Gary Thompson

The DC Charter states that the DC Dem Party “shall” appoint White’s temp replacement. The Council cannot do so legally. When the Dem party appoints a Dem, Henderson must then re-affiliate Independent or exit the Council. The Charter controls this. Her switch today doesn’t trump.

Oct 6 is the Council’s final vote on the Bill to suppress Voter Initiatives. I detailed the troubling provisions in this second statement, hoping they at least strip the worst ones. Please help defeat or at least limit the Bill. Voters should have a direct legislative voice.

10/10 The Council has never before scaled back DC Voter rights. Funny how when it comes to THEIR power, they put voters second even when the Charter makes the PEOPLE their CO-legislators. Email your CMs (except Parker and Silverman, who bravely stood with the people).

9/10 The Peoples voice is not a problem! The problem is that some CMs simply disrespect Initiatives and overlook that the very Charter that created the Council also created the Voter Initiative as the Council’s co-equal. But the Bonds Act seeks to suppress Initiatives.

8/10. But too many CMs are annoyed by Initiatives, repeating these silly lines that they are a “cottage industry.” DC Initiatives come from DC people, be they about wage laws or otherwise. The People, if they pass one, are telling the Council they want them to DO SOMETHING.

7/10 The point is that DC residents themselves choose to band together to merely propose a law. This was exactly the vision of our Home Rule framers. Some CMs display a fundamental failure to recognize that voters are their constitutional equal when it comes to proposing laws…

6/10 The other absurd point some CMs make is that Initiatives come from “outside” DC. Issues do not have borders. RCV is a national movement and so the DC I83 group was helped by a national non-profit. So what. Same with raising wages or banning foie gras, if that’s your issue…

5/10 …helping DC voters organize themselves with Initiatives. This is not an “industry.” There is nothing wrong with DC voters who share a common view coming together and enlisting someone to help them with the admin and signature burdens of getting an Initiative on the ballot.

4/10. This is an absurd dig. CM political campaigns support an industry of consultants and vendors. The CMs have their own “industry.” And the bill is backed by commercial industry. The voters, meanwhile have (from what I can tell) two guys who seem to scrape by…

3/10 The proper view (like Parker’s) is to welcome Initiatives and (if passed) approve or override. There is no problem with the status quo, which yields about one initiative per cycle. One. The current refrain is that there is an initiative “industry” that creates too many.

2/10 The People’s role is ultimately lesser, being to merely propose laws, but at least at the proposal stage, our Charter ranks Initiatives on equal footing with the Council. Equal. But many CMs treat Initiatives as if they were flies, failing to respect their co-equal status.

1/10 another thread on voter initiatives. Watching the Council today pass (1st vote) the Bonds FILTER bill to curtail initiatives, I sensed a fundamental problem in the way some CMs view Initiatives. Our Charter (Constitution) creates a legislature that is shared with the People.

Finally, this is part of a broader attack by Bonds-Mendelsohn on the Voter Initiative. Part of the attack was to remove me as BOE Chair because I followed the LAW, which allows Initiatives liberally. I am proud of the Initiatives we allowed thru, like I83. I stand with voters.

The Bonds-Mendelsohn bill kills Initiatives with death by a thousand cuts. The bill adds a year of difficult process for any proposed Initiative and it lets anyone kill any Initiative simply by filing a suit. If it were the law, this bill would have killed I83 RCV.

Another example, the Bonds-Mendelsohn bill wants to force Initiative circulators to wear badges saying if they are paid and where they live. Of course their own circulators would have no such outrageous badging requirements.

The lead issue is bait for the naive. The law says voters can propose laws same as the Council. They can propose dual subjects, but they want to limit voters. Be it wise or unwise to propose dual subjects, no such limit applies. The Council isn’t superior to the people.

Initiatives are only advisory and the Council still controls the laws and $. So why would some attack the Voters like this? They say Initiatives “pressure” them to side with voters, like on RCV (73%). That’s undemocratic, and insulting to voters…

The DC Charter gives citizens the right to propose laws through Initiatives. That right is *equal* to the very existence of the DC Council. But CM Bonds and Mendelsohn want to destroy Initiatives. This is an historic attack on our democracy from within our own Council…