.C. of 1980 general Nor does the federal statute concern- provision, expendi- except contain the same ing appropriations pub- for the construction capital projects ture authorizations for included buildings prevent lic changing the Council from 30, 1981, expire September in those acts project. appro- its mind about Unlike other 30, 1982, September respectively. See D.C. priations, available for the fiscal Appropriations supra; D.C.Appro- year, (1976),appropriations U.S.C. 718 for Act, 1980, supra. priations projects capital comple- remain available until appropriations expressly provide acts These tion. expenditure appro- that priated the authorization moneys appropriated All for the construc- lapse specified funds shall after public buildings tion of shall remain available period obligated no if the District has funds completion until the of the work for which project period; if Dis- within that but be, appropriated; upon are or time, trict commences a within completion any outstanding the final buildings, of said of each or spend funds authorization to payment all acts, however, pre- These do not continues. clude therefor, liabilities remaining the balance or balances initiating appropria- Council from immediately shall be covered into repealer. tions Treasury. (1976) (em- the phasis added).] § [31 U.S.C.

908 executing with the details of established

frequently is “whether employed have however, Courts, ini- proposition to new have called policy.35 is one make law or to when have ad- already “legislative” execute law in existence.” 5 E. tiatives 16.55, supra McQuillin, (footnote question whether or policy at 213 dressed the basic § omitted).34 test, capital project, to a even Using this courts have in- undertake jurisdic- begun.36 has This validated initiatives that would meddle after the Brown, See, commonly g., Cal.App.2d passage, e. Mueller v. 221 34.In this cited 35. McQuillin 319, 474, (initiative 327, (1963) legislative/admin Cal.Rptr. offers two other tests 34 478 of First, surrounding preserve istrative to old courthouse and recognized tion also has law “policy” repeal providing operation. the basis the for its Id. 1980 See Part Supp., -610. of the 9-601 to §§ distinction between legislative and supra.38 dispute do not Appellees III.B.2 powers.37 ap- administrative to Contrary Council or can repeal the the voters or pellees’ view, that, conclude both its stop to authorizing legislation amend such substantive aspects, and fiscal the CCRC particular capital project Congress before initiative is not “legislative.” It ad- does Appellees has it. funds for dress merely or administrative concerns im- contend, however, that once has permissibly interfere with the execution of project, the of the Council funded act existing law. or the electorate to halt the intrudes First, the substantive effect of the CCRC argu This sphere. into the administrative initiative be would to amend the District’s implies capital ment con general the general statute, capital construction D.C. 1973, statute, 9-220(a), struction D.C.Code § 1973, 9-220(a), Code removing § authoriza- though specific, has created a unre already tion Center, for the vealed, Convention and also the Platonic Form of District of to. jurisdiction “legislative ability 37. This has defined would then have the initiate power” following in the through terms: the same meas- view, legislative Reflecting The line between the ure the ballot.” the same exercise of power governmen- Report and the exercise of the bill other the Committee stated that powers cases, vague tal right only ... is during borderline attach the referendum boundary legislative but however, course, whatever period; layover “[o]f be, power may clearly includes an action people could have an undertake to adopts policy public affecting which placed item substantially on the which would ballot generally and sets in motion the effectuation impact.” the same policy. merely by way of that If an action is clear, legislative history As makes fact-finding effectuating in the course of right ap- mere of a existence referendum policy legislature, declared is mere- Council, prove disapprove acts of see ly regulations the formulation of rules and Supp., 181(b), 1980 does not im- D.C.Code ply § 1— effectuation, purposes for the of such use the initiative electorate cannot action is administrative. But if action is legislation. repeal existing or amend Rather adoption policy and declaration of a and exclusive, being mutually than two program by public general which affairs of processes overlap. of initiative referendum and controlled, concern are to is a the action Marsh, 506, 511, v. 180 Neb. See Klosterman legislative act. 744, (1966). 143 748 N.W.2d Babcock, 37, 39, U.S.App.D.C. Woods v. 88 185 many jurisdictions have in Courts other 508, (footnotes (1950) omitted), F.2d 510 vacat- provisions terpreted as extend their initiative City Angeles ed as moot sub nom. of Los v. See, repeal existing g., ing laws. e. Woods, 908, 909, 294, 294, 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. 95 Farrell, 804, 811, v. 42 270 P.2d Blotter Cal.2d (1951) (per curiam). L.Ed. 657 481, (1954) (en Cassidy, banc); Duran v. 28 485 right 38. The initiative conferred 574, 582, 793, Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d 104 799 Amendments, D.C.Code 1980 1- (1972); Rights Human v. St. Paul Citizens for 181(a), right repeal includes the amend Council, 402, Minn., City 289 N.W.2d 405 existing legislation. gives The statute (en banc); Boyer Grady, (1979) State ex rel. v. “laws,” propose electorate the and the 360, 366-67, 73, 77 201 Neb. 269 N.W.2d legislation word “laws” includes both new 713, 736-37, Tobin, (1978); Dawson v. 74 N.D. repeal existing legisla- the amendment and 737, Sharpe (1946); 24 748 State ex rel. N.W.2d 21.02, McQuillin, supra tion. See 6 E. .10. 538-40, Hitt, 529, 659, 155 Ohio St. 99 N.E.2d v. legislative history The amend- charter Goodwin, (1951); Bachmann 121 W.Va. 664 v. generic meaning ments reinforces of this 307, 303, 532, (1939). 3 S.E.2d But see 533 During hearings term. Com- the Council 683, (Ky. Hambley, v. 400 685 Batten S.W.2d Operations, mittee on the late Government (Smith 1966); 1 In re Initiative No. v. Petition (cid:127) Hobson, Councilmember Julius the author of 470, Hughes Melton), (Okl.1970); 465 P.2d 472 original bill, Charter Amendment wondered 18, (In April Bryan Filed v. re Initiative Petition working days enough whether “30 ... time is Wyatt 1966), (Okl.1967); 425 v. P.2d 954 get for a citizen to a referendum ballot?” on the Clark, (Okl.1956); Ruano v. 299 P.2d responded thirty- The Committee Clerk that the 820, 824, Spellman, 81 Wash.2d 505 P.2d day congres- corresponded time frame Heider, (en supra (1973) banc); 37 Wis.2d layover period. sional D.C.Code 24; City Landt v. N.W.2d at continued, l-147(c). He “Should the 470, 476-80, Dells, 30 Wis.2d Wisconsin desire, basically, citizens decision to reverse a (1966). N.W.2d law, already Council which become ..., legislative, budget though request Columbia remains to be discov “a ered, ‘act,’ earth, brought group clearly labeled an not built —a ministerial, disagree. action.” We policy, actions. This 9-220(a) view of is untenable. request rep acts Council’s govern set resent the formulation of a 9-220(a) pro- Section does authorize “[a] priorities representa mental the elected gram capital of construction to meet determination of id., public. tives of the needs” government, of the District funding request from Con the levels of to permits appropriations additional without involves a gress competing programs supra. note Compare authorization. 28 passage The of myriad policy of decisions. pursuant But not decisions to that broad all therefore, budget, legislative is action. including the basic decision authorization — City Pe rel. v. of St. See State ex Keefe not to particular whether or undertake a 761, 175, 742, 145 177 tersburg, Fla. So. 106 project properly “adminis- can be called — curiam). (1933) (en banc) (per But see Cu trative.” not to question The whether or City, 101 N.J.Su prowski City Jersey v. specific capital in- project undertake each 15, 27-28, (Super. 879-80 per. 242 A.2d volves serious consideration its benefits aff’d, N.J.Super. 247 Div.), 103 Ct.Law and costs. A to reflects a decision build (Super.Ct.App.Div.1968) (per A.2d 28 cu- project determination that will meet riam). government public. needs of the and appellees recognize, As what needs those Although it is true that Council’s are, type govern- and what of edifice the review budget request acts are needs, ment requires to serve those are funding by by the federal executive policy issues. supra; cf. note Congress, see Part III.C.2. of the Dis- supra, unique structure Even having after made an initial deci- build, budgetary process trict does render power sion the Council has the The District Council’s role administrative. reconsider and reverse that decision. See legislatures: two budgetary process involves supra. Although Mayor Part III.C.2.b. The Council’s Congress. the Council and District, is the see chief executive of the ordinary legislation “legislative” is no less -163, Supp., 1-162 D.C.Code layover re- congressional because of the administrator, its financial see id. §§ quired. supra. Similarly, Part III.C.l. See -226, note, depend -241 & these duties a adoption budget a the Council’s legislative funding authorization and act, subject to review and albeit programs administered. If the quarters. revision in other advisability Council reconsiders of a down, project and to shut determines it however, the Charter telling, Most policy decision is as much as the a decision grant The Amendments themselves. original go-ahead. supra. note It See exception: contains an project cannot be said to interfere with “laws,” propose but not electorate merely administration or the exe- affect appropriating “laws funds.” D.C.Code 1980 vague cution a law and broad l-181(a). legislative history 9-220(a). phrase encompasses it shows budget request acts and both Council’s supra, As how- discussed Part III.C.2.b. Congress’ acts. Part appropriations See ever, halt the Council cannot a itself thus indi- IV.A. infra. statute deau- year solely course of fiscal type budget request cates that act is it. Rather —either deau- thorizing after “law.” strategy or as thorization the initial —the proceed through Council repre- must summary, CCRC funding. to rescind We both program through sents an substantive effort appellees’ therefore must the legislative address fiscal means to reverse —and Judge argument the District policy Chief determination NEWMAN’S — operate cen- capital project even if of a a convention deauthorization should build

9H supra; ter. The af- v. Georgetown, fact that initiative would March United fect budgetary States, U.S.App.D.C. decisions does not make 506 F.2d less a legislative (1974). It determination. We must read these however, words, does not impinge on executive functions. in their legislative context. Because the properly pass Georgetown, Council could Association of su- Citizens having 1033; March, 274-75, act the same effects as CCRC pra supra at initiative, see supra, Part III.C. that initia- F.2d at 1313-14.

