MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Elections and Ethics
FROM: Alice P. Miller
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Petition Verification Results for Initiative
Measure #59: "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998" Recommendation to Accept the Petition
as Numerically Sufficient.
After completing the Board's standard procedure for verifying
registered voter signatures contained in Initiative Measure #59,
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of
l 998, and in accordance with the Court's decision in Turner v.
Board of Elections and Ethics the Board's staff, in conjunction
with the Office of Planning, Data Management Division, has determined
that this initiative meets the statutory requirements for certification
to the ballot, in accordance with D.C. Code §1-282(a).
It is therefore my recommendation that the Board accept the Initiative Measure No. 59 petition as sufficient, in accordance with D.C. Code @ 1-1320(o)(1), because it contains a sufficient number of valid signatures of duly qualified electors of the District of Columbia.
An overview of the petition verification process and a summary of its results are entailed in this report. Additional detail on the verification procedures, the mathematical formulas used in calculating statistical confidence levels, and related documentation are contained in several attachments to this report.
Overview of the Petition Verification Process
The petition verification process is conducted to determine
whether an initiative petition contains the required number of
registered voter signatures needed to qualify for placement on
the ballot. The required minimum number is 5% of the registered
voters citywide and 5% of those registered in at least 5 of the
8 erection wards, based on the published registration totals in
effect 30 days before the petition was filed. The signature requirement
for Initiative Measure No. 59 was based on registration totals
published as of May 31, 1998. The numerical requirement for Initiative
Measure No. 59 is shown in Table A below:
_________________________________________________________________________
441 4th St., NW, Suite 250 e Washington, D.C.20001-2745 ·
Telephone (202) 727-2525 · FAX: (202) 347-2648
Page 2
Initiative Measure No. 59
September 17, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The petition verification process that the Board follows -- detailed
in the Standard Procedures for Verification of Initiative Petition,
attached-has four basic steps:
* First, the Board's staff uses the voter registration computer
system to verify that the
circulator of each petition page was registered to vote in the
District, as required by law.
Pages not circulated by registered voters are rejected at the
outset.'
* Second, the name of each petition signer is checked against the voter registration computer file to determine if the petitioner was a duly registered voter in the District at the time the petition was signed, as required by law. Only those petition signers whose names and addresses are found to match the Board's registered voter file are entered into the petition-checking program as "verified registrants".
* Third, the totals of verified registrants are compiled, citywide
and by ward, to determine
_____________________________________________
'For this step the Board, pursuant to court order, processed the petition pages circulated by Ms. Tanya Robinson and determined that 2,305 signatures were added to the universe of qualified registrants.
whether the petition contains enough apparent registered voter signatures to proceed to the signature verification stage.
* Fourth, random samples of 100 signatures from ward are drawn,
for comparison
to the original voter signatures on file in the Board's records.
To be accepted as valid,
each sampled signature must reasonably match the Board's records,
and the signer must
be registered at the address on the petition as of the date signed.
The validity rate of the
random samples is then used to determine the sufficiency of the
petition as a whole, at
confidence level of 95%. 2/
Summery of Findings
The Initiative Measure No. 59 petition, containing 1,816 pages, was filed on duly 6, 1998. After completing the procedure of verifying the voter registration status of petition circulators and signers - steps 1, 2, and 3 in the processed outlined above-the total number of registered voters listed in the petition was found to be 19,397. This total exceeded (by 2,400) the required 5% minimum of 16,997 registrants citywide. In addition, the minimum was attained in Wards 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, and 8 - as shown in Table C herein. While Wards 4 and 7 - as also indicated in Table C - fell below the required minimum, sufficient names of registered voters had been identified in the petition, at both citywide and ward levels, to proceed to the signature random sampling.
The random sample procedure is conducted to determine, with the required confidence level of 95% whether or not a sufficient number of valid signatures of registered voters (as distinct from registrant names and addresses) are contained in the petition.. To facilitate the sampling procedure, the Board's staff produced computer listings of the registrants identified in each ward, from which the Office of Planning Data Management Division randomly selected eight ward samples of 100 petition signatures each. To do this, the registrants contained in each ward listing were serially numbered by the Board, so that a set of 100 random numbers, generated by the Data Management Division for each ward, would identify the ward's 100 selected registrants.
________________________________________
2/ Subsequent to the Court's Order in the Turner case, the
Chief of the Data Management
Division determined that since the signature requirement had been
met in the previous review the only required sampling needed to
complete the subsequent review was a group random sampling of
100 signatures from the 2,305 additional registrants. See Memorandum
of Herbert Bixhorn dated September 14, 1998.
