D.C. CAMPAIGN TO FIGHT REFERENDUM HELD ILLEGAL

COMMON CAUSE CHALLENGES USE OF CITY FUNDS

The District of Columbia government acted unconstitutionally and exceeded its authority when it spent city funds to urge voters to reject a 1984 ballot initiative guaranteeing "adequate overnight shelter" for homeless people, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

Ruling from the bench in a lawsuit brought by the District chapter of Common Cause, U.S. District Judge George H. Revercomb said he would enter an order barring city officials from spending public funds to take sides on any future initiative campaigns.

The referendum, the first in the nation guaranteeing homeless people the right to overnight shelter, won overwhelming approval from city voters in November 1984 despite the efforts of city officials.

The District government spent at least $5,000 to print more than 50,000 yellow pamphlets and 600 red and white posters, asking citizens to vote against Initiative 17. They warned that passage of the initiative would result in costly "warehousing" of the homeless and improperly interfere with the city government's budget process.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the initiative in May.

Common Cause/D.C. filed suit challenging the expenditure of city funds to combat the initiative as an infringement of the First Amendment rights of District voters and a violation of city law requiring that appropriated funds be spent only for the specific purpose for which they were earmarked.

"For the government to spend public funds to take only one side of a contested electoral issue violates the First Amendment rights of D.C. voters," said Common Cause lawyer Andrea Ferster.

"It compels taxpayers to finance the dissemination of views with which they may not agree," she said. "The government has an obligation to remain neutral in matters of elections."

Lawyers for the city argued in court papers that it was "legitimately within the public purpose of a municipality to expend public funds to oppose an initiative which would directly contravene the well-being of its residents."

Although "all taxpayers will not always agree as to the purposes for which their tax dollars are spent," the city lawyers said, "under our democratic system of government, decisions on such matters have been entrusted to elected officials who ultimately are responsible to the voters."

In his oral ruling yesterday, Revercomb agreed with the lawyers for Common Cause.

"As a practical matter for the District of Columbia, it is important because it will be a significant deterrent for future electioneering activities by the government," Ferster said.

Acting D.C. Corporation Counsel James R. Murphy said his office would await a written order by Revercomb before deciding whether to appeal.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.