tive must propose be said within “law” features of our unique Because Amendments, meaning of the Charter process, appropriating home “laws rule l-181(a). D.C.Code 1980 on its face. ambiguous funds” example, although For has con- IV. THE CCRC INITIATIVE PROPOS- legislative power, technically it siderable AES “LAW APPROPRIATING only (l)“acts” does not enact “laws” but FUNDS” congressional “laws” after become Although pro- the initiative CCRC does layover, see D.C.Code 1978 “law,” pose a we conclude that the initiative -147; (2) acts,” which “budget are one right does not extend matter step complex process, appropriations in a this measure. Charter The Amendments 47-224; “resolutions,” (3) see id. see id. § exception barring all initiatives “laws “rules,” l-146(a); (4) see id. 1- § § appropriating funds,” D.C.Code 1980 Furthermore, 144(c). although the Council l-181(a) (reflected in § the “Dixon Amend- funds, requests it is not Congress, the Coun- Act, ment” of the Initiative Procedures id. cil, actually “appropriating.” that does the l-1116(k)(7)), precludes this initiative. 47-224. Finally See id. consider- —and significance adopt able must a Council —the A. “Laws Appropriating Funds” through “budget proceed act” and the same In requirement addition to the “appropriations” process that whether it re- “law,” propose initiative a a quests additional funds or seeks reduction Charter expressly excep Amendments already appropriated. create one See Part funds tion right. supra. distinct “unap- Electors III.C.2. There is no propose not “lav/s appropriating propriations” process; Congress funds.” nor would l-181(a). Id. Appellants pass “supplemental act.” unappropriations maintain exception this applies only Consequently, parlance to affirmative in common under of appropriation. acts “appropriations” may Because the CCRC the Home Rule funds, positive initiative seeks to act. “unappropriate” signify negative this exception, say, they apply. does not beyond we look the inconclusive When Appellees disagree, contending that the ex language appropriating the “laws funds” ception is They argue broader. also history, im- legislative to its two any initiative, CCRC’s, bars such as First, proponents stand pressions out. stop expenditure would of appropriated effect in broad exception described its funds. terms, covering the both the Coun- roles of “ construing Our task budgetary in the statute ‘is to in the District’s cil and give process. specifically, introducing ascertain and in- effect More tent and to give legislative appropriating words their nat- funds” amendment “laws bill, meaning.’” ural original Citizens Association of Charter Amendments Georgetown Zoning Arrington v. Commission Dixon said it Council member Columbia, Legislation District of A.2d D.C.App., place language “would banc) used (1978) (en (quoting prohibit against Rosen- that would berg States, v. A.2d funds which D.C.App., appropriated United or as related to (1972) omitted)). (citations go levying operat- We be- or other forms of tax fund gin process ing appropriated this actions.” language of course added.) Similarly, during the (Emphasis of the statute Citizens itself. Association to, but they a tax if want ate can initiate congressional hearings on money. Amendments, appropriate cannot Delegate Walter E. District they want any measure They can initiate explained, Fauntroy “House Concurrent initiate they cannot to initiate but which is Resolution 436 relates to initiative is not in money. That spending of that propose that allows electors power to do. their by them. This laws which will be voted on relating process of course excludes laws deliberations summary, the Council’s In (Emphasis appropriation of funds.” appropriating phrase “laws show that added.) the Council’s encompasses both funds” Congress’ appropri- budget request acts and Second, during lengthy discussion of the particularly was amendment, ations acts. Council appropriating “laws funds” moreover, not concerned, that the electorate unquali- members worried that an Council appropria- to launch use the initiative right fied initiative would enable the process. tions the fiscal af- electorate to interfere with mem- particular, fairs of the District. note, specifically Council, did expressed bers concern that the initia- their presented the converse situation consider permit tive citizens to establish by the electorate an effort case: then could program for which authoriza the substantive repeal or amend funding, regardless of required to seek the ex project, to block tion for a funded Proponents impact. fiscal funds, penditure previously distinguishing responded by amendment appropri requests prevent and to future power to authorize a sharply between Nonetheless, light of the Coun ations. which the initiative program, substantive the ef about fiscal cil’s substantial concern citizens, pow- and the right would confer on initiatives, language the in view of fects of the expenditures, er to authorize the broad to describe by proponents used explicitly amendment reserved Coun- appropriating funds” impact the “laws Marion Congress. cil and members Council amendment, and, the especially because Barry Arrington point Dixon made this necessary to ac process is “appropriations” clearly: most well as affirmative complish rescissions as believe the Coun funding, we do not acts of MR. BARRY: .... potential use of to discuss the cil’s failure place legislation au- This Council can program is to halt a funded the initiative of entities. thorizing the establishment interpret the conclusive. We are bound of Latino Af- We established the Office with the consonant way statute in the most budget- put into our fairs. We have also legislature, even if the intent of the overall measure ary process put that in that court was not the precise problem before $50,000. some the expressly contemplated authorizing My interpretation is that Columbia, v. District of body. See Breen appropriating] legislation and it is not 1058, 1061 (1979); East D.C.App., 400 A.2d is, in its legislation. That the Council C.A.B., Lines, U.S.App. Inc. v. 122 ern Air will to exclude decide budgetary 507, 375, 378-79, F.2d 354 D.C. com- center that the the million health $5 (1965). us to build and had authorized munity amendment, must we construing the process, during budgetary the operate, if interest concerns of weigh major public two against it. That was voted the Council Amend- reflected in the Charter the Council understanding in the Committee. my right of initiative ments —the electors’ the my understanding from That was responsible management fiscal staff, legislation as we authorizing that —with of each with- enhancing the value view appropriating legislation. do but it wasn’t out undue intrusion on the other. interesting it to note perspective, It is correct on the initia- For MR. DIXON: that, significance and techni- it. The elector- because of the passed section. We tive

913 cality decisions, many right power stop of financial project states as have such excluded matters from the initia- period end of the fiscal which funds right tive by express statutory either excep- (or appropriated have been or requested or, often, tion by judicial interpreta- indeed stop requested it before Council has hand, tion.39 On the other the initiative funds). terminology, To use Glass right liberally should be construed. 5 E. expressed Council’s concern about interfer- McQuillin, supra Courts, at 203-04. govern- ence with financial affairs of fact, in applied interpreta- the liberal ment, coupled appro- with the fact that tion vigor procedural40 rule with in both priations process is used to rescind well and substantive contexts.41 example, For approve funding, “clear[ly] compel- Smith, in Glass v. 244 Tex. S.W.2d ling[ly]” appropriat- implies “laws (1951), the Texas Supreme Court stated ing exception pre- funds” read to should be in a opinion well-considered interfering vent from electorate impose on right only the initiative those accomplished fiscal acts expressed limitations law Congress. clearly and/or The Council’s ex- “clear[ly] implied. and compelling[ly]” Id. concern, pressed adopting at S.W.2d 649.42 Amendments, right the initiative re- We public conclude that interests distinguishing ceived bifurcated treatment — right initiative and in responsible fiscal funding substantive authorizations management are each achievable forcefully acts —indicates the Charter extent, maximum as intended the Coun- do not use of Amendments sanction cil, by interpreting the appropriating “laws legislature’s power initiative rescind the funds” exception to bar any initiative that plans. established fiscal would halt extent funds —to have been requested Accordingly, conclude that “laws —but to leave scope within the prevents funds” appropriating See, g., 1, 2, 303, 311, Bailey, Wyo. (1953) (when e. Thomas v. P.2d 257 P.2d (Alaska 1979) (exception requir to initiative provision contains statute no “makpng] appropriations” prohibits ... verify initia- ing city signatures petitions, peti homesteading); tive to distribute land for State objection tions received evidence without Keefe, supra ex rel. 106 Fla. at 145 So. at prima sufficiency, constitute facie evidence (city 175 charter’s initiative and referendum city may rebut with of invalidi evidence rights appropriations do not extend to ordi- ty inaccuracy). or carry budget system); nances to out Rauh v. City Hutchinson, 514, 522, 223 Kan. 575 P.2d See, Miami, g., City 41. e. Barnes v. 47 So.2d 517, (1978) (initiative 522 and referendum 3, (Fla. (initiative 1950) ques 6 extends to rights permit popular do not vote on ordi- city engage public tion should hous whether carry authorizing nances to out resolution bond Act); ing program Housing under U.S. State ex issue); 28, Cuprowski, supra N.J.Super. 101 at 360, 368-69, Grady, Boyer rel v. 201 Neb. 269 (in 242 A.2d at 880 absence of clear mandate 73, (1978) (initiative right extends N.W.2d 78 by legislature, appropriations budget ordi- ordinance); repeal tax cf. Purser v. of sales nances and resolutions are not to initia- 1, 9, 702, Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 40 S.E.2d 709 referendum); Heider, supra tive or 480, 37 Wis.2d at (1946) spend (city may proceeds not treasurer (initiative right 155 at 24 N.W.2d does not property because voters tax recreation temporarily extend to enactment of ordinance levy approve than nec must essary taxes for other prohibiting expenditure high on funds school City expenses). government But see addition); Whitehead, 151, supra 204 Va. at McCardle, 862, 870, 214 Kan. 522 Lawrence v. (initiative right 129 S.E.2d at 696 does not ex- 420, (1974) (rejecting liberal construc P.2d 427 expense tend to calculation factor mainte- test, practicality holds tion rule in favor of public utility). nance of police equalize firefighters’ and of initiative to See, Farrell, 804, g., 40. e. Blotter 42 v. Cal.2d right). pay scope ficers’ of initiative is outside 809, (en banc) (1954) 270 P.2d 483-84 (initiative proposers sup to file were entitled popular accordingly permitted The court plemental petitions containing signa additional salary setting vote on scales an initiative tures); Taylor, State ex rel. Freeze 90 v. Mont. departments. police fire See Glass v. 439, 446-47, (1931) (peti 4 P.2d 481-82 Smith, 634-36, supra 244 Tex. at S.W.2d tion-signers use ditto mark to indicate 647-48. address); Cheever, ex rel. v. State Benham matter, we preliminary As a must using the initiative to the electorate from (1) adopt request act make or appropriating make that the “laws clear appropri- some other affirmative effort to operative, exception funds” constitutes funds, (2) expenditure ate or to block the initiative substantive limitation on requested funds as of the in Convention right. Although stated effective date of initiative act. Amend I, that supra, Center the Charter concerns, how Council’s fiscal at 552- self-executing, see id. ments are not ever, do not the conclusion that the compel only electors could ruling held exception “laws appropriating funds” also initiative, referendum, present or recall not preclude wholly prospec should be read to proposals the Councilestablished more until funding initiatives. prospective tive A Charter specific procedures than the adopted not with an freeze would interfere See id. provided. Amendments themselves budget request the Council or an act of substan not hold that the The decision did Congress; appropriations act of such an Amendments tive of the Charter aspects future affect actions. Allison lack force. See v. independent Thus, it would the exercise not undermine 571, 576- County, Or.App. Washington powers to man Counciland (en banc). (1976) 548 P.2d age the of the District. financial affairs Furthermore, clear contem Council’s jurisdictions Although courts other plation that could use the electorate overly broad initiatives from excluded repeal initiative to see note 38 legislation, statutory specific without the ballot even supra, strongly that its fiscal con indicates authorization, supra, note the Initia- see present-, cerns were not future-oriented.43 specifically tive Act authorizes Procedures conclude Accordingly, we further that the court, Board, necessary if “laws does appropriating funds” initiative that is inconsistent withhold an (1) preclude initiatives to establish sub- Act, including with Home Rule (2) stantive a new authorization for Amendments, would “ne- Charter or that repeal existing substantive authorization gate budget request act. See or limit” program (without rescinding for a its cur- l-1116(k)-(7). Be- D.C.Code 1980 funding) (3) prohibit budg- rent future Dixon Amend- cause we conclude requests. et Amend- comports

ment the Charter B. The “Dixon Amendment” right,44 ment on the initiative limitations trial the Board court the reliance of rejecting the CCRC entirely proper. was provision Board relied on “Dixon Amendment” to the Initiative Procedures D.C.Code Initiative Proce- enacted the l-1116(k)(7), which purport- required enabling statute dures Act as reflects the Amendments ex- edly See id. Amendments. the Charter ception to the for “laws initiative of the im- During consideration 1-187. § funds,” l-181(a). appropriating id. The § Chairman plementing legislation, Council agreed trial court that the CCRC initiative the so-called Arrington Dixon introduced “negate budget request would or limit” the Charter to reflect “Dixon Amendment” 1-1116(1). act of the This is Council. Id. § both referen- Amendments’ limitations on specific brought to us for re- decision rights. provisions The view. dum initiative and bring supra, holding appropriating see and Part III.D. decline to 43. A “laws that overextending exception broadly precludes through door the back funds” more stop appropriating exception. program once funds” the Council “laws requested for it a first round funds with would lead to the same result —at least express no view to whether the “Dix- 44. We respect powers properly to the electorate —as the limita- on Amendment” reflects proposed Judge right, NEWMAN’S concur- Chief referendum tions on the D.C.Code ring opinion. rejected position, 1-181(b). Supp., We have § require the Board of Elections and Ethics to these items that already been acted reject (as involving an improper subject) an gone on and have through initiative or referendum measure if “the appropriations process. That is what petition presented negate would or limit an speaks this amendment to. act of the Council of the District of Colum- I am clear and sure that in the future pursuant bia Supp.,] sec- [D.C.Code may there be items that we want to tion 47-224.” Id. 1116(k)(7); see § id. 1— consider. This amendment is addressing 1-1116(1); note supra. § On the basis of those that have already through started this provision, the Board and the trial court the budget process through the ap- blocked the CCRC initiative measures. propriations process. That is what we As implementing legislation, the Initia- are speaking to. tive valid, course, Procedures Act is specified by limitations the “Dixon insofar as it conforms to underlying Amendment,” therefore, are—to the extent Charter Amendments. These amendments relevant congruent with those inher- here— Charter, District Home Rule ent in the underlying appropriating “laws supra IV, 401-95; note tit. see note 5 §§ funds” exception. The Board and the trial supra, are in the nature of constitutional court, therefore, properly acted in reliance provisions, see Washington Home Owner- on that Amendment. Council, ship Inc., supra (Mack, J., at 1369 Newman, with J., C. J. Pryor, & dissenting); 2 McQuillin, E. 9.03, supra § Invalidity C. The of the CCRC Initiative cannot be amended or contravened by ordi- Having established the substantive nary legislation. See Supp., D.C.Code 1978 limitations right, we turn 1-124, -125, -128(a); McQuillin, §§ 2 E. application agree their here. We supra 9.25, at 703. § the decision of the Board and the trial view, In our the “Dixon Amend court. We hold the “Dixon Amend ment,” D.C.Code1980Supp., l-1116(k)(7), § ment,” Supp., l-1116(k)(7), D.C.Code 1980 § propefly specifies certain limitations that 1-1116(7), see reflecting id. the “laws § the Charter place Amendments on the ini appropriating funds” to the ini

