Back to Video Lottery Terminal Gambling Initiative of 2006 main page
Government and People
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOROTHY BRIZILL, THELMA JONES, ANTHONY MUHAMMAD, Plaintiffs,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Defendant,
BARRY JERRELS and CITIZENS FOR THE VLT INITIATIVE OF 2006, Intervenors.
Civil Action No. 0003939-06
[PROPOSED] MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Sections 1-1001.16(e)(1)(A) of the District of Columbia Official Code, Barry Jerrels and Citizens for the VLT Initiative of 2006 ("Movants" or "Intervenors"), by counsel, hereby move this Honorable Court to consider this matter on an expedited basis. As grounds, Movants state as follows:
Points and Authorities
On April 10, 2006 Mr. Jerrels filed the Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2006 ("Initiative 69") with the Board complying with all the requirements of D.C. Code §1-1001.16. The Board published the proposed initiative in the District of Columbia Register dated April 21, 2006 and stated its intention to consider the initiative at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 2006. The Board published its decision approving the proposed initiative as a proper subject and approving a Short Title and Summary Statement in the District of Columbia Register onMay 12, 2006. The suits that are the subject of this motion for expedited hearing were filed by challengers on May 22, 2006.
Plaintiffs have filed their challenge to the Board's decision pursuant to D.C. Code §11001.16. In particular, the plaintiffs have asked the Court to rule that the Board of Election and Ethics (the "Board") erred in (1) approving the Video Lottery Terminal Gambling Initiative of 2006, Initiative 69, as a "proper subject of initiative" and (2) drafting and approving Initiative 69's Short Title and Summary Statement. Pursuant to subsection (e)(1)(A) of D.C. Code § 11001.16, the Court must "expedite the consideration" of any objection by electors, such as the plaintiffs. Thus, challenges such as this one are routinely considered on an expedited basis. See, e.g., Argo v. District of Columbia Bd. Of Elections and Ethics, No. Civ. A. 04-4740 (D.C. 2004) (complaint filed June 21, 2004 and dismissed June 29, 2004).
Failure to expedite consideration of this matter would imperil Initiative 69's chances of meeting the statutory deadlines and requirements for being placed on the ballot this election cycle. Upsetting the initiative process will have a detrimental effect on the petition signature drive that must be conducted in support of the Initiative. Signatures must be collected by July 9, 2006 in order for the Initiative to be on the ballot in November. This pressing deadline presents a significant additional reason for exigency in this matter. Plaintiffs have every right to oppose the Initiative on the merits, however, the democratic process will be disserved if any delay is permitted.
Request for Relief
WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request that their motion for expedited hearing be granted.
Back to top of page
Send mail with questions or comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)