- ‘Game of Thrones’ earns a leading 19 Emmy nods
- Ann Coulter: Chris McDaniel should concede, live to fight another day
- Chelsea Clinton nabs $75K in speaking fees — same as Dick Cheney
- ‘Year of action’ not over: Obama has worked around Congress more than 40 times
- Rick Perry: Obama showed up after Hurricane Sandy, why not the Texas border?
- Alec Baldwin in talks to play Rob Ford-like mayor in new NBC drama
- Chinese hackers sought data on federal employees: report
- League City, Texas, votes 6-2 to ban processing of illegal kids
- Iraq tells U.N. that ‘terrorist groups’ have seized nuclear materials
- Houston dad suspected of shooting his 4 kids surrenders to police
D.C. corporate political donations ban will not be before voters in November
Question of the Day
Activists hoping to ban direct corporate contributions to D.C. political campaigns are no longer trying to put their issue before voters in November so they can focus on preserving thousands of petition signatures they gathered earlier this year and make the ballot in a special election next spring.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Laura A. Cordero on Tuesday granted a request from the D.C. Committee to Restore Public Trust for a four-week extension to the signature-gathering period so committee members can review, line-by-line, the pages of signatures that were rejected by the D.C. Board of Elections because they failed to meet the minimum requirements to put their question — known as Initiative 70 — on the ballot.
The judge's extension of the trust's collection period allows the group to review the board's work and potentially avoid starting from scratch, yet it forced members to concede the initiative will not be printed on the Nov. 6 ballot. The 180-day collection period would have ended on Monday, although the group earlier made a tactical move — one that ultimately backfired — of shirking the extra time and submitting its petition pages on July 9 to make the November ballot.
The trust cannot gather more signatures during the four-week extension, but it could get the issue on a future ballot if members convince the court that election officials erred in tossing out so many of the group's signatures. Specifically, they have to prove they collected signatures from 5 percent of the electorate and 5 percent of voters in five of the city's eight wards to ensure a distribution of support throughout the District.
"The only way for this to stay alive is to do our own line-by-line count over the next four weeks," trust organizer Bryan Weaver said Tuesday.
With an extension in hand, the trust is hoping for another shot at the ballot in early 2013. D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat who was appointed to the chairman's seat by his colleagues in June, is expected to cruise to victory in his bid on Nov. 6 to finish ousted chairman Kwame R. Brown's term through 2014. If that happens, the city will have to schedule a special election to fill the at-large seat vacated by Mr. Mendelson.
Last month, the board ruled the trust had collected 21,572 valid signatures, or 1,726 fewer than the 23,298 needed. The activists initially accused the board of grossly miscounting its valid signatures. But election officials hit back, arguing the trust did not understand their system of green and red notations that determine whether a voter's signature is valid or not.
Mr. Weaver accused the board of rampant inconsistencies in how it notated the petition pages, especially when compared to a master list of valid signers it obtained from the board. He said his own name did not appear on the list, heightening the trust's suspicions.
In a motion to dismiss the trust's appeal to the courts, the elections board said the group was simply careless in its "rush" to get the initiative on the general election ballot. The volunteer group counted "OKs" and check marks in the board's notations without considering additional nuances within the city's two-phased, color-coded system that determines which signatures are valid and which are not, the board said.
Mr. Weaver said the trust's independent analysis of the board's work was hampered by its inability to access the board's computer database and to personally view the board's validation process.
"It's sort of impossible to think you'd have two volunteers (from the trust) sitting there, eight hours a day, for 30 days," he said of the group's opportunity to monitor board employees.
The trust had planned to make its case for the November ballot in a courtroom showdown on Thursday, but members are no longer seeking the emergency hearing.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at email@example.com.
- Obamacare still crippled by technical problems, customer service: survey
- Forgotten vial of smallpox found in NIH storage room
- Mitch McConnell highlights Obamacare's problems, renews call for alternative
- Vials of smallpox virus found where they shouldn't have been: CDC
- Judge hears arguments in Sen. Ron Johnson's Obamacare lawsuit
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Banning speech with a constitutional amendment is playing with fire
- GOP: Lerner warned IRS employees to hide information from Congress
- White House plans for bowling alley upgrades abruptly canceled
- ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obamas plan
- Islamic militants aim to take Baghdad airport
- EDITORIAL: Whats Obama hiding at illegal-alien 'refugee' camps?
- Harry Reid lambasted by black conservatives after calling Justice Thomas white
- HUSAR: Mexicos Pena Nieto passes the immigration bucket
- Obama requests $3.7 billion to fight surge of illegals
- A series of missteps steers Obama's trip off course
- CURL: Obama turning millennials into Republicans
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq
World Cup's sexiest WAGs
U.S.-Ghana World Cup opener