tiative right. l-181(a). See id. In bar § right, l-181(a), tiative id. prevents ring any initiative that negate “would reaching CCRC’sinitiative from the ballot. limit budget request] Council,” act of the [a As supra, discussed Part III.B.2 D.C.Code l-1116(k)(7), the (Initiative 1) CCRC initiative Measure No. “Dixon Amendment” manifestly prohibits effect, has both a substantive and a fiscal only initiatives that would contravene an as well as a present prospective and a ef- existing budget request act. It does not fect. It repeal underlying sub- appear proscribe pro initiatives with a stantive authorization for the construction spective fiscal effect only. operation of the Convention Center. history reinforces that 1973, 9-220(a); See D.C. Code id. 1980 reading. amendment, In introducing the bar 9-601 to -610. It would Chairman Dixon explained himself that it expenditure further funds prohibit would not with a initiatives future prevent appropriations requests. future orientation: supra Part We have established in IV.A. I would also point out as a member of excep- that the appropriating “laws funds” claiming committee and in this dis- cussion, permits prospective— I know tion with a personally the intent initiatives was not to talk p[ro]spective present about but not a effect. Because limitations —fiscal possible review of proposed capital the CCRC initiative would interdict the ex- improvements funds, or appropriation penditure items. currently appropriated here, What we are speaking beyond scope in the it is the pow- the initiative offer, amendment that I speaks about er. IV.B., funded and

Furthermore, that was building” substantially Part we seen in supra, right that the Procedures Initiative the initiative became underway before Amendment,” specifically via “Dixon the effective, 926,45 dissenting col- post at our the the courts to authorizes Board and and mislead oversimplify this case leagues popular from a an initiative withhold vote the They altogether overlook public. the this respect. that is too broad On in this budgetary the difference between crucial we halt the initiative here. basis CCRC legislation under the ordinary and Act; fact that ignore the they Home Rule V. CONCLUSION whose governmental bodies there are five determining In that the CCRC taken must be into prerogatives and roles “law,” that the proposes we confirm account; acknowledge they to and decline share electorate and the Council District contexts, involving not there are other that legislative cap- halt a powers coextensive to capital already-funded of an construction the project, except ital extent that must antici- opinion project, for our otherwise. provide Charter Amendments right. The exercise of the initiative pate however, the concluding, In further is, signifi- today court confirms truth this proposes appropriat- CCRC initiative a “law seek, by way authority people in the cant funds,” lawfully be ing and thus cannot initiative, funding of a future bar voters, confirm that submitted to we great is a It project program. District the electorate Charter Amendments bar suggest otherwise. disservice capital halting insofar—but requested its Charter only insofar—as Rule Act and The Home Congress has funds for govern- and/or grant measure Amendments it. To in- reiterate: the electorate cannot legisla- authority of three mental to each terfere, initiative, legis- by way with the Council, electorate, and the (the tures plans. Finally, latures’ established fiscal and to two executives Congress) each of stressing proposers that the of an President). (the Mayor and the Ethics, the Board of and and the Elections case, therefore, interpret we have had initia- reinterpret courts cannot the CCRC complex struc- unique governmental tive to meet the limi- Charter Amendments’ apply ture and to a situation tations, petition- we underscore that Council, electorate, intentions, signers’ reflected in the initia- they ap- dimly at all—when foresaw —if summary, tive measure and its must It is the Charter Amendments. proved If strictly permit followed. we were to through careful read- judiciary, rule of revised intentions of to modi- proposers history, ing of the statute and its fact, intentions of fy, specified after extrapolation statutory from the basic signed petitions, the voters who structure, all the sensitivity and due in- pro- distorting would either be the initiative involved, to deter- prerogatives terests (by proposers permitting cedure what ability best mine to the of our subject- speak signed) for the others who mean. Absent care- Amendments ing procedure speculation own to our body regard governmental ful for each about what would want to petition-signers inad- danger is a that this decision there We can- changed do under circumstances. way our local vertently could distort the so. properly do to function. government designed was

VI. stress, POSTSCRIPT: RESPONSE first, important It therefore

TO DISSENT judges (rep- agrees. court where the Seven dissenting plurality initia- resented By focusing entirely almost on an congressional appear of a stop opinions) agree tive “intended to construction self-executing; implementing leg- held, required opinion 45. This court has written I, GALLAGHER, supra Judge Amend- islation. Convention Center that the Charter conferring were not ments 552-53. funding tempts locally program— appropriated of a to reach funds already enacted Center, project other, whether a conclude it capital or some Convention we cannot ongoing activity reach the ballot.47 preclude not —does Council changing from its and seeking mind colleagues Our make one basic dissenting to halt program through “budget a re- say that analysis. They criticism of our quest asking act” Congress to rescind the “laws funds” appropriating exception appropriation. The Congress fact al- simply right initiative should construed ready has funds a local initiating “budg- a bar citizens a against program, Mayor, to be by administered request specifically, they et act.” More as- does not tie the Council’s We seven hands. sert, plurality plain avoids the mean- “[t]he ” therefore, agree, seeking that in to halt a ing of ex- appropriating ‘laws funds’ [the] project, funded the Council would not im- ception right. to the initiative Post at permissibly interfere with the question, can resolve the The court 924. prerogatives Congress of the or execu- we say, simply translate ‘laws “[i]f tive functions of the Mayor. Ante at ‘budget request 902- appropriating funds’ ” 911; post at 922. acts,’ Act clearly so that the Home Rule not, may “say[ only people by will that the ] Those agree of us who division initiative, propose budget re- themselves authority Council, between and orig- (emphasis at 924 act." Post quest Mayor, agree, Council and do not how- inal). simple, This is not as let solution ever, electorate, on the extent to which the persuasive, alone as it sound. use of the can stand Council’s legislative All shoes. seven place, despite purported In the first their judges (indeed, nine) all agree do that the “plain meaning” reliance of the on the Amendments’ barring language, Home Rule Act even dissen- initiatives appropriating for “laws funds” sense phrase ters cannot make “laws prohibits the attempting electorate from appropriating sliding funds” without over fund an program. authorized Ante between at fundamental distinction 913-914; post “budget 926. and an request” at All also would Council seven agree, hand, “appropriation” by Congress, equating on the then other that the Act at the initiative here with initiatives un- permits least try the electorate to to halt a simpler governmental der the structures of project an through bar funding states, finally quoting length at after appropriations expired. current have legislative history, support in order 913-915; Ante at post see at 927.46 meaning.” interpretation “plain their us, therefore, Seven disagree only on the dissenters, just like all other members narrow question here— —determinative court, probe had to its whether the electorate properly also can history, the case law for an answer. attempt project passing to halt a initiative to freeze funds that Second, on the significantly, and more already requested Congress appropri- thoroughgoing leg- analysis” basis of “[a] post ated. dissent we at say yes; say history, dissenters no. islative Because the initiative appropriating at issue here at- “the ‘laws concludes that 906; agree point post n.* do the 46. All At no nine members of the that the at 920 court discuss, refute, electorate can seek to deauthor- let alone this funda- authorize —or dissenters program by (subject point. ize —a mental 914; congressional layover). post at Ante Although it- dissenting agree a deauthorization colleagues apparently 47. Our barring self could appro- have the effect of future proposed initiative would reach that the requests appropriations, They and thus priated Post funds. at 926-927. do halting funding project, propo- initial or further quarrel not our conclusion that explained sers, Elections, that deauthorization alone can- and the court the Board of stop expenditure already ap- cannot postci'rculation funds properly revisions to make propriated. Only separate budgetary proc- give prospective effect. the initiative ess can achieve that result. Ante at 904- Ante at 900-902. through the budget process, post at 926- designed funds’ was ... to assure apparently contemplates that the the fiscal the dissent Council retained ultimate responsibility.... ordinary by insis- that mere legislation The Council was the Council budgetary tent ... that those tasks should or an by the electorate — exclusively Post at remain its own.” only 30-day layover to a congressional —could (emphasis original). The dissent also ac- funds in impound appropriations undo knowledges legitimacy the con- those proposition, This Mayor. the hands cerns. appro- “The reasons for 'laws [the cited, with for is clashes authority which no priating prohibition are sensible funds’] Con- requirements Rule that Home Act scarcely obvious. The electorate should approval in fiscal gress give affirmative permitted surrogate comp- to function as matters. Ante at 905-906. trollers.” Post at 926. The dissent’s argu- summary, entire the dissenters’ analysis our accordingly own con- reinforces that upon premise: a false ment is built viction Amendments to the that be frozen without appropriated funds can Act, reflecting Home concern Rule about even budgetary process. Not resort by appro- interference in the electorate can There is no basis Council do that. priations process, properly cannot be inter- that the elector- concluding for whatsoever preted permit undo the electorate to ate than the Council. greater power has accomplished fiscal of the Council and acts fallacy position, the dissenters’ Congress. Ante at 911-914. therefore, they is admit that evident: most telling Third —and dissenters —the initiative, propose budg- cannot a people, by They in a caught inconsistency. fatal act; get yet they et cannot request interpret the “laws funds” appropriating type very the fact that this is around exception to mean is that electorate appro- act well as seek required halt as forbidden to use the initiative to seek Indeed, agree with the priated funds. thus, funds project; for a as dissenters budget re- power pass “The dissent: it, see permitted the electorate is to use the budget quests (and supplemental requests) expenditure initiative to halt funds al- ex- Congress remains and transmit them to ready appropriated project. a In draw- for with Council and clusively the D.C. line, however, ing fails to this the dissent Mayor.” Post at 925. take account of a feature of the significant we have concluded that To reiterate: making Home Act: for process Rule electorate, initiative, by can seek to deau- a appropriations, beginning re- funding of a District thorize and bar future act, quest very is the also same Thus, project. days in the program must them. at be used rescind Ante Therefore, 905-907. ahead, if it preclude if the wishes to true —as electorate bring or to an ex- acknowledges people operating program the dissent “the new —that not, initiative, may halt, legisla- propose isting themselves to a it can initiate one act," (emphasis post at budget request it inter- long tion so—as does not to do not, original), may then initia- funds. already fere with tive, budget request act propose either plans learns of Once the electorate program program funding fund a halt Cen- capital project, such as the Convention year. the course of a fiscal Ante at moreover, ter, ability it to initiate has the timely, legislation project in a stop the the District way cost-effective before Moreover, overlooking necessary timing only ground. broken It (and budget request appropriations) use of central obscure this events here ap- rescinding enacting acts for as well as Although particular truth. this propriations, ignores key dissent interdict current If, fails because seeks to budget process. role of in the Center, one electorate, funding for suggests, Convention the dissent sight not lose of the fact accomplished funding could should halt project going requested appropria- for a had the first any time without adopt tions one be- therefore law year prohibit almost fore the initiative right facility. went into effect. of such a construction earlier, If the initiative had existed 2. Definition of Terms. Sec. stop the effort the Convention Center (a) is defined to in- “Convention Center” might have come to a different conclusion. designed been clude structure which has therefore, case, The outcome of this primarily to house exhibits for business con- importance should not detract from the of approximate and in the area ventions shows legislative authority electorate’s for the Street, N.W., New York by bounded 11th future. urgency Nor should the of Con- N.W., Avenue, N.W., Street, and H 9th vention using leg- Center a new Street, initiative — N.W. islative project already directed at a (b) “District of Columbia Government” on the justify judicial a shortcut move— City of the District of Co- means Council (which in effect propose) the dissenters lumbia, Columbia, Mayor District of of the help petitioners up catch with events. any and other District of Columbia instru- Too much run long is at stake. contractor, mentality agent, employee, or Affirmed. contractor, employee of a who is authorized law, contract, pub-

by including by spend APPENDIX A: INITIATIVE by Congress, lic funds derived

MEASURE NO. taxes, acquired borrowed or otherwise governing for use officials of public _ INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. Columbia, designate the District of and to Proposer: John J. Phelan public of land or pri- District Columbia for vate use.

