Subsection 1 of section 801 would update the scope of the D.C. Election Act to include all local elections. Subsection 2 would substantially redefine the term "qualified elector" to include United States citizens who are at least 18 years old; have resided in the District for the six-month period prior to the election; are not convicted felons or, if so convicted, have received pardons or who, with respect to a felony conviction, have not been subject to a court's jurisdiction for a period of five years preceding the election; are not mentally incompetent; and, finally, who have not voted or claimed the right to vote in any other jurisdiction for the six months preceding the election. Subsection 3 would broaden the term "ward" to apply to all elections and would add definitions of "Council" and "Mayor". Subsection 4 would create a three-member Board of Elections, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. Each Board member would be appointed for a three year term and the Chairman of the Board would be a member designated by the Mayor. For continuity, the members of the Board of Elections in office on the day the Mayor first assumes his duties would serve out their respective terms. Subsection 5 would provide compensation for Board of Election members at the rate of $1500 per annum, subject to change by Council action. Subsection 6 is a revision necessitated by the broad definition of "ward” in subsection 3 described above. Subsection 7 would close the voter registry for a 30-day period ending on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in each November, during 30 days ending on the first Tuesday in May in presidential election years, and during such other times as the Board determines for special elections. Subsection 8 would provide for the election of three members of the Board of Education (including the Chairman), three members of the Council, the Mayor and the District Delegate on an at-large, city-wide basis. The other members of the Board of Education and the Council would be elected by voters in their respective wards. Subsection 9 sets out the procedures for nomination by petition of the various candidates for office. Those candidates running at large must file petitions, to be signed by at least 125 persons in each ward, no later than 45 days before the election. A $100 filing fee is required. Nominating petitions for candidates to be elected from individual wards must contain at least 250 signatures of registered voters from the ward in which the candidate intends to run. No petition would be circulated prior to 99 days before the election, nor would any petition be filed with the Board before the 70th day preceding the election. All signatures on nominating petitions must represent duly registered voters and the Board of Elections would insure that all signatures are indeed those of registered voters and that no voter signs more than one petition for any one office. Subsection 10 would establish the date for general elections as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. Election of the Mayor would coincide with presidential elections. Subsection 11 would provide a run-off election to take place 21 days after a general election when no one candidate received 40 percent of the vote. In the run-off the candidate receiving the most votes would be elected. Subsection 12 clarifies how many candidates would participate in the run-off elections for the various offices. Subsection 13 through 16 update various Election Act provisions so that they apply to all local elections. Subsection 17 would provide procedures for the filling of vacancies in the various offices. In the case of a vacancy in the Mayor's office, the Council would appoint an interim Mayor, either to serve out the unexpired term, or until January 2 following the election of a person to fill the unexpired term, whichever occurs first. In the case of a Board of Elections vacancy, the Board would appoint an interim member pending the election of a member to fill the unexpired term. Subsection 18 would prohibit a candidate for office on the Board of Education or Council from running for more than one office. Section 802 would establish procedures for the recall of the Mayor or Council members by the qualified voters that elected the official. If the official for whom a valid recall petition is filed does not resign, the bill would provide for a special election to be held within twenty days to determine if a majority of the voters voting in the ward, or in the city in the case of an offical elected at large, wish to recall the official. COMMENTS ON TITLE VIII-AMENDMENTS TO D.C. ELECTION ACT Title VIII, though laudatory in its intent, creates much confusion due to the fact that when drafted, the substantial amendments to the D.C. Election Act included in the D.C. Delegate Act (P.L. 91-405), enacted September 22, 1970, were disregarded. Thus, the provisions of Title VIII often duplicate what already has become law in the District, and by omission would erase integral portions of the election procedures for D.C. Delegate, established by P.L. 91-405, such as party primaries. It is our strong recommendation that Title VIII be accordingly redrafted in a manner consistent with the D.C. Delegate Act. The following comments, therefore, are