8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

1/8

TO:

FROM:

DistHct or Columbia Board OIElections&Ethics

Aaron M.Flynn,Esq ,

DATE: ne O. 091

The Proposed Measure"A Referendum oncerning he Jury and Marriage mendment ct of 2009,,

ls lmproper Subject MatterFor a Referendum

on June 5, 2009, he District fcolumbiaBoard f Elections nd Ethics ,,Board")published notice fpublic earing "Notice")egardinghe Board,s eceipt nd'intentto review proposed eferendum easure. hismeasure ould eek o nvalidate npart heJury and vlaffiage mendment ct of 2009 the ,Act"),Act No. A1g_0070,passed y he D.c. council n_digned y he Mayor n May'6, 009 and currentiypending eviewby he United tates congress. The Act was ransmitted o conoresson May11,2009, nd he review eriod s projected o close on July6, 2009.1

The eferendum rocess n he District fcolumbia "D.c." rthe "District,,)sgoverned y he Initiative, eferendum, nd Recall harter Amendments ct ot ig7z2and he nitiative, eferendum, nd Recall roceduresAct.S ee gene ailyprice v.Districtof Columbia d. of Etections Ethics,645 .2d S94, 600 D.C. t dg+). theseslatutes re urther upplemented y regulations romulgated y he Board.a sdescribed elow, hese tatues nd egulations, s nterpreted y he courts f heDistrict, equire he Board o reject o proposed eferendum n he basis hat t seet(s oaddress mproper ubjectmatter nderDistrictaw.

' See Council f the District fColumbia, IMS,avaitabte thttp;//www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/legislation.aspx?LegNo=Bl8-001 &Description=JURy-AND-MARRtAG_AMENDMENT_ACT-_OF_2009.__&lD=21617 ,

^ . .- . ig 9 t"ry2-a6, 2, 24 D.C.Reg. 99 1978), s amended ypub.L.No.95-526,9 1!3), g2_S-tgt. 202s 1978) codified s amended n D.C.Code S -281 ro -287 and gg1-2e1 o -295 1992)).

D.C.Law -1 ,g 2(c),25 D.C.Reg. 454 1979) codified s amended nD.C.Code $1-1320o -1326 1992)).

o D.C.Mur.r. EGS.it.g, SS OOO-101S.

Hunton Williams LP

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

2/8

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

3/8

In addition, .c . code g 1-204.101(b)mposes separate imitationn heproper ubjectmatter fa referendum, tating:

The erm referendum', eans he process vwhich heregistered ualified lectors f he District fbolumbiamavsuspend cts of

he Council f he District fColumbia(except mergency cts, acts evying axes, r actsappropriating unds or the general operation budgef unlilsuch acts have been presented o the registered ualifiedelectors f he District f Columbiaor heirapproval rrejection.T

while he operative hrases acts evying axes, r acts appropriatingunds',appear imilaro he provision, itedabove, rohibitingeferenda'andnitiat]vesromnegating r imiting n act of he councilenacted ursuant o S 466 of he District f

Followingublication f he ,Noticeof publicHearino:Receipt nd ntent o Review" n the DC Register, h6 Board,at a public earing, halldetermine hether o approve hemeasure s proper ubjectmatter oran nitiative rreferendummeasure, r to reject t based on the ollowingreasons:

a. The measure resented s no ta proper ubject or aninitiative r referendum nder itle Vof he SelfGovemmentAct;

b. The statement f organizationnd he reporl(s) f receiptsand expenditures ave notbeen iled with he Offlce f

Campaign inance;

c. The ormof he measure oes notcomply ith herequirements et orth n g1 01 1

d. The measure uthorizes r wouldhave he effect fauthorizing iscriminationrohibited nder he HumanRights ct ot 1977; r

e. The measure ouldnegate r imitan ac t of he Councilenacted ursuant o 9446 of he District fColumbia el fGovemment nd Governmental eorganization ct .

7 D.C.Mur'r. EGS.it.3,g s.1-204.101(b)emphasis dded). t s arso mponantto note hat nitiatives re also subject o ne pr6nioitiongainst ci sappropriatingundsfo r he general peration udget. Accordinglyases ddrissing nitiatives'suuje&othis prohibitionre equally elevant o referenda.

