District of Columbia B 26-0436: Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act of 2025

Bill Text

COUNCILMEMBER ANITA BONDS, CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND LABOR
THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

October 17, 2025

Nyasha Howard, Secretary
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Secretary Howard,

Today, I am introducing the “Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident
Amendment Act of 2025.” Please find enclosed a signed copy of the legislation, which amends
the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955 to clarify the procedure by which the Board of
Elections accepts a proposed initiative or referendum and prepares the measure for inclusion on
the ballot, to be voted on by the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia.

The first amendment to the Home Rule Charter established the process by which District of
Columbia residents can propose initiatives and referendums directly to the voters.
1 The
amendment, introduced in 1977 and passed, as required, by a concurrent resolution in the House
and the Senate, outlined the basic procedure and empowered the Council to adopts such acts as
were necessary to implement it.
2 Since 1978, residents of the District have used the initiative and
referendum process to voice their policy objectives and compel legislative action. Notable
initiatives that gained a majority of the vote include an initiative measure requiring the
government to hold hearings on funding for public education and a referendum measure to make
the District of Columbia Attorney General an elected position.
3

Given the potential impact of proposed measures, many states have imposed procedural
limitations designed to ensure that improper measures are not balloted and that language
included on the ballot accurately reflects the effect of such legislation. In the District of

1 D.C. Law 2-46
2 H. Con. Res. 464 (1978)
3 Boogs, Roderic V. O. and Iris Toyer. "D.C.'s Schoolchildren Are Important". The Washington Post, 20 September
1987, p. C8; Nickles, Peter. “An elected attorney general for D.C.?” The Washington Post, 23 October 2010.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2010/10/24/an-elected-attorney-general-for-dc/142c52c4-6df2-4d47-
90ab-a3c380acc4f7/

Columbia, for example, the Board must refuse to accept an initiative that authorizes, or has the
effect of authorizing, discrimination under the Human Rights Act of 1977.
4

The Amendment which established the initiative process in the District also imposed limitations
on the types of measures which may be proposed, including that initiatives may not propose laws
appropriating funds and referendums may not suspend emergency acts, acts levying taxes, or acts
appropriating funds.
5 This restriction has been interpreted by the courts to include measures
which require the allocation of revenues to new or existing purposes.
6 In the District, this
limitation is not unique to initiative and referendum measures; in maintaining a balanced budget,
permanent and emergency acts considered by the Council are accompanied by a fiscal impact
statement prior to final adoption, and acts which reflect unbudgeted costs are subject to
appropriations prior to becoming effective.
7

Current law requires a fiscal impact statement for a proposed initiative measure to be requested
by the Board of Elections from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). This occurs
only after the Office of the Attorney General and the General Counsel of the Council have issued
advisory opinions as to whether a measure is appropriating funds. This legislation will require
the OCFO to issue a fiscal impact statement before the Board issues its determination on whether
the proposed measure is proper subject matter. Further, the legislation will require publication of
the fiscal impact statement and inclusion of the cost on the petition sheet and on the ballot. Just
as Councilmembers are informed of the cost of a piece of legislation before they cast a final vote,
electors in the District of Columbia should be able to readily ascertain the costs of a policy when
they are signing their name to a petition sheet or filling out a ballot.

In addition, the legislation will require that each proposed initiative present only one subject at a
time and matters properly connected with that subject. Of twenty-four states that allow some
type of citizen-proposed initiative, most require initiatives to address a single subject.
8 This
ensures that the proposal is accurately reflected on the ballot and that voters can opt to vote for
one policy rather than being required to vote on two policies presented within one measure. The
distinction will provide clarity to the public on the cost for each proposal and will also prevent
Council from being forced to carve out separate funds for each policy, a complication which,
given the budget requirements for legislation, could unintentionally impact the effective date of a
successfully enacted measure.

Finally