Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions nominee on how Board handles initiative review and Attorney General opinions
Summary
Members pressed Greenfield on how the Board determines whether initiatives are proper subject matter for the ballot, asking why measures that appear to appropriate funds are still sent to the Attorney General. Greenfield said AG opinions are one advisory input and the board makes the final determination against statutory criteria.
The committee spent a substantial portion of the roundtable probing how the Board of Elections reviews citizen initiatives and when the board seeks legal advice. Chair Bonds asked about Initiative 83 and how language limiting appropriation was added, and whether the board or outside counsel prompts such changes.
Greenfield said the board routinely seeks opinions from the D.C. Attorney General and from the board's own general counsel as part of its hearing‑level review of whether a measure is a proper subject for the ballot. Bonds read statutory criteria into the record (as recited during the hearing) that define improper initiative subjects, including measures that would appropriate funds, amend the Home Rule Act, violate the U.S. Constitution, limit council actions, or authorize discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
"We go out anyway on every initiative and... they send it out and they get an opinion on these," Greenfield said, explaining the AG opinion serves as an additional advisory perspective rather than automatically moving a measure forward.