3

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

4/8

columbia el fGovernment ndGovernmental eorganization ct ,see D.c. Murr.REg:..1,i. , S 100_1.3(e),he courls f the District fColumbia ave nterpretedheprohibitionsn D.c. code s

'l-204.101broadly nd have onsistently eld hat heyprohibitnitiativesnd eferenda uchas he one currently ending efore he Board.specifically, he District fcolumbia court of Appeats rai interpreied he 'lawsappropriatingunds" imitation'Very roadty, oldinghat t ,e)dend[s].. . to the ullmeasure f the council's o]e]1lne District's udgelprocess ..:,

"Dorseyv. District fcolumbia Bd. of Etections Ethics,648 .2d azs, aiz (D.c 1994) quoting "i""y r.Districtof Columbia d. ot Etections Ethics,60l A.2d'3,20 (D.i. i'SSfy.-

ln Dorsey, he District f Columbia ourt f Appeals eterminedhat an nitiativeseeking o prohibithe D.c. governm-entrom booting" ehicles nd rom collectingvariousmotor ehicle mpoundmentines iolated he statutory rohibitiongainst singthe referendum nd nitiative rocess.to ropose or nvalidate)la*s approiriatingfunds." The Dorsey courtexplained he District,s udgetary rocess huily:'

As partof the annual udgetary rocess, or example, he

Mayormust submit o the Council,a

report n all availablerevenues," nd he Mayor ndCounciln tum must ,identifvexpenses nd evenues, nd .. propose balanced udgetfo rCongressional pproval....', hrough he ,lawsappropriatingunds', imitation, ongress nd he Councilensured hat hese ,mattersrelatingo the ocal udgetprocess ould emain ithinhe control f the Mayor ndCouncil, nd hat nitiativeswould] otcreate efiiitsorinterfere ith he ocally lected fficials' ecisions bouthowDistrict overnment evenues hould e spent.',

ld .at 677 (intemal itations..omitted).-Accordingly,//matrers elatingo the budgetprocess, ncludinghe dentification 'f othexpenses nd evenues, annot e sub.lectto either he nitiative r referendum rocess. Further, he court tated:

That hese undsare onlya tiny partof the District's nnualrevenue roiectionss beside he point; he electorate avno more eliminatehem by nitiativehan t could bolish rlower he sales ax or ocal ncome ax_matters ntegral o the"power fthe purse', hichCongress nd he Couniilreserved xclusivelyo the elected overnment.

/d ' (intemal itations mitted). hus, he amount fhe revenues r expenses t ssueis not relevant. Anyact that wourd ave even a marginal tfecton revenues rexpenses relates o" the budgetary rocess nd cannot be properly ddressed hroughthe referendum r nitiative rocess.

D.c. superior ourt.further rucidatedhe proper pproach o reviewinginitiatives nd referenda gainst he "raws appropriating unds,j randar . n EesiiurantAss'n of Metropolitan washington v. Districiof cotumiia Bd. of Etections gtiics, zooqwL 21o22og D.c.super. 004), he superior ourt of the District fcolumbia evlewed4

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

5/8

the validity f a proposed allotnitialiveeeking o prohibit mokingn all public laces.The courtdetermined hat his nitiative iolatedhe subjectmatter imitation n awsappropriatingunds. The court tated [t]he word appropriations'whenused nconnection ith he unctions f he Mayor nd he Counciln he District's udgetprocess efers o the discretionary rocess ywhich evenues rc identified ndallocated mong ompeting rograms ndactivities."d at 3 (emphasis dded). The

court determined hat t was rrelevant hat he nitiative ppeared neutral n its face" asa revenuemeasure nd nstead xaminedhe ultimate ffect hat he nitiative ouldhave on he Council's bility to dentifyax evenues .. when preparinghe BudgetRequest Act." /d. at 4. Because he nitiative, f approved, ould have alfected axrevenues aised rom estaurants, he resulting iscal mpact n the District as ound oimpermissiblynterfere ith he Council's bilityo relyupon ts ax revenue rolections.ld. at 4. Moreover, he Courtnoted n particularhat t was rrelevant fthe nitiative aslikelyo result n ncreased r decreased ax revenues nd hat, egardless, theinitiative ould tillbe considered 'lawappropriatingunds' ccordingo Hessey," d.at 4.

