Back to Video Lottery Terminal Gambling Initiative of 2006 main page
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADOROTHY BRIZILL, et al., Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06ca 3939 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULINGPursuant to D.C. CODE §1-1001.16(e)(1)(A) Defendant respectfully moves this Court to hear this matter on an expedited basis. Pursuant to D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 12-I, Defendant's Counsel ascertained whether the Plaintiffs would consent to this motion. Despite diligent efforts through phone conversation to inform the Plaintiffs that expedition in this matter is required by statute, consent could not be obtained. The factual predicate and legal authority for this Motion are set out in the accompanying Memorandum of Point and Authorities. Respectfully submitted, Terry Stroud, Esq. (D.C. Bar #465884) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADOROTHY BRIZILL, et al., Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06ca 3939 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CONSENT MOTION TO EXPEDITEExpedition in this matter is required by statute. The District of Columbia Code states in relevant part:
D.C. CODE ANN. §1-1001.16(e)(1)(A) (2001) (emphasis added). Defendant, Board of Elections and Ethics [hereinafter the Board] believes that expedited consideration of the merits in the instant case is necessary to avoid delay in processing this initiative. The D.C. Code provides that "[t]he Board shall conduct an election on an initiative measure at the next primary, general, or city-wide special election held at least 90 days after the date on which the measure has been certified as qualified to appear on the ballot." D.C. CODE § 1-1001.16(p)(1). The Board is granted 30 calendar days after acceptance of an initiative petition to certify whether or not the number of signatures on the initiative petition meets the qualifying percentage and ward distribution requirements, D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(o)(1). Taking into account the 30 calendar days for signature certification and the requisite 90-day period for ballot placement, the proponents of this initiative measure would have to submit petition signatures by July 10, 2004 in order to have this initiative measure placed on the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot. The proponents of the initiative measure are seeking to have it placed on the November ballot; however, they can not circulate petitions until this challenge is resolved. Furthermore, the Board must certify that the petition form of the initiative measure is in its final form to secure the proper number of valid signatures to qualify for the ballot pursuant to D.C. CODE §1-1001.16(j)(1). The construction of the District of Columbia's "[ilnitiative legislation should be liberally construed to extend its operation rather than to reduce it," Citizens Against Legalized Gambling v. D. C. Board of Elections & Ethics, 501 F.Supp. 786, 789 (D.C. 1980). The Board believes that expedited consideration will not impair the Plaintiffs from having their objections to the initiative measure resolved by this Court. There are no material facts to which there is a general issue in the Plaintiffs claim, and Defendant believes that this matter can be resolved by dispositive motion. Accordingly, expedited consideration of this action will not prejudice the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, Terry Stroud, Esq. (D.C. Bar #465884) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADOROTHY BRIZILL, et al., Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06ca 3939 ORDER Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Expedite, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities it is, by this Court, this _____ day of May, 2006: ORDERED that the motion be, and it is hereby granted. ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2006. Judge Judith E. Retchin, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on this 24th day of May, 2006, a true copy of the foregoing Motion to Expedite and Proposed Order were sent via hand delivery to the following parties: DOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard St. NW, Washington D.C. 20009 Terry D. Stroud IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADOROTHY BRIZILL, et al., Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06ca 3939 ANSWERCOMES NOW the Defendant, the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics by and through its Counsel, Tern Stroud, and files the following Answer to the Petition for Review and Writ of Mandamus as follows: The Following answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the complaint: 1. Admitted 2. Defendant admits Thelma Jones is a registered qualified elector of the District of Columbia, but lacks knowledge and information sufficient to allow it to admit or deny the remainder of the allegation. 3.-9. Defendant admits paragraphs numbered 3-9. 10. Defendant admits that it lacks statutory authority to alter the substantive provisions of a proposed initiative measure, but denies prohibiting discussion of the legislative text of the proposed initiative. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Defendant admits holding a hearing for proper subject matter determination and Short Title, Summary Statement and Legislative Form formulation on the same day. In all other respects, this allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 14. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 15. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 16. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 17. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 18. Defendant admits that the District of Columbia Lottery Board is a District agency that operates under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and that the Board received a correspondence from the General Counsel of the Office of the CFO concerning undefined costs associated with undertaking additional regulatory functions. In all other respects, this allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 19. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. 20. This allegation is a conclusion of law and/or of the pleader to which no response is required; if a response is required then the same is hereby denied. Respectfully submitted, Terry Stroud, Esq. (D.C. Bar #465884) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on this 24th day of May, 2006, a true copy of the foregoing Answer was sent via hand delivery to the following parties: DOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard St. NW, Washington D.C. 20009 Terry D. Stroud |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