intended to supplement the above recommendation for redrafting of the Title. Sec. 801 (2) would redefine the term "qualified elector". We would recommend that in the interest of justice and the present realization of the difficulties already faced by convicted felons after they have completed their terms and attempt once again to integrate themselves into society, that the requirement in part (D) that convicted felons remain outside of the jurisdiction of any court, with regard to the felony, for a period of five years before they are restored voting rights be dropped. Part (F), establishing a six-month residence requirement for voting, is inconsistent with both the Voting Rights Act amendments of 1970, setting a 30-day residence requirement for presidential elections, and with a court order directing the D.C. Board of Elections to register all qualified D.C. citizens without regard to length of residency. This court order, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court, applied only to the recent D.C. Delegate elections. For ease of administration, as well as consistency in the law, we therefore recommend a standard residence requirement of 30 days for all elections held pursuant to the D.C. Elections Act. Subsection (5) would establish an annual salary of $1500 for each member of the Board of Elections. Section 205(i) of the D.C. Delegate Act fixed the compensation of Board members at a per diem rate of $50, not to exceed $2500 annually. It is recommended that the rates set by the D.C. Delegate Act remain in effect. Subsections (11) and (12) both refer to a specific election for office of the Chairman of the Council. It is unclear whether or not there is to be a general election for the specific office of Chairman, since, with the exception of the two above-mentioned subsections special procedures are not set out for an election to the office of Chairman of the Council, it is understood only that the Chairman would be one of three Council members elected at large. It should be pointed out that in many past home rule bills the Chairman was to be elected by Coun cil members. a procedure we find to be more desirable. An alternative might be that the full Council membership should be required to elect as Chairman one of the three members-at-large. Subsection (7) does amend section 7(d) (1) (A) of the D.C. Election Act, but should also amend 7(d) (1) (B) by striking out "presidential" and inserting in lieu thereof "even-numbered". With regard to subsection (9), the amendment would place the responsibility of determining the validity of each nominating petition signature on the Board of Elections. This seems to conflict with section 8(j) of the present Election Act, unchanged by the amendments of Title VIII, which permits the Board to accept as valid any signature unless such signature is challenged by a qualified elector. The intent of the proposed legislation is unclear. However, it is placing, perhaps, an untenable burden on the Board of Elections if Board members are to insure the validity of each signature. It is recommended that, in the interest of administrative feasibility, the current challenge procedure of section 8(j), referred to above, be retained. In addition, it is unclear why subsection 9 of Title VIII restricts a voter to signing no more than one nominating petition for any office. A citizen may reasonably wish to sign the petitions of three candidates, with the idea that all three are qualified for a place on the ballot, and that he would like the opportunity to observe the performance of all three candidates during a campaign before making a final decision on election day. Subsection (17) would provide a method of filling vacancies in the offices of members of the Board of Elections or Mayor. In the case of a vacancy in the Mayor's office, the Council would appoint an interim Mayor to serve either until the unexpired term ends, or until January 2 following the date of election of a person to fill the unexpired term, whichever occurs first. This provision appears to be inconsistent with section 331 which would automatically place the Chairman of the Council in the Mayor's office in the event the Mayor were absent, unable to act or when the office became vacant. Two general comments with regard to Title VIII remain. The first is that it is uncertain whether the intent of the bill is to provide for completely nonpartisan elections for all offices, or whether the omission of machinery for primaries for certain offices was a drafting oversight. At any rate, it is our recommendation that elections for each office should specifically be deemed partisan or nonpartisan, as the case may be, and if partisan, adequate primary procedures should be provided. It is also our recommendation that the local elections for Mayor and District Council, as well as Board of Education, be held in odd-numbered years, with the Federal elections occurring in even-numbered years. This separation of local and Federal elections would permit the electorate to devote full attention to local issues without having to consider at the same time overshadowing national questions. Odd-numbered year local elections would also provide the Board of Elections with a more balanced election schedule and the resulting increase in efficiency of organization, while