|
Councilmember Says Equal Rights Not the Proper Subject of Voter Referendum
Washington, D.C., -Today, Councilmember David Catania (At-Large) urged the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (“BOEE”) to reject a proposed referendum that would discriminate against same-sex married couples. The BOEE held a public hearing today on the referendum which would repeal Section 3 of the recently passed “Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009” earlier today.[1] This section requires the District to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. At the hearing, the Board heard testimony that the proposed referendum would violate the District’s prohibition on initiatives and referendums that would have the affect of authorizing discrimination prohibited by the District’s Human Rights Act (“HRA”).
“For 30 years, District law has forbidden any initiative or referendum that would violate the equal rights of our citizens,” said Catania. “I urge the Board of Elections to reject this latest effort to undo one of those protections and discriminate against a segment of our community.”
The District’s current HRA was adopted in 1977.[2] Its enactment became necessary when its predecessor, Title 34 – the District’s previous anti-discrimination law – was found to be an improper regulation due to its enactment by a pre-Home Rule Council. With its previous law under challenge, the Council moved quickly to re-enact one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. At its outset, the HRA states:
It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this chapter, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, and place of residence or business.[3]
Two years after the HRA was enacted, the Council passed D.C. Law 3-1 to protect District citizens from an initiative or referendum that would violate its newly re-authorized HRA. The protection cited the HRA (i.e., “Chapter 14 of Title 2”) specifically, saying:
Upon receipt of each proposed initiative or referendum measure, the Board shall refuse to accept the measure if the Board finds that it is not a proper subject of initiative or referendum, whichever is applicable, under the terms of title IV of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, or upon any of the following grounds…The measure authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited under Chapter 14 of Title 2. [4]
According to Catania, the referendum currently before the Board of Elections and Ethics falls squarely within this three decades-old prohibition.
###
[2] D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.
[4] D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.16(b).
|