Accordingly,he relevant ase aw makes number f significant oints elevantto the matter now before he Board. First, t is well-established hat "lawsappropriatingfunds" annot roperly e enacted ia eferendum, nd he prohibition ust be readbroadly. Second, proposed eferendum il lqualify s a "lawappropriatingunds" f trelates o revenues r expenses f the District overnment. hird, t is irrelevant fsucha matter ppears n ts ace o be revenue eutral; oudsand he Board must ook othe practical ffect f such a law. Finally, he amount f he revenues nvolved ndwhether evenues ill ncrease r decrease nder he proposal s nelevant; nitiativesand eferenda annot scape peration f he laws ppropriatingunds" rohibitionbased n hese utcomes.

The proposed eferendum iolates he laws ppropriatingunds" rohibitionbecause he Jury and Marriage mendment ct of 2009,which t seeks o overturn, san act hat elates o the ocal budgetary rocess. herefore, t is reserved o the D.C.Council nd he Mayor f the Districto address olicieselated o marriage ecognition.Indeed, umerous cholarly rticles xplainhe significantax evenue mplications frecognizing ame-sexmarriages. See, .9., Christopher amos;M.V.Lee Badgett;Brad Sears, The Economic mpact of Extending Marriage o Same-Sex Couples n theDistrict f Columbla, HEWILLIAMSNslrurE (2009);M.V. Lee Badgett, h.D.,R.BradleySears, Deborah Ho, Supporting amilies, aving Funds: n Economic Analysisof Equality or Same-Sex ouples n NewJersey,4 RUTGERS. L. & pue. poL'y I(2006);WilliamP. Kratzke, The Delense f MarriageAct DOMA)s Bad ncome TaxPolicy,35 U. Meu. L. REV. 99 (2005); onathan

Brophy,Death s Certain, re Taxes?AnotherArgument or Equality or Same-Sex ouples lnder the Code, 34 Sw. U. L.Rev. 635 (2005);M.V.Lee Badgett,R. BradleySears, Putflng price on Equatity? Thelmpact of Same-Sex Marriage n California's udget, 16 STAN. . & poL,yREV. 97(2005);The Association f the Bar of the Cityof NewYork, Report n Marriage Rightsfor Same-Sex Couples n New York,1g CoLUM.. GENDEF L. 70 (2004); ennifeiGerarda Brown, Competitive Federalism nd the Legislative ncentives o RecognizeSame-Sex arriage,6S . Cnu L.REV. 45 199S).Each of hese analyses ddressesdifferentssues nd circumstances elevant o various tates: owever. ach concludes

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

6/8

that here are significantax revenue mplicationso the ecognitionfsame-sexmarriages.

Further, t is apparent hat D.C. aw willreat ame-sex ouples ifferentlyor axpurposes epending n whether he policy pproved y he D.C.Councils suslained riftne policy romoted y he referendums enshrined n aw.8 Again, t is not elevant f

the motivation ehind he referendum s unrelated o revenues, or s he amount frevenue hat might e gained r os ta facto r o be considered. he determinativessueis basic and undamental; he proposed eferendum efore he Board mplicates axrevenue onsiderations, aising hal he District fColumbia ourt f Appeals astermed the undamental nderlyinguestion" osed y nitiatives nd eferendatouching pon evenue-related atters: who s to be n charge f the Districtgovemment's ocal inancial management, he District's lected fficials r the electorateby nitiative."Hessey v. District f Columbia d. of Elections Ethics,601 .2d 3, 5(D.C.1991). ndeed,marriage ecognitions even moredirectlyelated o the raising ftax revenues, ince t s nextricablyied o the District'sax code, han either f thepolicies ddressed y the District's ourts n Dorsey r Restaurant ss'n of Metropolitan

Washington, hich espectively ddressed arking iolations nd associated ees andoverall estaurant ncome and hereby, ndirectly, ax revenues esulting rom suchincome). Maniage ecognition,n he other and, irectly mplicates umerous axprovisions nd s therefore learly a matter elated o the revenues f the District. Thecourts have made clear hat hese matters an only be addressed y he District'selected otficials.Therefore, he Board should efuse o accept he proposedreferendum.

ll, The Board's NoticeWas nadequate nd he Form of the Submission MayBe n Violationof the Law.