BY THE ELECTORS OF THE Against 3. the Use of Sec. Prohibition DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Opera- or Public Funds for the Construction prohibit To the District of Columbia tion of Center. Convention Government from using public funds to measure, date After the effective of this operate construct or a Convention Center shall the District of Columbia Government designed primarily house con- business Cen- operate not construct or Convention ventions and trade shows. ter, acquire that purpose. land for BE IT ENACTED THE BY ELECTORS Prop- 4. of Disposition Provision for Sec. OF COLUMBIA, THE DISTRICT OF That Acquired Center erty for the Convention this measure be cited the “Conven- Pending and for Termination Contracts. tion Center Initiative of 1979.” practical after the effective As soon as Findings Purpose. Sec. 1. and Act, City Mayor and Coun- date of

The electors of the District of Columbia cil the District Columbia shall cancel Center, find that pending the Convention which has all for the construction of contracts Center, been whatever proposed approximately paying at a cost the Convention adjustments and designed penalties $100 million which will be whatever making law, any required house business conventions trade shall terminate and shows, acquire and land for the primarily ongoing proceedings benefit hotels Center, plan other businesses in the District of Columbia. and shall devise Convention present disposition any acquired Because the is to land proposal finance for the Center. primarily pub- Convention Center from of a Convention construction lic of this appropriated by Congress, days funds derived after enactment Ninety taxes, until all acquired, every days from borrowed or otherwise thereafter all land electors District Columbia find contracts had been terminated made, Mayor dispositions construction of Convention been report public Center would not be best and the in the interests shall Columbia, been toward progress citizens of the District of which has made any tax revenues or other considerations funds, construction settling payment, all Convention Center the Federal public acquired of all land disposing contracts property, provide public incur debt or Cen- Convention the construction law, pur- after the effective date of this ter. land, operate eon- chase construct and/or Making Law Self- 5. Provision Sec. vention/civic center. Executing. a mandate This law constitutes Definitions: self-execu- to be public and shall be deemed (a) mean: “Provide” shall ting. revenues,” the (1) in the case of “tax Severability Clause. Sec. and “other considera- payment,” “Federal of this meas- provision If any section funds,” funds in a fu- public from tions invalid, invalidity such to be ure is held not include budget, but shall ture District remaining provisions. shall not affect by Congress approved budgets District Date. Effective Sec. 7. Act; of this prior to the effective date effective become This measure shall property,” (2) “public case of Public Law 5 of accordance Section funds authorized property acquired with Initiative, Ref- 1(3) amending 95-526 § budget by Con- approved in a District Amendment erendum, Charter and Recall effective date of this gress after the section (D.C. 2-46), and Law Act of 1977 District from prohibit shall but 602(c) Self- the District Columbia con- property for designating Reorganiza- and Governmental Government property if was center tion Act. vention/civic Dis- in a acquired with funds authorized APPENDIX B: INITIATIVE budget approved by prior trict MEASURE NO. specifi- Act the effective date of this Text, Proposed center. cally for a convention/civic any mean au- NO_ (b) any “Incur debt” shall INITIATIVE MEASURE budget thority a future District CONVENTION INITIATIVE CENTER center, a convention/civic incur debt for OF the District from prohibit but shall not The Mayor and the Council of the District cen- incurring for a convention/civic debt provide any of Columbia shall not further in a District to the extent authorized ter tax or any revenues other considerations prior approved by Congress to the budget funds, public payment, the Federal this effective date of Act. property, incur debt any provide public NEWMAN, with whom Judge, Chief law, pur- after the effective date of this Judge, joins, concurring: PRYOR,. Associate land, operate chase and/or a con- construct vention/civic center. join opinion Judge I am unable to

APPENDIX INITIATIVE C: Ferren. NO. 3 MEASURE could, by City agree I

Proposed August Text — enacting meaning within the “law” l-181(a), amend D.C.Code NO_:_ INITIATIVE MEASURE 1973, 9-220(a) pro tanto re D.C.Code CONVENTION CENTER INITIATIVE legis peal capital project authorization

OF for the exclude authorization lation so citi agree I Convention Center. Mayor and the Council of the District zens, could likewise.* provide do of Columbia shall not further * However, necessarily repeal project. so. practical authorizing this is not effect of stop legislation ongoing capital rules, except nothing, own its There 15,000 Now the areas where I view A Judge group petitioners try has been opinion Ferren’s as plainly wrong. I am October, ing since 1978 to exercise their satisfied that neither the Council nor the now, given right almost three prohibit citizens can the expenditure of con- years later, opinions resting on convolut gressionally appropriated funds. The basic ed reasoning only which can be described as rationale my view on question this is set attempt, resentful of the the citizenry now forth in opinion I authored in this case learns voting right they thought for a court, division of this which was va- had under the Charter was an illusion. cated when we went en banc. That opinion In an unsuccessful effort to ward off this is being published at 441 A.2d simul- decision, illiberal two Councilmembers —one taneously with this en banc decision. Like- represented by the American Civil Liberties wise, based on the opinion, rationale of that Union 2—entered the case as amicus curiae I am of the view budget that a request by stage against at the en banc to warn Columbia, District of which is transmit- rights denial of civil by the court. Counsel ted to the Congress part of the Presi- for the American Civil Liberties Union told dent’s congressional considera- the court the issue tion under its powers in Article I of the goes integrity government of our Constitution is not a “law” within the because it involves the of the citi- meaning of D.C.Code 1979 Supp., 1- major zens to vote on a question public of 181(a), citizens, and that by initiative policy .... At stake ... is an essential prohibit, cannot modify repeal such a part self-government that was re- (cid:127) budget request. stored to city residents of this in the last I thus concur in reached, e., the results i. years few century after a of disenfran- the initiative proposed by Convention Cen- chisement. ter Committee, Referendum in all the vari- I permutations, agree ous with that assessment. We should was properly rejected enforce both the Home Rule Charter as it Board of is Elections and by Judge Ugast. plainly written. I do not subscribe to the sophomoric view prestige that whenever the GALLAGHER, Retired, Associate Judge, of the new Home government per- Rule KERN, with NEBEKER, whom and HAR- ceived to be at stake this court should abdi- RIS, Associate Judges, join, dissenting: cate rightful judicial its function and some- way support how find a City If to Hall—-no people city this just think that matter reasoning. because how far-fetched the their gives them right to That is strong vote not the stuff that and by initiative on endur- legislation properly proposed ing governments are made of in citizenry1 this this coun- will be court, enforced this try. thing fledgling It is one for a govern- will now know better. In a touch irony, deprive ment to falter and majority fundamental today votes for a voteless process District of Colum Charter in the rights finding its bia —on major question public policy. way political maturity.3 quite toward It is prevents Congress appropriating in the The elections board must be careful about authorizing legislation. absence of See note undoing petition the will of voters who to 28, supra Judge opinion. ballot, Ferren’s place especially issue on the when city mayor including elected officials— legislate appropri- Except people 1. appointed who the members of elections ations, discuss for obvious reasons. I later publicly promised oppose the board —have this. initiative. The referendum signed was de- give voters some mechanism for appear- American Civil Liberties Union creating law without interference from elect- ing here in the role of counsel for Councilmem- The election ed officials. board’s decision ber Mason. off take the tax initiative the ballot therefore appearance being politi- 3. An informed commentator on the local scene close in comes astutely recently: observed cal decision. hand, plurality opinion,5 on the other so, ren’s being to do matter for this court another approach6 vigorously that disputes rather by forty years tempered

an institution deci- avenue to another instead finds and to be decision-making, every with reason sion. with the political pressures, free from and of two

judicial experience traditions and Ferren’s Judge Part III agree I continual- at our elbow to consult centuries effect, concludes where, he in net opinion court, We ly. there is no excuse. For be- including the one a law is a law — dispassion- expected enlightened, to be extent of is the limited us. But that fore ate, experience. by reason and guided opinion.7 with his my agreement Instead, is a decision what we have here Ill entirely support by the court fashioned on commencing a discussion Before In do- government. branches of other issues, like to make I would merits of the so, majority sight has lost ing comments. preliminary few function, it has judicial with the result true Home Rule gratuitous blow to majority dealt to both undercurrent is an There government. referenda) in- (or initiatives opinions with the executive terfere

II and, consequently, government branches possible. majority take as much opinions The two for the should be restricted appreciate majority the same result. seems not different courses to reach and refer- of initiative history purposes reaches its Judge opinion Chief Newman’s is, initiatives The fact alarming legis- country. in this by vesting rather enda conclusion nature intended by their referenda are Judge Fer- powers Mayor.4 lative in the (empha- appropriations. questing [Id. future if the A clear line of sufficient cause is a must board is suspicion added).] it is avoid the sis this, political pressure Leahy initiatives commented: To Chairman please powers-that-be interesting argument, in the that do not but I doubt This is an [Editorial], Building. Congress District ington The Wash- would Members of of the 535 5, Post, Aug. A at 22. added).] (emphasis agree. [Id. Mayor powers as be- 4.That such has no Kelly by Judges joined and Judge Ferren upon Judge him in Newman’s stowed opinion quy Chief Mack, plurality of the five which constitutes previously in this collo- was made clear judges favoring affirmance. hearing, then at a Senate at which Chair- Leahy man stated: panel opinion Judge led Newman’s 6. Chief course, Congress, not did mandate appear Betty be- Kane to Ann Councilmember center, but rather authorized a convention convention they do, be- as amicus curiae banc court fore the en center, city, if authorized the and legis- denigration Council’s cause of the they to determined this wanted is what authority opinion, present in that lative budgetary limits. to do it within certain by plurality. incidentally abandoned is now its But I think itself dear that made upside budget- solely involvement was on the Dissent,” limit, go ary plurality design “Response to location. Whether to 7. In the dty. entirely up agree- to the forward with it was to be areas of what it deems sets forth understanding. certainly my dissenting was plurality [Dis- That ment between Appropriations for Fiscal trict of particular Columbia judges. find those The dissenters 1980; Hearings a Subcomm. Year before contrary confusing to the or either statements Comm, II, Appropriations, Pt. the Senate on Consequently, dissenting judges. of the views (1979) (emphasis Cong., 96th 1st Sess. say area that the dissent’s accurate to it is added).] plurality agreement I have is as with the Leahy informed counsel Senator was also Dissent,” “Response it to As I read stated. argument of the that for the CCRC about a of “cieverisms” to a series amounts tied, if the hands were even District[’s] permit right, which does not basic Charter City changed conven- its mind on the Contrary plurality, for exercise to the this. center, they they argue would tion would is, right what month it not matter it does change authority implement that have no is, stage is the at what it nor nor what season they They arguing are that of mind. right process. appropriations It is a or money required spend to borrow and for all seasons. including go through re- with the specific every interfere with officials on turn. The was first group elected told it public issues. right early governing do so was re- was too laws were not —the served people precisely yet for the it is told it was too late. place.8 reason Now they that might on conflict occasion Leahy, highly Senator then in author- (or taken) decisions taken by govern- not itative of the position of Chairman Senate Munro, Initiative, ment. generally had this Appropriations, Subcommittee on Referendum and Recall. Needless to say, it on the say during hearing unfortunate is not permissible for the electorate to history attempts obtain this initia- abuse this power reserved ha- —such tive Center: on the Convention rassing government the two branches of large I have had a number of Senators impeding general orderly administra- express they surprised were to me See, government. tion of g., e. State ex rel. see the blocked.... get initiatives [A] Ballantyne Leeman, 847, 858, v. 149 Neb. quite surprised lot of were Senators N.W.2d (1948); Spellman, Ruano v. were happened. These Senators Wash.2d 505 P.2d rule, strongly they in favor of home (1973) (en banc). surprised that they indicated were one of I scarcely say need to this case rule, home biggest aspects of the ini- nothing to do with whether a Convention aspect, tiative was blocked.