In addition, the Data Management Division randomly selected 100 registrants contained on the subsequent review of the petition that contained additional 2,305 registrants. The listings also contained the petition page number on which the registrant's signature to be validated would be found. The staff then pulled each selected registrant's voter registration application and compared the randomly selected petition signature with the registrant's original signature on file. The total number of validated signatures in each ward sample of 100 was then reported to the Data Management Division Further, the subsequent results of the additional 100 registrants was provided to the Data Management Division.
The effect of the random sampling process 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 the sample of the subsequent 100 signatures. The results were
then applied to the citywide criteria.
These mathematical calculations were made by the Data Management
Division -- as reported in the attached memorandum of Herbert
Bixhorn, Mathematical Statistician -- and are summarized in the
table below. As shown in Table B. Wards 1, 2, 3, 6 and Ward 8
were accepted as having a sufficient number of valid signatures
based on the random sample. Ward 5 met the minimum signature requirement
but no determination was made as to the signature comparison from
a random sample determination in Ward 5 independently. Wards 4,
and 7 were rejected on the basis as numerically insufficient.
However, at the citywide level, the District as a whole was accepted
with 95% confidence as containing a sufficient number of valid
signatures.
Ward |
|
|
|
|
1 | 2,063 | 2,501 | 97 of 100 | Accept |
2 | 2,067 | 2,254 | 99 of 100 | Accept |
3 | 2,287 | 2,604 | 100 of 100 | Accept |
4 | 2,355 | 1,572 | 99 of 100 | Reject |
5 | 2,289 | 1,971 | 98 of 100 | Reject |
6 | 2,197 | 3,091 | 98 of 100 | Accept |
7 | 2,156 | 1,199 | 100 of 100 | Reject |
8 | 1,583 | 1,900 | 98 of 100 | Accept |
Cityward | 16,997 | 17,092 | Reject |
Ward |
Requirements 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citywide |
|
|
|
|
Thus the petition met the ward level requirements, as well as
the random sample test at the citywide level. As the statistician
noted, ": the results added to those of the previous sampling
by ward... shows that the petition contains the required number
of signatures both for five wards and the District as a whole
with 95% confidence." 3
Based on the foregoing, the results of the petition verification process for Initiative Measure No. 59, "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" are the determinations that the measure meets the statutory requirements for certification to the ballot and that it should be accepted by the Board.
cc: Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel
_____________________________________
3/ Since it was determined during the initial review of the
Petition that the Ward level signature requirements had been obtained,
no additional consideration needed to be given during the subsequent
review for determination as to the random sample within the wards.
Therefore the subsequent signatures were randomly selected and
sampled as a whole citywide - not per ward. See September 14,1998
Memorandum of Herbert Bixhorn, Chief, Data Management Division.
Page 6
Initiative measure No. 59
September 17, 1998
Attachments:
Summary Report for Period Ending May 31, 1998 Standard Procedures
for Verification of Initiative Petitions Memorandum of Statistical
Summary and Findings on Initiative Measure #59 Petition Memorandum
of Findings on Initiative Measure #59 Petition Subsequent to Court
Order in Turner v. Board of Elections and Ethics
Memorandum:
FROM: Herbert Bixhorn, Chief,
Office of Planning Data Management Division
TO: Alice P. Miller, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Provision of Random Sample Universe; Request for Random
Sample
Designations Re: Initiative Measure #59: "Legalization of
Marijuana for
Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998"
Pursuant to 3 DCMR 1008.2, the table below supplies the number of apparent registered voter signatures, both District-wide and in each Ward, that have been established as the random sample universe for the Initiative # 59 petition. These totals are shown in the column entitled "Total Signatures to be Utilized for Random Sampling.. The table also provides the signature requirement for determining acceptance or rejection of this measure.
The names of the verified registrants in each Ward have been listed alphabetically and are serially numbered. In accordance with 3 DCMR 1008.3, please designate random samples of 100 signatures from each ward listing for validation against the Board's records.
Ward |
Voters Required |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citywide |
|
|
Ward |
Requirements 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citywide |
|
|
|
|
FROM: Alice P. Miller, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Results of Random Sample Verification Conducted on
Petition Signatures Re:
Initiative Measure #59: "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment
Initiative of 1998"
Pursuant to 3 DCMR 1008.4, we have completed signature verification
of the randomly selected names appearing on the petition filed
in support of Initiative Measure # 59. The results of these findings
are shown in the table below, in the column headed " of Valid
Signatures".
