D.C. hearing focuses on banning post-signature edits to petitions, while advocates urge birth‑date and form changes

The Committee on Executive Administration and Labor held a public hearing June 13 on Bill 26‑233, the Petition Administration Clarification Amendment Act of 2025, which would prohibit altering information filled in a petition line after a signer has affixed a signature.

The measure drew broad agreement that petition rules need clarification, but witnesses disagreed over the best fixes. Supporters of a strict prohibition on post‑signature edits cited Initiative 83 petition sheets that used correction tape or “whiteout” as evidence the practice risks fraud and undermines public trust. Other witnesses said the law should also allow practical remedies — for example, making birth date an optional verifying field, redesigning the petition form, or enabling limited corrections before a signature is affixed.

“Petitioning is one of the purest forms of democracy in America,” said Lisa Rice, CEO of Grow Democracy DC and proposer of Initiative 83, who testified in favor of clarifying the rules. Rice told the committee the bill “would help provide [campaigns] clear guidance” after her campaign’s experience with correction tape.

Several witnesses who supported clarity suggested additional or alternative reforms. Ankit Jain, who identified himself as the shadow senator for the District of Columbia, proposed adding a birth‑date field to petition forms so the Board of Elections could verify signers even when addresses are out of date; he said the board had rejected about 10 percent of signatures on one campaign because of address mismatches. Chris Furnish, a longtime petition circulator, told the committee that in other jurisdictions qualifying identifiers include signature plus birth date and that “people move all the time, but someone’s birthday never changes.” Adam Eidinger said the council should update the system for the 21st century and consider online signing and other digital tools.

Opponents of loosening the existing address requirement urged a strict rule against any post‑signature edits. Deirdre Brown, chair of Vote No on Initiative 83, said “once a voter has provided information on a petition sheet, no one — not the circulator, not a campaign staffer, not a well‑meaning volunteer — should alter a single letter of the voter’s information.” Gaby L. Fraser, president of the Metropolitan Women’s Democratic Club, and Dorothy Brazil, executive director of DC Watch, said they observed extensive use of correction tape in Initiative 83 petitions and said permitting edits invites tampering.

Several witnesses described inconsistent Board of Elections practices and urged clearer, written guidance. Brian Stregi, chair of ANC 6‑8F, said his conversations with board staff led him to believe some rules — for example whether apartment numbers are required — are applied informally and need to be codified. Miguel Trondati Grama, a member of the Initiative 83 steering committee, urged that the council and the board redesign the petition form to put the signature field last, so the signature more clearly serves as a final, irrevocable act.

Witnesses offered competing technical approaches: - Ban correction tape/whiteout explicitly and require any correction to be made by the signer (cross‑out and re‑sign or sign a new line). Several pro‑ban witnesses argued correction tape can hide underlying changes and complicates scanning and review. - Add optional identity fields such as birth date or a board‑issued unique identifier so the Board of Elections has multiple data points for verification and fewer signatures are discarded due to address mismatches. Multiple witnesses said adding birth date is a common practice in other states. - Redesign forms and administrative processes: move the signature field to the end of the line, improve the Board of Elections’ scanning and disclosure of identifier data to campaigns, and adopt clear written rules for address formats and apartment numbers. - Consider digital signing or an electronic circulator application to reduce paper errors and make review more consistent.

Several witnesses also called for accountability for the Board of Elections’ handling of petition sheets. Dorothy Brazil said the board took months to investigate the use of correction tape in Initiative 83 and urged the council to pursue broader review of board processes. A public commenter suggested that when the board enters into a consent agreement or fine with petition circulators, it should refer that agreement to the Office of the Attorney General for consideration of criminal prosecution.

Committee Chair Anita Bonds (at‑large), who convened the hearing, said the committee will consider the suggestions raised and noted the committee’s intention to address related Board of Elections rules in follow‑up work. The chair also kept the hearing record open for additional written testimony through June 27 at 5 p.m., as announced at the start of the hearing.

The hearing included multiple requests that the council not treat the bill solely as a response to Initiative 83 and urged the committee to craft broader statutory and regulatory fixes to make the petition process more transparent and less subject to ad hoc decision‑making by the board. The committee made no formal vote at the hearing; it was a legislative public hearing to receive testimony and suggestions for amendment.

Quotes used in this article come from live testimony at the Committee on Executive Administration and Labor hearing on June 13, 2025.