ject when we discuss whether this court will Center in this city question before is a very worthwhile construction was have been tion ing about a tions, might guard voting rights expressly granted to their are vote to tear down the structure. But we At this late date the Convention Center is of the case. tion Center. The Convention Center Refer- informed purpose expressly granted legislative decision the citizenry Center whether the Center Consequently, in one well on its way Concluding funds for the Charter. This is the I no means is whether of the initiative was to person accorded their moot court these comment that almost every us in local affairs knows the talking started, topic. completion is desirable. relating to construct three capital sense should endeavor. preliminary consider. or otherwise raised. about a moot sub- Few years the voters should of the country in we are now underlying to a Convention with construc- people Charter —on constructed. ago, to vote —as It But repeal The sole probably observa- Conven- before this is issue talk- ry, tive must fail for (D.C.Code funds.” D.C.Code 1979 ception to the initiative says the effort of the voters for an initia- may ly prohibits added).] Appropriations 2. The ate simply tee court Cong., and allowed the referendum to Turning Hearings 1. The made, * * * wjsjj ward. But worth, I Comm, ^[*] could not make this focusing procedures. and ... I I was 1st Sess. 959-60 watch what 1980 from this before a so-called propose ^[*] surprised, should proposed Appropriations, on the (-foey I point these ^[*] expressly don’t is a decision unpleasant Subcomm. [District “laws ¡m(¡ happens Dixon reverse, Fiscal Year plurality opinion, reasons: for whatever right, i. l-1116(k)(7)) think this commit- Supp., ^[*] initiative. too. (1979) done creates an ex- appropriating of Columbia Amendment next in the bit of histo- ^[*] § Pt. but e., otherwise, (emphasis l-181(a). electors go II, rather valid- 1980: ^[*] Sen- 96th for- it (CCRC) prongs endum Committee has been I will the two of trying myself devote and, all, most of persistently for to take years plurality opinion several issue to the court. people, being by but it has been thwarted result reached (1979). 8. Convention Center Referendum Committee v. A.2d 550 Ethics, D.C.App., Board of Elections and 399 924 (1977). Corp. 813 v. Greyhound also

IV Inc., 322, 330, 437 Stages, Mt. Hood U.S. 98 principal question plu- The by raised 2375, (1978). 239 2370, 57 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. rality around opinion meaning revolves what being This is true when especially constituting words English familiar e., (/. constitutional) construed is a charter single phrase, “laws appropriating funds.” today only is of force amendment which We agreement all so- seem that if the it, written, people approved because the Amendment, called Dixon which states that popular in a referendum. an may “negate not limit” a states: provision question The act, request implemen- is not a valid proc- tation of this Charter Amendment lan- means The term “initiative” guage, then the Dixon Amendment is void. ess electors of District which the propose (except It is laws necessary may not to reiterate a stat- Columbia funds) present laws appropriating ute amend a materially cannot constitution. directly regis- such laws juncture proposed Little need be said at this about qualified tered electors of District of itself, the intent of the Dixon Amendment approval disapprov- Columbia for their for that intent is clear. Our first task is to l-181(a).] al. 1979 [D.C.Code explain language, what the Charter “laws funds,” means. appropriating enough. plain The Now that seems laws, except electors may propose ought guided by We to be two “first propose appropriating not laws funds. principles.” ostensibly recog The first an propose appro- The here did not electors nized by plurality: grants charter priation proposed a Con- They law. authority for the exercise of the initiative vention not constructed. This is Center be liberally referendum are to be con opposite enacting appropriations Farrell, 804, strued. Blotter v. 42 Cal.2d other Only law. bent on some mission one 809-10, 481, (1954) (en banc); 270 P.2d 484 proposal for an would find this to be a 360, Grady, Boyer State ex rel. v. 201 Neb. appropriation funds. Does have an 364, (1978); McQuil 76 269 N.W.2d 5 E. impact appropriation? Every- prior on a lin, Municipal Corporations 16.51 at 203- thing money and all government costs (3d rev.ed.1979). Being reservations legislation an impact has some sort of on power people, the court strive should budget, including gambling the recent effectuate, thwart, not purpose. their through initiatives sailed which have Against Citizens a New Jail v. Board vote, unmolested. Supervisors, 561,134 Cal.App.3d Cal. plain meaning plurality The avoids Rptr. 36, Limber, (1977); Bayless v. appropriating asserting, “laws funds” 463, 468, Cal.App.3d 102 Cal.Rptr. phrase seeming despair, is too (1972); Marsh, v. Klosterman 180 Neb. mind ambiguous for the unassisted to com- 512-13, (1966). 143 N.W.2d question identified prehend. only opinion gives passing plurality nod to the however, from the plurality, arises fact provisions doctrine that the initiative scheme, that, Rule under the Home liberally Charter must be construed and acts,” passes “budget request opinion goes that is the end of it. The then If “laws funds.” we sim- appropriating attempt to discuss the to exercise the ply appropriating funds” as translate “laws right conjuring proce of initiative —while acts,” “budget only the sensible request dural it. A deny voting obstacles to case on do, thing language says to then the Charter rights place is no for technicalities. not, initiative, by people may the starting principle The second is that the budget request propose themselves act. first step construing any in of document meaning of the The term is unmistakable legal plain import meaning is to look at the may by the not initiative enact people States, of Davis v. (or the words. See United appropriations budget an law transmit a 951, (1979); D.C.App., hardly 397 A.2d 956 to It can request Congress). United be stat- 809, Young, D.C.App., any States v. 376 ed simpler. A.2d

925 Council, note, states provisions specifical- Numerous have similar The did not prohibiting appropriating “laws funds” in ly the present- consider converse situation relation to initiatives9—for the same reason by ed in case: an the elector- this effort our Charter exception. contains this The repeal ate to or amend the substantive reason is voters are not immersed in day-to- to project, authorization for a funded day government to so as be to make able expenditure previously ap- block of the judgments reasoned complex on the finan- funds, propriated prevent and to future management cial g., of e. government, the Nonetheless, requests appropriations. interplay of appropriations various on a the con- light of Council’ssubstantive budget. qualify comp- The voters do not as initiatives, cern the fiscal effects of about trollers. Apparently, when the language in view the used propo- of being jurisdiction was drafted in this impact nents the broad of the to describe commonplace drafter —as is amendment, appropriating “laws funds” drafting simply phrase borrowed the from — especially appropriations because the one laws of of these states and omitted necessary accomplish rescis- is to adapt phrase legisla- to the unusual sions as acts of fund- as well affirmative tive situation in the District of Columbia. ing, fail- we do not believe Council’s mean, By phrase this I was not translat- of the potential ure to discuss the use ed further into “budget request act” funded program initiative halt a terminology of the appropriations process in interpret conclusive. We are bound to the District of meaning Columbia. But the way statute most consonant of the funds,” term appropriating “laws as legislature with the overall of the intent applied jurisdiction, in this perfectly precise even problem if the before the plain. is especially This true if one sets out expressly contemplated by court not was open with an generous spirit heart and a legislative body. Breen v. Dis- construe the Charter. Columbia, D.C.App., trict of 400 A.2d dissent, however, In an Appendix my I Airlines, (1979); Inc., Eastern set forth as a legisla- matter of interest the 375, 379, C.A.B., v. 122 U.S.App.D.C. history tive will statute. This dem- (1965). F.2d onstrate the engaged circumlocutions in by amendment, construing we must the plurality opinion in construing it. A weigh major public two interest concerns thorough-going analysis of the Council’sde- the Council reflected liberations shows sole intent of the Amendments—the elector’s “laws appropriating funds” exception was manage- initiative and reasonable fiscal make clear that the electorate not enhancing a view to the val- ment—with itself an propose actual on the ue of each without undue intrusion request act in order to execute its wishes. [Emphasis other. added.] power pass budget (and requests supplemental budget requests) and transmit device, up sets itself By plurality them exclusively remains Among other super-legislature. the D.C. Mayor. Council and the things, the court it would establish plurality opinion self-appointed states this: decider “reasonable fiscal Const, XI, (“The people may g., 9. E. all mat- Alaska initia- enact laws initiative on § art. ”); repeal appropriations money tive except shall not be .... used ... make ters amend., appropriations....”); XIX, (“This does Mass.Const. art. article not Nev.Const. permit 6 § Init., pt. (“No statutory proposal art. measure that ... statute or specific appropriation money appropriation makes a the proposed by Const, an amendment which makes otherwise unless such statute or provides Wyo.Const. commonwealth, treasury money, requires expenditure shall be ”); petition.... amendment also ... Mo. revenue.”); (“The necessary raising art. initiative shall (“The appropriation money 52(g) shall used for the other than art. 3 repeal provided appropria- of new to revenues created and for not be used ... make thereby....”); (“The ...”). 4§ art. tions. Mont.Const. spent. giant hardly responsi- a been This is management.”10 leap This is into a fiscal judicial nothing say pre- of to say bility. morass—to an inva- Needless this rationale govern- presents sion of the function of vents initiative. But it present the judicial statutory ment. It is based poor activism run amok.11 a case for construction on common sense. Contrary “impressionis- plurality’s construction, permit repealer tic” The a appropriating plurality the “laws would exception designed funds” but pro- program, was not to initiative to deauthorize a budg- a fiscally irresponsible only adopted hibit the Councilhas initiatives but before request expiration of assure retained the ulti- et act or as it; prohib- responsibility. may mate fiscal The funds or it Council’s accepted requests. deliberations When this is budget show it fact that it future govern- rights might the new Charter at times com- the real world of translated into ment, not plicate unacceptable. its We should budgetary decisions. The Council it is insistent, however, budget- up” interpretation was those enter into a “dreamed ary exclusively voting whereby, capital tasks if a rights should remain its own. statute appropri- project approved and the has been The conclusion is that plurality’s underway, ations initiative to is “laws appropriating pre funds” pour- must repeal legislation await using vents the electorate from an initiative of dollars ing down the drain of millions money to block the spending already is this becoming only before effective. Not requested or The appropriated. purpose of judicial legislation not unfortunate bit of statutory is to make construction sense of compelled, it is unwarranted.12 provision being interpreted. Unit 354,357, 46 Katz, funds” appropriating ed States v. All that the “laws U.S. S.Ct. concrete, 513, 514, means, (1926). exception actually The in the is plurality L.Ed. 986 seek, States, through the people may violates this. Rick v. United 82 that Cf. 101, 103, initiative, an actual U.S.App.D.C. propose pass 161 F.2d (1947) (“[It for that budget act. The reasons request well-established rule a] may prohibition construction a court construe are sensible and obvious. [that not] make, scarcely permitted statute such manner as electorate should Thus, ridiculous.”) agree, patently They surrogate comptrollers. as they function must, that an may repeal effect a as the Council’sdeliberations the Charter clear, legislation. plurality, people may, But the in its new Amendments make initiative, and dubious guardian capital role as the of “fiscal authorize responsibility” government, per will even the nec- request direct the Council Congress. mit an stop essary funding initiative which intended to The elector- however, not, building step construction of ate may take effect take transmitting after already requested ap passing funds its own propriated building already request Congress. Similarly, the vot- act to By focusing plurality entirely almost issue of 10. One wonder on [the how dissenting colleagues deciding go over- have the court ... our case] about the future public. simplify political responsibility” this case mislead the “fiscal of such is- obviously point, I at odds but We are on this spending,” sues as issuance of munici- “deficit duty impression bonds, the first pal etc., determining am under the whether being litigated court is to decide issue “responsible would conform with fiscal man- before it. agement.” plurality judi- view would abe boomerang. cial is not This the court’s busi- there, plurality engages get in a bit of 12.To manage litiga- ness. It has all it can decide legerdemain so as to reach the conclusion ble issues before it on the records factual “opposing” appropriating is the a law funds presented. “proposing” same one. This feat is neces- sary bring so as to the instant commenting I find it curious that in on this plurali- project, seeks to deauthorize a ty interpretation into the dissent, plurality opinion states: appropriating “laws exception. funds” seek, initiative, ers procedural requirements the to deauthorize a formal and and, capital project substance, up direct the set the CA 8368-79 at bill. [R. government to take steps up. to wind it Despite Pl.Ex.E at Chairman Dix- 18-21.] This is what exactly petitioners amendment,13 did opposition on’s it petition here. Their supplemen- was not a passed At by a vote seven to five. tal request interpretation act. This meeting, next and while Con- Council’s of “laws appropriating simple funds” seems vention try- Center Committee was Citizens enough. (charters) Constitutions are not vote, ing to move forward on the initiative meant for niggling reading given by the offered his so-called Dixon Chairman Dixon plurality. if, do They well endure when amendment: * ** interpreted, they are overwhelmed with MR. DIXON: suffocating semantics. to, time, I would like at this introduce Dixon Amendment amendment, another which I would like to be I offer circulated. would The Dixon Amendment prompted by was Initiative, amendment to Referendum existing threat a vote by initiative on particu- and Recall Procedures Act. This whether the Convention Center should be lar does amendment deal with con- constructed. The Amendment was intend- projects. cern for approval capital ed to foreclose project. an initiative on this It feeling is our intent history makes this clear. At legislation Corporation Counsel reading first of the Initiative Referen- is that and re- referendum dum and Recall Procedures Bill—one week call was not to language designed deal before Dixon introduced his amendment— approved budget with capital or items. Councilmember Hilda Mason offered an specifically amendment designed exempt I at would move the amendment this petition them, Convention please. Center from certain time. we Could circulate Interestingly, Ray pointed at no time in his statement Councilmember John out the obvi- opposing discrepancy the Mason Amendment CA 8368- ous purpose between Dixon’sview and the [R. 79 at at Pl.Ex.E did Chairman Dixon Amendments: 31-35] he Charter Chairman, suggest just even MR. like viewed RAY: Mr. I would the Convention contrary say, way Center initiative as to the Charter I there is think no better have community -participation allowing proposed ap- full Amendments because it than “law Rather, propriating plaint the agree, vote on I I funds.” citizens to the matter. think Dixon’s com- operat- was has been a lot and that the Mason issue discussed Amendment certainly given post I by excusing ed in an a lot of considera- ex facto manner petition’s comport tion. I think we all would have to admit Convention strictly Center failure procedures that it has been handled somewhat of a up by with the set to be shoddy way. Initiative Referendum and Recall Procedures may happen, We talk about cost and what Act. He also made no secret of his view that got along suppose but we were we to where the Convention Center initiative was an at- half finished on Convention Center tempt by minority to subvert the will of the go and the and it did referendum [sic] people expressed in the Council’s decision to [they] want a voters decided vention didn’t Con- build the Convention Center. Then, a fix. Center? would * * * CHAIRMAN DIXON: should [I]t It me that we have sort of seems to pointed also be out that this Council has point in the best this issue that reached a acted in this area Center. Convention way go us to and have for all of forward It has acted in the area of the Convention peace is to let the voters tell us whether position Center. It took stand and And, not. I there is no want this or better voters think that, community again, I involvement. think way, way better to let the no than go open through up back and to this now “yea” say “nay.” ... participation this without full of oth- amendment, hope my support I I groups community er in the in terms of the colleagues will also vote for CA 8368- it. [R. initiative, referendum, proc- whole recall added).] (emphasis 79 at at 35-36 Pl.Ex.E time, appropriate ess isn’t this interesting I think that no one it is note amendment would allow that to occur. [R. attempted Ray of to disabuse Councilmember (empha- CA Pl.Ex.E 8368-79 at at 34-35 his notion that the Amendments added).] sis permit challenge the voters the Convention it was Center even when half finished. discussion Chairman, reading by the Council. Further you Mr. are MASON: MS. amendment into the the chair: going your prevented to read was record? Chairman, I call a Mr. MR. CLARKE: Yes, it will be

