WAYNE TURNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 0006077-98
) Calendar 9
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle
BOARD OF ELECTIONS ) Next event:
AND ETHICS ) Initial Conference
) November 13, 1998
Defendant. )
Pursuant to Rule 12-I(k) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, both parties jointly submit the following statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute:
1. On December 12, 1997, Stephen D. Michael, a registered qualified elector, filed a proposed initiative measure entitled "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998."
2. The proposed initiative was published in the D.C. Register on December 19, 1997.
3. On January 9, 1998, the Board approved the initiative measure as a proper subject and formulated the official short title, summary statement and legislative text. The proposed measure was designated as Initiative #59.
4. On February 11, 1998, the proposer was issued the petition form for circulation and advised that the 180 day period for filing the petition would expire on August 10, 1998.
5. On May 6, 1998, due to Stephen Michael's medical
condition, Wayne Turner, was substituted as proposer of the initiative.
6. On July 6, 1998, Wayne Turner submitted the Initiative Measure No. 59 petition containing 1,815 petition sheets.
7. The Board proceeded to verify whether the initiative petition contained the required number of registered voter signatures needed to qualify for placement on the ballot.
8. The required minimum number is 5% of the registered voters citywide and 5% of those registered in at least 5 of the 8 election wards, based on the published registration totals in effect 30 days before the petition was filed. The signature requirement for Initiative Measure No. 59 as of May 31, 1998 is shown in Table A below:
|
|
|
Signature Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Several petition sheets were rejected because the address provided by the circulator did not match the address of residence as reflected in the Board's records.
11. Among the petition sheets rejected for this reason were those submitted by Tanya Robinson.
12. Tanya Robinson submitted approximately 289 petition sheets containing 4,641 signatures.
13. On the petition sheets circulated by Ms. Robinson, she stated in the Circulator's Affidavit of Certification that her address was 1250 Owens Place, NE #1.
14. On Ms. Robinson's official registration card, her address where you live is listed as Mt. Vernon Shelter, 1000 7th Street, NW and her address where you get your mail is listed as 1250 Owens Place, NE #1. See Exhibit A.
15. District law and the Board's regulations require that the circulator provide their residence address in the circulator's affidavit.
16. The Board, on the basis of petitions submitted in support of Initiative Measure No. 59, but not including those circulated by Ms. Robinson, conducted its numerical verification
process and determined that the petition contained the signatures of 17,092 registered qualified D.C. electors which was a sufficient number to qualify city-wide, pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1320(i).
17. The Board also, again on the basis of petitions submitted in support of Initiative Measure No. 59, but not including those circulated by Ms. Robinson, conducted its ward-based analysis and determined that the petition contained the signatures of more than 5% of the registered qualified D.C. electors in five of the District's eight wards, pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1320(i).
18. The Board then obtained the services of Herbert Bixhorn, Chief, Office of Planning, Data Management Division and Mathematical Statistician to conduct a statistical analysis of the validity of the submitted signatures counted by the Board, pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1320(i). Only the total number of verified registrants, petition signers, whose name and addresses are found to match the Board's registered voter file, is provided to the Office of Planning.
19. The Office of Planning selected a random sample of 100 signatures from each ward, totaling 800 signatures. The Board conducted a comparison review of these 800 signatures and rejected 11 signatures.
20. The effect of the random sampling was thus to establish a validity rate for the registered voter signatures in each ward.
The Data Management Division applied this validity rate
mathematically to the number of ward registrants identified in the petition and the ward's numerical signature requirement, to determine with 95% confidence whether or not the ward should be accepted as having a sufficient number of valid signatures. Sufficiency for the District as a whole was then assessed using a stratified random sampling formula, which incorporated the results of the various ward samples and applied them to the citywide criteria.
21. The Office of Planning then determined that 5 of the District's 8 wards should be accepted as having a sufficient number of valid signatures based on the random sample. However, at the citywide level, the District as a whole was rejected with 95` confidence as containing an insufficient number of valid signatures.
22. At the regular meeting of the Board held August 5, 1998, the statistical summary and findings of the Office of Planning and the Board's staff's finding not to include the petition sheets submitted by Tanya Robinson were accepted and approved by the Board. The Board, therefore, rejected Initiative Measure No. 59 on the ground that the petition sheets accepted did not contain the minimum number of valid signatures Districtwide, based on the statistical sample.
Respectfully submitted,
(signed) Matthew Watson #13623
Attorney for
Plaintiff
1701 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009(signed) Kenneth J. J. #385313
Attorney for Defendant
D.C. of Elections & Ethics
441 4th Street, NW, Room 270
Washington, DC 20001