Kenneth McGhie
General Counsel
DC Board of Elections and Ethics
441 4th Street Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. McGhie:

On behalf of the proponents of Initiative 59, I write to request that you review and reverse the decision of the Board of Elections to disqualify Initiative 59 for the November 1998 ballot. I understand that the Initiative 59 petition submitted to your office on July 13, 1998 has been disqualified because the Office of Planning determined that less than 99% of the petition signatures met the accuracy requirement necessary for qualification. I further understand that the Board of Elections and Ethics had previously verified the numerical sufficiency of signatures of qualified registered District of Columbia voters on a city-wide basis, as well as on the basis of 5% of the qualified voters in five of the eight wards in the District. The petition was disqualified solely on the basis of the Office of Planning's statistical analysis.

Enclosed is a letter written to you by the Initiative 59 Campaign, stamped "Received by the BOEE" on July 15, 1998. The enclosed letter draws your attention to "petitions circulated by Tanya Robinson and James Whitehall" which were Set aside" by the Board of Elections and Ethics. On the basis of my review of the provisions of D.C. Code Ann. §1-1320 which apply to the initiative process, it seems clear that Ms. Robinson's and Mr. Whitehall's petitions were "set aside" improperly by the Board. Had they been included for purposes of the sufficiency analyses required for qualification, we submit that (1) at least 99% of the petition signatures would have met the accuracy requirement for qualification and (2) the numerical totals of signatures would have been substantially greater than required for qualification (rather than merely sufficient, as found by the Board). We request that you review this improper "setting aside" of Ms. Robinson's and Mr. Whitehall's petition sheets. The prior determination of the Board to "set them aside" should be reversed and they should be included among the petition sheets analyzed by the Board for qualification of the Initiative for the November 1998 ballot.

According to §1-1320(h)(2), Ms. Robinson was required to sign under penalties of perjury and attach to her petition sheets a circulators certificate. My understanding is that the Board rejected her petition sheets because her address, as stated on her certificates, did not match that listed in the Board records. Ms. Robinson has previously submitted to the Board a sworn affidavit (copy attached) regarding her status as a qualified registered elector and her address data in the Board's records.

Based upon my review of this information and the D.C. statute, the Board improperly rejected Ms. Robinson's petitions. The Board shall, pursuant to §1-1320(h)(3), refuse accept any petition sheet which was circulated by a person who was not a qualified registered elector." A "qualified registered elector," as defined by §1-1302(21), is a "registered voter who resides at the address listed on the Board's records." Contrary to the Board's suggestion, the residence address she listed on her certificate was the same listed i.. the Voter Registration List provided to Initiative 59 by the Board on January 13, 1998, was and had been for many years listed in records of the Board, and was indeed her "principal or primary abode," as required by the definition stated at §1-1302(16)(A). Ms. Robinson's affidavit makes this clear. Because Ms. Robinson clearly meets the criteria of a "qualified registered elector" and because she listed her residence address on her circulator's certificate, the Board had no rational basis to "set aside" her petition sheets. Ms. Robinson's petition sheets should be reinstated and included with all of the other petition sheets considered by the Board for qualification of Initiative 59 for the November 1998 ballot.

It is my understanding that the Board has also Set aside" the petition sheets circulated by James Whitehall. The address supplied by Mr. Whitehall on his circulator's certificate was the same as the address which appeared on the Voter Registration List supplied by the Board to the Initiative 59 Campaign on January 13, 1998, and was the correct street and number address of his residence, namely 1401 N Street. The only issue, apparently, is a corrected apartment number. When Mr. Whitehall discovered in 1997 that the Board had incorrectly listed him at Apartment #7, he appeared in person at the Board's offices to correct his apartment to #707. The Board failed to make this change in its records before it supplied the Voter Registration List to Initiative 59. Mr. Whitehall put his residential address of 1401 N Street on his certificates, and listed Apartment #7 in conformity with the Board's own records (the Board having failed to incorporate Mr. Whitehall's correction). Because Mr. Whitehall listed his residence address, including street and number, on his circulator's certificates, and because he is a "qualified registered ejector" according to the same standards cited above, the Board had no rational basis to "set aside" his petition sheets. Mr. Whitehall's petition sheets should be reinstated and included with all of the other petition sheets considered by the Board for qualification of Initiative 59 for the November 1998 ballot.

As I am sure you are aware, expeditious review of this matter is of critical importance. We are prepared to seek a writ of mandamus in the courts if necessary, but hope to avoid the need for unnecessary litigation of these questions. We await your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Alisa A. WiLkins

cc:Initiative 59 campaign.

2