Pursuant o D.C.Code $ 11001 16(a),any egistered ualified lector relectors f the Districtmay seek a referendum pon ilingwith he Board 5 printed r

typewritten opies f the ull ext of the measure, summary tatement f notmore han100 words, nd a short itle of the measure o be proposed n an nitiative, r of the ac tor part hereof n which referendum s desired.' The proposals o be accompaniedby "[t]he ame and address f the propose/'and [a]naffidavithat he proposer s aregistered ualified lector f he District f Columbia,"e urther, s stated bove hepropose(s) f a referendum easu re r any politicalommittee rganizedn support fa measure must ilea verified tatement f contributions ith he Office fCampaign

t D.C. awcurrentlyreats ame-sex ouples n domestic artnerships ifferentlythan married ouples ortax purposes. or nstance, he District oes notextend hemaritalestate ax deduction o same-sex ouples. See D.C.Department f Health, VitalRecords ivision, omestic artnership: requently skedQuestions, vailable thttp://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,3,q,573324,dohNav*GlD,1787,dohNav,/3310/33120/331 9/.asp#6.

e See alsoD.C.MuN. EGS.it.3, S 1001.1.

6

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

7/8

Finance n or before he submission f the measure orfiling.lo he Boardmust eluseto accspt a proposed eferendum hen [t]hepetition s not n the proper ormestablishedn D.C. ode 1-1001 16(a)]. . .""

Accordingly, proposed eferendum ust omply ith statute-definedormat orsubmissions ndmustbe accompanied y a number f additional ilingsn order o be a

deemed egally ufficient. he Board's oticerovides proposed

hort itle,Summary tatement, nd he egislative ext hat s the subject f he proposedreferendum. he Notice does not, however, ndicatewhether, s a preliminarymatter,the submitted materials re n compliance ith he goveming tatutes nd regulations,nor does t providemembers f the publicwith he requisite nformation y which ojudge hese matters or hemselves. ndeed, t is unclear hether he ShortTitle,Summary tatement, nd Legislative extwere supplied y he proposer r by heBoard tself. Further, here s no ndication s o whether he submission ncluded hename and address fthe proposer nd he required ffidavit r if the verified tatementof contributions as properly iled.The Board's ailure o providehis nformationprevents dequate ublic eview f the egal ufficiencyf the submission ndobstructsfull egalargument n critical ssues ha t could e determinative s o whethertheproposed eferendums valid. Accordingly,he Board's otice was nsufficient. heBoard hould ublish n additional otice ddressing hese ssues, nd convene nadditional ublic earing o address ny potential rguments elated o the egalsufficiency f the proposal's orm.

lll. Conclusion.

Districtawprovides number f statutory rohibitionsn he subjectmatter hatmay be addressed y referenda. he Board s obligated o address he applicabilityfeach of hese bases nd must each n ndependent egal onclusion s o the validityof the proposal nder he governingaw. The aw governinghe referendum ndinitiative rocessmakes lear hat hese procedures re notavailableo enact lawsappropriatingunds." District ourts ave nterpretedhisprohibitionroadly sencompassing nymatter hat elates o the budgetary rocess f the District, ncludingthe dentification f revenues. Recognition fsame-sex aniage lainlymplicateshisprohibition, s such ecognition il lhave significantax revenue mplications.Therefore, he proposal us tbe rejected.

t0 D.C.Mur'r. EGS. it.3, $ 1000.5. .C. MuN.REGS.indicates hat he phrase verified tatement f contribution.

lit.3,S1000.6 fulther'consists ofthe foHowin9:

DC Code=he statement ol organization,pursuant toSl1414(1981);and

b, The eport(s) f receipts ndexpenditures,ursuantoDCCode 114161981).

11D.c. ode 1-1001.16(bX1XB).

7

8/14/2019 Aaron Flynn, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, Filed 0

8/8

In addition,he Board's otice nadequately pprised he public f mattersrelated o the egal sufficiency f the orm of the proposal nd whether ilings equired oaccompany he proposalwere properly ubmitted.This prevents dequate ublicreview nd egal argument egarding n ndependent asis or rejection f the proposal.Accordingly,he Board s required o prepare corrective otice, upply he publicwiththe requisitenformation,nd schedule n additional ublic earing o address hese

fundamentalssues.I appreciate he opportunityo present hese comments o the District f

Columbia oard f Elections nd Ethics. would e pleased o answer ny questionsyou may have egardinghis submission ndcan be reached t 202-955-1681 raaronfynn@ omcast.net.

Respectf llysubmitted,

Suite 1 305Washington,D.C.20006

AaronM. Flynn,Esqi1900 K Street N W`

-8-