In accordance with 3 DCMR 1008.5, please provide your analysis
as to whether the initiative petition has met the requirements
necessary for the measure to be placed on the ballot. If you have
any questions or if additional samples are needed to make a determination
please call me at 727-2525.
|
Registered Voters Required |
in the Random Sampling Universe |
Signatures in Random Sampling |
Signatures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citywide |
|
|
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathryn Fairley
Registrar of Voters
FROM: Herbert J. Bixhorn, Chief
Data Management Division
SUBJECT: Statistical Summary and Findings on Initiative Measure #59 Petition.
Following is a statistical summary resulting from the random
sample verification of signatures on the Initiative Measure #59
petition. (Refer to attached technical document "Criteria
for Acceptance or Rejection of Petitions with 95% Confidence".)
Our finding is that the initiative petition is rejected with 95%
confidence, as it did not have a sufficient number of valid signatures
of registered voters for the District as a whole.
Table 1 shows the required number of valid signatures and the
number of registrant signatures by ward and the District as a
whole that were subject to random sampling. As shown in Table
2, five wards were accepted with 95% confidence. Wards 4, 5 and
7 were rejected at the outset because the number of verified registrants
in each was less than the required number. Nevertheless, these
three wards were sampled so that they could contribute with the
other wards to the District-wide figures.
Table 3, which presents the District-wide results, shows that
the District as a whole was rejected with 95% confidence.
TABLE 1
WARD SIGNATURES OF
REGISTERED VOTERS
REQUIREDNUMBER OF REGISTRANT
SIGNATURES SUBJECT TO
RANDOM SAMPLING1 2,063 2,501 2 2,067 2,254 3 2,287 2,604 4 2,355 1,572 5 2,289 1,971 6 2,197 3,091 7 2,156 1,199 8 1,583 1,900 DISTRICT WIDE 16,997 17,092
TABLE, 2
WARD ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION
PARAMETERS
a1------------------- b1NUMBER OF VALID
SIGNATURES IN
SAMPLES OF 100DECISION WITH 95% CONFIDENCE 1 75------------------- 89 97 Accept 2 86------------------- 97 99 Accept 3 81------------------- 94 100 Accept 4 *---------------------* 99 Reject 5 *---------------------* 98 Reject 6 62-------------------- 80 98 Accept 7 *---------------------* 100 Reject 8 76------------------- 90 98 Accept
TABLE 3
District as a Whole Z(R) = -2.08 Z(R-1) = -2.07 Decision with 95% Confidence: Reject
Memorandum
TO:Herbert Bixhorn, Chief
Office of Planning, Data Management Division
FROM: Alice P. Miller
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Provision of Random Sample Universe; Request for Subsequent
Random Sample Designations Re: Initiative Measure #59: "Legalization
of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998"
______________________________________________________________
Pursuant to 3 DCMR 1008.2, and the recent Court Order in Turner
v. Board of Elections and Ethics, the attached table supplies
the number of apparent registered voter signatures, both District-Wide
and in each Ward, that have been established as the random sample
universe for the Initiative #59 Petition. These totals are shown
in the column entitled "Total Signatures to be Utilized for
Random Sampling". The table also provides the signature requirement
for determining acceptance or rejection of this measure.
The names of the verified registrants in each Ward have been listed alphabetically and are serially numbered. In accordance with 3 DCMR 1008.3, please designate random samples of 100 signatures from each Ward listing for validation against the Board's records.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathryn Fairley
Registrar of Voters
FROM: Herbert J. Bixhorn, Chief
Data Management Division
SUBJECT: Findings on Initiative Measure
#59 Petition Subsequent to Court Order in Turner v. Board of
Elections and Ethics
Please refer to my earlier memorandum, "Statistical Summary
and Findings on Initiative Measure #59 Petition" of July
3 1, 1 998. That memorandum reported that five wards were accepted
as having the required number of valid signatures with 95% confidence,
but that the District as a whole was rejected. Subsequent to this,
the Court Order in Turner v, Board d of Elections and Ethics
required an additional 2,305 apparent registered voter signatures
to be added to the universe. Because the ward requirements had
already been met, these additional signatures did not have to
be sampled by ward. Instead they were sampled as one group, and
the results added to those of the previous sampling by ward. In
a sample of 100 signatures from this group, 91 were found to be
valid. This yielded the following result:
This result, together with those reported in the earlier memorandum, shows that the petition contains the required number of signatures both for five wards and the District as a whole with 95% confidence.