CHAIRMAN DIXON: amendments. your of order on point record. The amendment read into the Clarke, we Mr. DIXON: CHAIRMAN read the reads as follows. then [Dixon have been that opening discussions text of his amendment.] in this items dealing with a number of said, with di- As I is consistent this already spo- has The Council bill before. Corporation Counsel rection from the we feel that policy ken its decision I budget process, and dealing with the as to opinion our to exercise we need time. Is there would move it at this for this initia- be appropriate what would discussion? fact, is, this ini- language. tive There immediate- Therefore, members of the Council Several enabling legislation. tiative proposed amendment ly protested that particu- argue that the Chair would language and in- was inconsistent with the portions not unlike other lar item is Amendments. More tent of the Charter policy reflect legislation, which does however, when the importantly, is that fact, going Body, of this statements of the Coun- opinion of the General Counsel enabling legisla- legislatively with forth solicited, it to be a cil was he considered tion. agreed amendment and substantive based question call for the I would this conclusion: that. opinion MR. In the CHRISTIAN: favor, aye. by saying All in indicate office, Counsel, my the General (A ayes.) chorus of here, effect, goes beyond legislation Opposed? DIXON: CHAIRMAN included in normally that which would be (A nays.) chorus of also, in ef- implementing piece The Chair rules DIXON: CHAIRMAN fect, substantively an amend- constitutes carries. that the motion previ- ment of the Charter amendment House. of the Division MS. MASON: ously approved. The rules DIXON: Chair CHAIRMAN then, saying, MR. CLARKE: You are that the motion carries. effectively this constitutes Charter House. of the Division MASON: MS. and, therefore, this will have amendment there is an If go DIXON: to referenda CHAIRMAN Chair, I then ruling appeal Charter amendment? recognize that motion. Arguably— MR. CHRISTIAN: appeal, I Mr. Chairman. MASON: MS. asking opin- your I’m MR. CLARKE: ion. The Chair DIXON: CHAIRMAN I have the motion carries. ruled that opinion is that My MR. CHRISTIAN: appeal if there is indicated that correct, Mr. you are Clarke. accepted to the that, would be then that So, inappropri- this is MR. CLARKE: motion car- ruling of the Chair bill, your it would be ate for a normal Then, a division we could have ries. opinion? the House. are correct. MR. You CHRISTIAN: request a division KANE: I MS. at 15-16 8368-79 at Pl.Ex.F CA [R. House. added).] (emphasis division has The DIXON: CHAIRMAN Nevertheless, ignored the Dixon Chairman recognize will requested. Chair been counsel advice Council’s Secretary, Would the division. conflicted with the Dixon amendment call the roll. please, invalid and and was therefore the Charter Councilmember ROBINSON: nonsubstan- MS. was ruled that amendment tive, to a third Clarke. therefore not question CHAIRMAN

MR. CLARKE: No. DIXON: order. out of Dixon. MS. ROBINSON: Chairman be- It is out of order MS. MASON: CHAIRMAN DIXON: Yes. get don’t want out to the you cause it to MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember Har- a law to run it. public that don’t have dy- pub- is in the CHAIRMAN DIXON: It Yes. MS. HARDY: question It’s not an appropriate lic now. MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember privilege, Mrs. Winter. personal Kane. Chairman, I voted WINTER: Mr. MS. MS. KANE: No. get our “present.” I wish we would MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember Ma- Legislative prior out amendment son. My just I aide have not seen it. Session. No. MS. MASON: Mrs. Kane brought the Charter to me. MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember Charter, I think discussed the Moore. “present,” opportunity. need I voted REV. J. MOORE: Yes. against I didn’t vote because want MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember Ro- something, I what I am don’t know larle. doing. MS. ROLARK: Yes. prop- The bill is CHAIRMAN DIXON: MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember favor, indicate erly us. All in before Shackleton. aye. saying MS. SHACKLETON: No. (A ayes.) chorus Spaulding. MS. Mr. ROBINSON: Opposed? Ab- CHAIRMAN DIXON: MR. Yes. SPAULDING: stentions? MS. ROBINSON: Wil- Councilmember motion carries. The son. Chairman, I would MR. CLARKE: Mr. MR. Yes. WILSON: your ask whether ruling like to MS. ROBINSON: Councilmember was amendment substantive. Winter. was CHAIRMAN DIXON: It moved as MS. WINTER: Present. conforming to our under- amendment Charter, standing

CHAIRMAN DIXON: The car- and it is not motion Now, ries. I move the bill as amended. Mrs. substantive. Mason. Chairman, Chairman,

MS. Mr. personal your MASON: Mr. at- MASON: MS. privilege, I please. change would like ask the has ruled does torney Charter, Counsel a it is question this matter. so that means substan- tive, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN I DIXON: think not an The Chair has appropriate personal privilege DIXON: CHAIRMAN comment, has bill been already Ms. Mason. ruled and the CA 8368-79 at Pl.Ex.F at passed. [R. I think appropri- MS. this is MASON: added).] (emphasis ate. I like to General ask the Counsel, legisla- authorizing what Amendment how the Dixon This reveals Colum- powers tion and District correctly was was enacted. operate bia to construct or the Conven- by their was an forewarned counsel tion Center? Amendment was effort at CHAIRMAN DIXON: That is sub- was invalid. The amendment therefore question, personal privilege stantive not a then-existing proposal for at the pinpointed question. Center on the a voter initiative Convention was to purpose the immediate going MS. Who is to answer MASON: it for me? thwart it.14 supra Leahy, 921-922. 14. See statement Senator under the tempt groups initia- some citizens Dixon Amendment bars have a convention

tive Home Rule Charter to negate that “would or limit [a referendum, might in feel that you do request] plurality act of the Council.” The type of any way going against concludes the Dixon Amendment is “con- say home rule that the citizens gruent” interpretation with its of the Char- and, therefore, want? ter the Dixon Amendment is Chairman, comport

not invalid for failure to with the I don’t MR. Mr. BARRY: probably I made exception.15 Charter Amendment This is think so .... question surprising, plurality 180-degree a far- this whole turn on —in Mayor, and hav- interpretation previously con- referendums.... fetched [As] —had budget- for full exception ing strued to fit the lack of restraint the Charter Amendment, get think we ary authority, so I don’t into the terms of the Dixon togo weight full of it .... As citizens as to validate the amendment. down, things these referendums and turn earlier, As I have shown the Charter Cap- I citizens of the Nation’s don’t think mean Amendment does not at all pressure. ital can stand that sort of what The Dixon plurality said. citizens in youDo think MR. LEAHY: unmistakably attempt an Amendment is of Columbia should the District and, conse- substantially amend the Charter capital projects? right to a referendum on quently, by is void definition. so, which is I think MR. BARRY: don’t plurality opinion says (at 915): The position. change my in 180-degree We hold that the Dixon Amendment Appropriations of Columbia [District prevents . . . CCRC’s initiative Hearings before a Fiscal Year 1980: Sub- reaching the ballot. Appropriations, on comm. of the Senate plurality saying The is there the Dixon (1979) II, 19 Cong., 1st sess. Pt. 96th Amendment is of the issue. determinative added).] (emphasis significance But if it it would had this much assuming the is now majority The court Amend- manifestly be an invalid Charter the unfor- effectively implementing role of dispute beyond ment because it is serious two branches of purpose tunate of the other a constitu- legislation may not amend that at a government. It is small wonder (the Charter). tion Liberties Un- stage late the American Civil Conclusion case to warn way ion found its into this if there It would be most unfortunate voting rights impairment of against develop continuing pattern were to Just as we must taking place. that is now governmental impairment vote without protect “expression and association governmen- is initiative or referendum that truth, or so- popularity, regard to the ... tally considered an undesirable and beliefs which utility cial of the ideas proposal notwithstanding provi- the Charter Button, offered,” NAACP v. U.S are enabling Hearing, sions it.16 At a Senate 415, 445, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 83 S.Ct. put question May- the Chairman (1963), right equally to vote be so must the or: may be offi- protected no matter that there outcome.17 The apprehension cial as to the Mayor, you

