Back to Video Lottery Terminal Gambling Initiative of 2006 main page
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
D.C. COURT OF APPEALSDOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, (202)
234-6982, Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS and BARRY JERRELS, et al., Intervenor/Defendant MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEALPlaintiffs hereby move that the order of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Civil Action No. 2006 CA 003939 B be stayed because it is being appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. A Motion to Stay the order was denied on June 13, 2006, by Judge Judith E. Retchin of the Superior Court, necessitating this motion. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy Brizill, pro se June 13, 2006 D.C. COURT OF APPEALSDOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, (202)
234-6982, Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS and BARRY JERRELS, et al., Intervenor/Defendant PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEALThe plaintiffs herein set forth the points and authorities in support of their motion for stay pending appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, filed on June 12, 2006. STATEMENT OF FACTS1. On April 10, 2006, Barry E. Jerrels (the initiative’s proponent) submitted a proposed initiative to the Board entitled the "Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2006." (The title of the initiative was amended by the Board to the "Video Lottery Terminal Gambling Initiative of 2006.") As proposed, the initiative would amend the "Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for Charitable Purposes," (D.C. Official Code §3-1301 et seq.) to authorize the licensing of video lottery terminals (more commonly called "slot machines" and hereinafter also called "slot machines"). The initiative would mandate that the Lottery Board of the District of Columbia issue the initial license for a slot machine casino to the person who owns or controls three specified lots in Square 5770 at the intersection of Good Hope Road and Martin Luther King Avenue in the historic Anacostia neighborhood of the District of Columbia. The initiative also provides for a procedure to license additional casinos throughout the District of Columbia. 2. The Board of Elections and Ethics advertised notice of a public hearing to determine whether the initiative would be a proper subject for an initiative in the D.C. Register, the official legal bulletin of the District of Columbia, on April 21, 2006. In the same issue of the D.C. Register, it published the Short Title Summary Statement, and Legislative Text of the initiative and gave notice that it would hold a hearing on the Short Title, Summary Statement, and Legislative Text immediately following its approval of the initiative as a proper subject for an initiative. 3. Under District law, the Board is charged with determining whether a proposed measure is a proper subject for a voter initiative pursuant to criteria prescribed by statute. To that end, the Board must reject any proposed initiative that is contrary to the terms of the Home Rule Act, seeks to amend the Home Rule Act, would appropriate funds, would violate the U.S. Constitution, is not in compliance with the Office of Campaign Finance filing requirements, is not in the proper legislative form, would unlawfully discriminate, or would negate or limit a budget act. 4. At its hearing on May 3, 2006, the Board approved the initiative as a proper subject for an initiative. 5. Public notice of the Board’s actions at the May 3, 2006, meeting was subsequently published in the D.C. Register on May 12, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a timely Complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on May 22, 2006, within 10 days of publication, under D.C. Code §11001.16(e)(1)(A). 6. The Superior Court received a Motion to Dismiss from the defendant, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics; a Motion to Intervene from the proponent of the initiative, Barry Jerrels; and a Motion to Dismiss from the Intervenor/Defendant. It granted the Motion to Intervene, and allowed plaintiffs to file an Amended Motion in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss. No court hearing was held. 7. On June 8, 2006, the Superior Court issued an order (Attachment A) granting the defendant’s and intervenor/defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and notified the parties by postal mail. 8. The plaintiffs are appealing that order as a matter of right under the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Title 2, "Appeals from Orders and Judgments of the Superior Court," Rule 3. 9. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics placed a classified advertisement in The Washington Times on June 11, 2006, and a notice on its web site (Attachment B), that it would hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, to issue petitions for the initiative. 10. The plaintiffs sought a Motion for Stay of the order of the Superior Court under the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Title 2, "Appeals from Orders and Judgments of the Superior Court," Rule 8(a)(1) so that the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics would not issue petitions while the question of whether the initiative presents a proper subject for an initiative is under appeal. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics is authorized to issue petitions for an initiative only after the question of whether the initiative presents a proper subject for an initiative has been finally adjudicated. 11. The Motion for Stay was denied by Judge Judith E. Retchin of the Superior Court on June 13, 2006 (Attachment C). CONCLUSION12. The plaintiffs are appealing the question of whether the "Video Terminal Lottery Gambling Initiative of 2006" presents a proper subject for an initiative to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request for a Motion to Stay should be granted. D.C. COURT OF APPEALSDOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, (202)
234-6982, Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS and BARRY JERRELS, et al., Intervenor/Defendant PROPOSED ORDERUpon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and the Order of Superior Court of the District of Columbia on the 8th day of June, 2006, is STAYED pending appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: __________________________ ____________________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that I did, this day, June 13, 2006, personally deliver a copy of this Motion for Stay Pending Appeal to:
and to attorney for intervenor/defendant Barry Jerrels:
Dorothy Brizill |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)