Business groups and tipped workers clash over FAIR Initiatives bill’s single‑subject and fiscal rules

At a Dec. 5 hearing before the Committee on Executive Administration and Labor, witnesses gave competing accounts of whether B26‑436 would bring necessary transparency or impose undue barriers to direct democracy. Andrew Klein (Veritas law firm; counsel to the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington) recommended that fiscal and procedural safeguards be added so electors and petition signers can ‘‘readily ascertain the cost’’ of a proposed measure before they sign. Liz DeBarros, CEO of the District of Columbia Building Industry Association, told the committee the bill ‘‘would strengthen transparency and accountability in the ballot initiative process’’ by requiring certified summaries and fiscal estimates.

Opponents warned the bill could have the opposite effect. Nicholas Schiller and other referendum advocates testified the proposed timeline and subject‑matter challenges could extend circulation and review to roughly 120 days, compressing the effective window for referenda and making the process impracticable. Brian Sergi, an ANC chair, argued a single‑subject rule is inconsistent with DC’s direct initiative power because the council may pass omnibus measures; he urged the committee to avoid making citizens’ initiative power more constrained than the council’s own legislative power.

Committee members probed practical questions: should fiscal impact statements appear on petition sheets or only on ballots, who can challenge a fiscal estimate, and whether extended legal review windows will advantage well‑funded interests. The committee took no immediate vote; Chair Anita Bonds said the committee will collect written submissions and the record remains open through Dec. 19, 2025.