Mr. do feel all that depends upon turning vitality government down the at- steps series they might concededly But vote for .... A cannot re- of [what] 15. Council enactment everybody (consti- argument, peal substantially that’s an immoral amend a Charter deny tutional) provision. using it knows it is immoral might exer- franchise because of how ” 3, supra. Besides, 16. See editorial at note unconstitutional.... cised. it is Rauh, Jr., [Joseph Amendment L. The D.C. a local commentator a similar context Post, Saved, Aug. Washington Be Can recently say: this to had 22, 1980, A, at 23.] only argument .... is that D.C. Citi- right zens shouldn’t have the to vote because basic, however, rights, right, originally this. “Other even The initiative the most illusory right if the exception appropri- to vote under- contained no “laws Sanders, Wesberry mined.” v. ating 376 U.S. of Bill 2-2 read funds.” Section 101 526, 535, (1964) simply: S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Instead, (voting apportionment). we have power The initiative today opinions majority two for the denying electors of the District of Columbia right defy acceptable which translation legisla- propose legislation refer such government.18 into the real world This directly pass tion to the electorate to things depend upon does not —of all reject same. — exquisite timing. reading It first was at full Council’s Only bygone years political expres- 5,1977 April of Bill 2-2 that then Coucil- subjected sion vote been so many first Arrington member Dixon introduced prior restraints as those laid here. down funds” appropriating “laws The plurality opinion, particular, is clev- amendment to the bill’s definition erly stop crafted so as to voters at initiative. Some of the concerns and mis- turn, every almost a practical matter. I led to this givings ultimately amend- prediction early make the dire in the articulated, however, first at a ment were judicial future there will abe effort meeting March the Council’s apply plurality opinion to deny so as Committee, Operations chaired Government attempts future voting to exercise the ini- called member Dixon and to consider proposals tiative franchise on considered report Accordingly, the bill. before “unpopular” government circles. immediately sur- recounting the discussion amendment, I rounding introduction of The court and bar years will be un- shall the Committee’s earli- briefly describe tangling happens case. This is what er deliberations. when judiciary forsakes its true role. I do slightest not have the in say- hesitation Operations A. D.C. Council Government

ing this decision diminishes the court. of March Meeting Committee I dissent. After some initial extended discussion material, matters here then-Council- not APPENDIX Barry (now Mayor) member Marion Legislative History the bill’s treatment broached the As originally by the late of an initiative. implications” introduced the “fiscal Hobson, Councilmember expressed Julius the Charter His concern was that clearly provision people project Amendments bill a a and the might propose contained require referendum which remained Charter the Council to find would substantially unchanged request its or fur- through money final for it French, passage and approval by Congress.1 the electorate. ther funds from Bruce tee, opinion precedential authority. House 18. Neither I would be the has but assume it opinions These two follow different courses the Senate District District Committee and judgment agree on a of affirmance. Committee. process be han- How then would the fiscal Chairman, hap- 1. MR. what BARRY: Mr. mean, government District dled? I would the pens happens if it has fiscal —if compelled spend $5 mil- $10 or million implications? Suppose that someone wants bring just as when we lion on a measure up provides to hiring which draw bill for the to, at bill floor of the we have unemployed say two thou- least, impact will be what the fiscal estimate sand them or them and three thousand of figure try Is it will not be. out what implication $5 a fiscal of four or mil- legislation? CA [R. that answered in this lion? How is bill? that handled in this at 8368-79 at Pl.Ex.B 9010.] figure reading been I’ve it and 1 can’t out handled, impact particularly, how fiscal since the review committees would Appropriations not the Commit- did, however, Barry

Councilmember ex- other fiscal apparently press separate concern with Committee Clerk and that, implications meeting. of the bill later in the bill, responded chief draftsman of the strongly in favor spoke language He general consonant with the structure Hobson’s bill which Councilmember au- could regime, Home Rule an initiative preclude potential- referenda on such appropriate, thorize but not the latter since ly unpopular matters as tax measures and resting with the ultimately one Barry’s bond issues for school renovation. exchange Congress.2 subsequent And in a running proper view was Barry and between then Councilmembers impossible government would become if the Hobson, belief the former reiterated his challenge very people permitted were aware public ought to be made government programs lifeblood of essential project by that while it could authorize a way. in this of Home the inherent structure sepa- it be required Rule the funds for to state for the rec- Barry But took care appro- requested by the Council and rately excluding capital that he was not “for ord Congress.3 Chair- priated by Committee CA 8368- projects from referendum.” [R. joined in apparently man Dixon himself moving that Pl.Ex.B at In 25.] Barry’s concern that then Councilmember to the full reported as written be the bill that an public somehow be informed Council, reiterated: Barry automatically trigger initiative would * * * pro- Again I want to make it clear that flow of federal funds for the my argument capital part was not posed.4 that, Yes, extent, thing MR. Mari- the act HOBSON: One about FRENCH: to this 2. MR. on, anybody providing used as an an initiative or refer- as a normal Council act would be endum, they just authorization act. write that like we do on pub- words, they It seems to me there are some serious Council. other problems pre- impact. lic education on this involved take into consideration the fiscal just City cise issue. But if there are no funds —in And it becomes like if law Coun- act, words, appropriation other obviously. it’s not an passes cil it. us, just saying, MR. BARRY: I was it’s, just example, the Latino Com- So if put money even if we some in a bill authoriz- munity Development committee Act of this it, ing part regular budget, if it is not a $200,000 it, figure with a recommended just get then it doesn’t funded. And I could said, Hill, got the Hill “Good when it to the give examples. several $50,- Luck, only going get to because we’re just And I wanted to make sure we knew appropriation.” 000 in the actual terms of that there is another which has to be be case here. In other That would the same you followed. That doesn’t mean that can’t words, saying just like the this is eventually get money, through rep- either x, y z be done. that we direct that all and rogramming through being it included in x, y money z do and But there not to it— regular budget someway or another. But are not done. 37, my that was concern. 8368-79 at CA [R. public problem serious is that there are at Pl.Ex.B 11.] problems it seems to here because education proponent in of—a of an initiative me terms Plus, you put im- 4.MR. DIXON: if a dollar very may believe that measure well ballot, referendum, pact on the the vote—the fact, will, ipso provide, kind of measure you’re going up making people to end think facto, funding requires an it. But that they they tying money figure are into a when act, appropriation under the Charter really up to aren’t. It’s still to the process. requires CA [R. different appropriate set aside. Council to 37, Pl.Ex.B at 10-11.] at going require I think it is to some rather sophisticated information out the commu- Chairman, I’m for the MR. BARRY: Mr. nity. piece regard, I think it’s a useful in that know, here, you but I want the bill initiative — that would allow the electorate to be- persons initiate make sure that who would sophisticated, particularly come lot more if situation, passed, once it’s don’t then this think, automatically, they goes use the vehicle in terms of what if fiscal im- there is a goes goes on—what on downtown and what they money ready pact, there is and then that legislative process. on in the CA 8368-79 [R. somebody providing the us or for not blame at at Pl.Ex.B 12-13.] mean, be, money. I I could for what want. Second, Barry then-Councilmember stressed budget. practical permit- wisdomof not I that the think citizens ought to right have a to vote on these tax, ting emergency, gen- referenda on huge expenditures money in that re- eral appropriation empha- but legislation, gard. But I do think that go as we ought sized that this not to bar extend forward we have protect those institu- capital projects interpretation later —an tions that protect sometimes cannot adopted by Report. the Committee To be themselves. certainly And public sure, argued availability it can be that the schools are put one. If we the referen- challenge capital expendi- referenda to dum tomorrow for a million $221 recognition tures is than a nothing more for that school system, ... I think we capital that appropriations clearly not get will zero because that is the nature of within referendum where we are. CA 8368-79 at [R. right appropriating for “acts funds for the Pl.Ex.B at 26.] general budget.” evident, operation It is report issued the Committee en- Barry’s view, however, dorsed stating: “It Barry’s Report’s was the and the capital Committee’s intent that construction regarding capital projects statements projects would be available referendum.” should broadly, be construed more indica- Committee on Operations Government legislative tive of an implicit intent Council, the District of Columbia Commit- capital subject projects to challenge be via Report (March tee 1977) No. at 18 R. the initiative also. facts strongly Several CA 8368-79 at Pl.Ex.C at 18. First, support this interpretation. it is clear In summary, narrowly two framed and (as recognized n.38) plurality at clearly expressed concerns were made used, like the referen- known during phase this first of Council dum, to repeal acts the Council.5 It consideration of the Charter Amendments point follows—and there was at this no First, bill. Barry Councilmembers and Dix- indication otherwise—that the initiative on and Committee French Clerk stated that stop could capital project. also be used to ought electorate to be made aware that Second, stage histo- proposed right of initiative included the ry, the “laws appropriating excep- authorize funds” projects programs, but not the separate power tion, and distinct significance, whatever its was absent appropriate projects funds for those from the definition of initiative. The right programs power fully exercisable by —a was, subject accordingly, to no even the District of Columbia Council itself special restrictions as to matter. It under Home suggest Rule. I would went without saying that the clearest way and most effective so referendum, well as the could be used public inform the would be to include in the against capital project. Finally, it seems language provision of the Charter itself an clear Barry that when Councilmember exception for appropriating “laws funds.” spoke barring against favor of referenda legislative If the had history ended with the general tax and appropriation statutes —but proposal bare exception, the neces- capital projects against not referenda sary inference would be it was intend- —he to apply repealer intended his comments explicit ed make that the only initiative right did request Barry explicitly not initiatives as well.6 That include the appropriations Congress. focused on the “referendum” seems attrib- from the being precise repealer proposal. capital project it is a 5. effects of a initiative and Where course, attacked, however, practical are, effects of the a referendum not the same. The proposal the same: the measure acts two modes of attack are mere a referendum go suspend targeted not forward. See discussion does of the Council before infra. act implementation; disap- if action is the Council comments, referral, Barry’s by upon Notwithstanding proved I think the electorate it will 6. initiative, only reading would lead to a conclu- a tortured never be enacted. An hand, on the other already may repeal operable not be used to enact the statute sion that appropriation general only changes stat- approval in tax and from the of the initiative time of being fully Perhaps sensing that he was not Spaulding’s responsive con- to Councilmember utable to his use of that term—in this French, to Bruce popular question, text all Dixon deferred encompassing at least—as Clerk, explained: repealers. Thus, abundantly clear who it seems Committee that the firm sense of the Committee you provide[s] This amendment first Amendments considered appropriated or state cannot initiate to vote a people’s right bill was that the operating general measures either for capital projects halt to was unencumbered It does capital budgets. Budgets by any language then in the bill. This is at all. the tax measure affect delay appropriation in the because of the Meeting B. District of Columbia Council 132, Def.Ex. 8368-79 at process. CA [R. April added).] (emphasis L-l at 19 this, reading It was at first Council’s French, draftsman of apparent While bill, that of the Charter Amendments Coun- contra- amendment, seems to have thus the addition of proposed cilmember Dixon ap- the “laws dicted Dixon’s assertion exception to appropriating the “laws funds” was intended exception funds” propriating introducing definition of initiative. the use of the question to address amendment, stated, plural- Dixon as the measures, his initial tax against notes, ity “prohib- exception that the remark is to the effect that against or as related to7 used initiativefs] prohibit the electorate only was intended to appropriated go levying funds which to tax requesting appropria- affirmatively operating budget and other forms of tions via the initiative. appropriated (Plur.Op. actions.” at fund interpretation of this The correctness this indis- added).) What (emphasis of the subse- by the entire course borne out something actually tinct comment meant is Coun- quent discussion of amendment. only speculation. for the discussion Spaulding began cilmember immediately was Councilmember Dixon exceptions either by asking whether the Spaulding asked Councilmember William right were initiative or the referendum again excep- to state effect of the what the popular measures designed prohibit tion would 3868-79 at be. R. CA impact.” It was Councilmember a “fiscal Def.Ex. 1—1 at 19. Dixon answered: that it was responded Dixon himself who proscribe exceptions only

It would not be but not the intent of used taxes impact, with fiscal pur- initiatives or referenda not for tax —but could, noting people that the poses. You could not kill a tax measure fact, could, project matter of ob- capital authorize a with the initiative. You —a the Council impact just as only. deal with CA vious fiscal appropriation [R. — 8368-79 at Def.Ex. L-l at could.8 19.] utes, Fauntroy’s Delegate is dubious expressly excepted total remarks matters right. problem member of the Coun- from the This as he was not a referendum inasmuch see, e.g., accordingly jurisdictions, been other material and addressed cil at time here Grady, Boyer expressing regarded State ex rel. v. 201 Neb. cannot therein, (1978) but is N.W.2d 73 and cases cited intent. today. not before us Is this 8. MR. SPAULDING: Question. question emphasis plurality’s I whether the fiscal with the to deal amendment intended phrase page “or as related 911 on the to” legislation particular piece impact statement, “relating phrase to” Dixon’s and the is offered referendum? (cid:127) statement, Delegate Fauntroy’s in District proves No, it is not. MR. DIXON: anything. this much of It seems to me then, at some MR. Well SPAULDING: language likely to an uninten- attributable you point address whether in the Bill do descrip- imprecision tional as to the intentional impact that or whether not it can be a fiscal exception’s broad terms” tion of the “effect in provisions not under the is a consideration or argued by Op. plurality, at see Plur. for Legislation. of the relevance significance. The no is of right endum for tax proscribes popular acts Spaulding challenge government’s attempts then made to the clear his concern— later echoed raise at by necessary revenue. R. CA 8368-79 Councilmembers John A. Wilson L-l per- and David Def.Ex. at 21. Second —and Clarke —that pro- posed haps significantly more Charter might Amendments permit —the power does not include the to initiate the imbalance of budget.9 R. CA 8368- appropriations power process: remains at Def.Ex. L-l at Though 21. there exclusively Mayor with the and the Coun- was some requiring discussion of pro- those Thus, cil.11 budgetary a final check on the posing an initiative propose measure to in legislation effects of voter initiated re- special addition a levy tax to raise funds for by government, tained the District which the project or program proposed, the Coun- must separately appropria- act to secure cil ultimately rejected this idea and opted programs projects tions for authorized by preserve people’s right, unfettered people.12 exchange An between Coun- prior constraints, fiscal to themselves au- cilmembers Dixon Barry highlighted projects thorize and programs.10 Dixon this: noted, however, that two facets of the bill * * * lessened the likelihood that the proposed MR. BARRY: This Council can rights Charter would lead to defi- place legislation authorizing the estab- First, ciencies. to the refer- lishment of entities. We established the possible, example, MR. process DIXON: It is adequacy for to determine the put place that the initiative could in taxing portion a struc- passed? of the bill that was govern- ture or could cause an action yes. MR. DIXON: The answer is Just like impact, just ment that would have fiscal we as Councilmembers can introduce like they They can do now. can take us legisla- court now. tion to establish CA [R. They up things they structures — set don’t [can] that Def.Ex. L-l at 20-21.] any money have for. CA 8368-79 at [R. Def.Ex. L-l at 28-29.] 9. Councilmember Wilson made clear that he directly was requirements concerned with the * * * question 11. MR. TUCKER: The is real- Anti-Deficiency Act, U.S.C. ly any they one of are there limits —to what (1976). See also D.C.Code 1978 47- might impact? in offer terms of fiscal If the 228. they thought electorate decides their actions they were such that don’t care what it cost * * * any way MR. CLARKE: there [I]s voted, they so then that becomes law. require effect, if there be a fiscal because process, MR. DIXON: It is the same Mr. appears capability public it there is for the put place If we were to Chairman. expenditure by mandatory force the guage, lan- agency massive structure to establish an they piece also have in it a was a massive structure and would raising is revenue sufficient to meet the ex- impact fiscally, had an on us then we would penditure? have to fund this and we would have could, they MR. DIXON: In the initiative legislation put place to fund half the fact, include— during funding proc- the normal taxation and MR. CLARKE: Is there reason to re- ess. quire it? community thing, can do the if same MR. DIXON: This is consistent with the they They legislation felt wanted a structure. country. all over the There is no put place. would set it in motion and it in neutral official that we can look make to to money We would have to vote for tax and determination of the cost of a measure. any way MR. Def.Ex. L-l at CLARKE: that. CA 8369-79 at [R. Is there the court could do it? 22-22.] could, MR. I DIXON: am sure the court however, recognized, 12. The Council but there is no neutral official to make the power forestall the actual exercise of its determination as to what the cost of the implementation in this of an initiative measure prior coming measure would be n popular way chal- would not be immune from Council. lenge. possi- May proceed? was sensitive to the MR. CLARKE: I If a bill repercussions put through political which a decision not $1 ble was and it cost million and a have, appropriate piece put through were tax to raise the sales right, percent only gave $500— half a Amendments the electorate and it raised themselves, city but to recall their and then the required didn’t do whatever the bill to make law 134; used, judi- to be couldn’t that be a lawmakers. CA 8368-79 at [R. elected in the cial issue court? Could the court be Def.Ex. L-l at 32-33.] also of Latino Affairs. We have Office STATES, Appellant, UNITED budgetary process our that put into v. $50,000. put in that measure some authorizing is that is My interpretation ALEXANDER, Appellee. Vivian legislation appropriating] and it is not 79-1280, 80-116. Nos. is, in its legislation. That the Council budgetary will to exclude decide District of of Appeals. Columbia Court com- health center that the the million $5 build and had authorized us to munity Oct. budgetary process operate, during if it. That was against voted Council Court, Superior H. Weisberg, Frederick understanding in the Committee. my Judge. understanding from the my That was staff, as we authorizing legislation legislation. appropriating

do but it wasn’t *, Judge, Before NEWMAN Chief

KELLY, KERN, NEBEKER, HARRIS**, the initia- MR. DIXON: It is correct on MACK*, FERREN*, PRYOR, BEL- passed tive We it. The elector- section. SON, Judges. Associate to, want but they ate can initiate a tax if money. they appropriate cannot ORDER they They any can initiate measure want cannot initiate initiate but PER CURIAM. That is not in spending money. of that * * * 8368-79 power their to do. CA [R. appellant’s petition On consideration of (emphasis Def.Ex. L-l at alternative, rehearing, for or in the for added).] banc, rehearing en this discussion as import The clear ORDERED merits division that concedes, is that plurality “[t]he appellant’s rehearing petition for is denied. ... particularly was concerned appearing majority judges It that the to launch the initiative electorate use appellant’s of this deny court has voted to (Plur.Op. at appropriations process.” banc, petition rehearing for en it is plain added).) is the That (emphasis is the sense meaning of the term and that appellant’s FURTHER ORDERED that Normally, that legislative history. petition rehearing for en banc is denied. there ended the matter and should have agreement on a construc- would have been BELSON, Judge of Associate But that Statement legislative history. tion of the to a different result —the would led Judges with whom Associate KERN and in this result now reached the dissent join. NEBEKER for the unacceptable case. But this was rehearing I deny vote motion Instead, decided to plurality. plurality Application holding en banc. of Rho result desired. legislate way its own Innis, de Island v. 446 U.S. S.Ct. (1980), 64 L.Ed.2d 297 must lead to police engaged conclusion interrogation appellee

custodial after she unwilling stated that she was to answer * Pryor Judge grant appel- Denotes merits division. Associate petition rehearing lant’s en banc. ** Judge participate Associate Harris did not this matter. distinction. notes McQuillin body park governing implements of Su- that when with execution of Board a local interferes policy participates regula pervisors’ approving of state in a resolution construction or national Whitehead, tory site); supra program, 204 courts have held that the locali new courthouse on 151, (although ty higher government deputy estab- of Va. 129 at 696 at S.E.2d —as —is function, engaged city-owned system legisla- is water an administrative and the lishment of decision, expense accordingly change fac- electorate interfere with it tive to cannot initiative See, by Simp g., initiative or referendum. e. interferes with administra- tor in maintenance tion); 133-34, 474-77, son, Heider, supra supra 155 at 36 Cal.2d at 222 P.2d at 37 Wis.2d 229-30; Butler, prohibit (initiative State ex rel. v. 145 Neb. N.W.2d at 21-22 to Council Nelson 638, 683, 646-47, (1945); high approving capital expenditure for 17 N.W.2d 689-90 years prohibit Hughes Bryan, (In to v. three and re Initiative Petition Filed school addition for 18, 952, 1966), City Planning April (Okla.1967); levy Com- 425 P.2d 954 tax for addition unless Amalgamated plan adopts 757 interferes with exe- Transit Union — Division v. mission master Yerkovich, 221, 227-28, resolution, Or.App. requested 24 545 P.2d cution of Council 1401, approved popular (1976). generally 1405 and See 5 E. Board of Education McQuil vote, lin, 16.55, supra authorizing for issuance of bonds school § 212-13 & n.98. construction, with Commission’s execution test, prohi- adopt Even if to we were this duty adopt plan). statutory of to master apply bition would not here. Construction and operation of the do not re- Convention Center See, g., Management & Invest e. Teachers congressional policy flect a or a District Cruz, Corp. City Cal. ment v. of Santa 64 regulatory national government which District scheme 447, 523, 438, Cal.Rptr. (1976) App.3d 529 deputized 134 is to Al- administer. operate (“decision city though Congress original of a to build enacted the version public unquestionably general capital structure is of of tion, authorization construc- and, 1973, 1958, 9-220(a), accordingly, proper of § D.C.Code see nature” initiative); 574, 1958, 6, 85-451, Cassidy, Cal.App. Act of June 72 Duran v. 28 Pub.L.No. Stat. 582, 183, 793, Cal.Rptr. (1972) (people power repeal now 799 have Council has to 104 Supp., halting development right propose amend statute. See D.C.Code 1978 to initiative golf Similarly, repeal part city park of even after 1-124. course as § Council could oper- begun); Paget, authorizing su amend its own recent statute construction of course Center, (people pra id. 474 at 251 ation of 78 Wash.2d at P.2d Convention vetoing County propose to See 9-601 -610. id. 1978 1-124. to §§ public Although power legislate sta of site for retains Commissioners’ selection dium); Leeman, action, Ballantyne v. State rel. for the District and override Council cf. ex 847, 858, (1948) 1-126, -147(c), -144(e), see id. that reserved 149 Neb. 32 N.W.2d municipal (authorizing power capital projects auditori does construction not convert legislation, programs on the Dis- um act of but referendum District into federal was Congress. property agent taken to be trict administers as an ordinance to assess pre- with administration The Home Rule Act manifests an intent eminent domain interferes Funk, 1-121(a). cisely contrary. project); v. 137 Or. id. Monahan 587-88, (referendum legislative/administra- (1931) As a final test of the 3 P.2d incinerating dichotomy, purchase states: “Actions re- site for tive ordinance McQuillin project, lating general subjects permanent plant of a administration interferes with usually provi regarded legislative, repeal charter character are but electors could seek authorizing providing subjects temporary fi bonds to and those sion issue construction). special regarded plant see v. character as adminis- But Ruano nance 820, 824, 16.55, McQuillin, supra Spellman, P.2d at 213. trative.” E. Wash.2d (en (in help (1973) banc) light prior of two This distinction is upon infrequently. little and it relied 450 popular event, public hardly stadi can on construction of votes um, regard operation project impermissibly in to halt construction and firmly “tempo- $98.7 center with execution established million convention terferes rary.” proceed). decision

Case Details

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

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Oct 8, 1981

Citation: 441 A.2d 889

Docket Number: 79-857, 79-858 and 79-885

Court Abbreviation: D.C.