providing voters with a shorter, less confusing and more coherent ballot. Finally, if the Mayor and Council elections coincide with elections to the Board of Education, interest in the first two races should assure a higher voter turnout than has been our past experience for Board of Education elections. Provisions should also be made in Title VIII for filling vacancies when they occur among members of the Council. TITLE IX-MISCELLANEOUS Section 901 would authorize the District to enter into agreements with the Federal Government for the sharing of services for the purpose of preventing duplication. Section 903 would make it permissible for a member of the Council or Board of Elections to receive compensation from an additional source beside his official position. Section 904 authorizes the Civil Service Commission to assist the District in its preparation of a local merit personnel system. TITLE X-SUCCESSION IN GOVERNMENT Section 1001 would authorize the transfer of personnel and property and would assure no loss of prior civil service status of any employee by reason of his transfer or separation. Section 1002 further would assure the continuity of government by continuing in effect all statutes, regulations or other actions. Section 1003 would protect the rights of those who had entered into suits, actions or other judicial proceedings against the District. Section 1004 is somewhat unclear but would appear to assure the continued functioning of those boards and commissions of which the Mayor or DeputyMayor is a member in the interim period between the time the Commissioner's office is abolished and July of the year the elected Mayor takes office. Title XI-Provides for separability of provisions. Title XII-Provides interim measures and financing for first election. Section 802 would establish procedures for recall of elected officials. Detailed comments on the recall provision, as well as on initiative and referendum, are attached herewith. Section 1401 would provide for a referendum to be held not more than four months after enactment of the act to determine if the voters of the District accept the Charter. Titles I to XI inclusive, of the act. This referendum shall be conducted by the Board of Elections in accordance with the provisions of title VIII of the act. Section 1404 would provide the language of the Charter referendum ballot. Section 1405 would require that a majority of those voting approve the Charter in order that it be considered accepted. TITLE XV-INITIATIVE Section 1501 would vest in the voters the authority to propose and enact legislation and establish procedures for so doing. Detailed comments on the procedure of initiative, as well as referendum and recall, are attached herewith. On the basis of these comments it is recommended that title XV be deleted as an impractical and obfuscating measure not suited to dealing with the multiplicity of complex issues that must be dealt with in today's cities. Title XVI-The Act shall be known as the "District of Columbia Charter Act". COMMENTS ON INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL, PREPARED FOR THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT BY PROF. BERNARD ROSS AND DALE PAULSON OF THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Initiation, referendum and recall' were introduced for cities, as opposed to state legislatures, with the reform movement during the early part of the twentieth century. The initiative, which allows the voters themselves to enact legislation or to amend city charters without resort to the legislative body, first appeared in the city charter of San Francisco in 1898. The referendum appeared at the same time in the same charter and called for the popular approval of certain legislation before it became effective. The difference between the two concepts is that initiative provides for the potential genesis of legislation directly with the voters whereas referendum leaves the initiative for legislation with the legislative body but requires the approval of the voters. Recall is in a different category and provides for the potential removal of a public official before the expiration of his term. It first appeared in a city charter in Los Angeles in 1903. THE PROCEDURE Usually the proposal to be initiated is drafted by the attorneys for the particular interest group seeking the legislation. Petitions to put the proposal on the ballot are circulated by volunteers or individuals hired for the purpose. Normally the number of signatures required is based upon the number of people who had voted in the last election. Repeated use of the initiative can be very costly to a city which has to schedule elections. In the bill under consideration, the number of signatures to place a proposal on the ballot is determined by computing ten per cent of the total of those voting in the last election. Proposals that are designated to be approved or disapproved by the voters through referendum require a majority vote in the current election. The Eagleton bill desig. nates the proposed charter to be a matter for referendum. APPRAISAL OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL These three techniques are often described as exercises in pure democracy and though seldom used in large cities they are considered ultimate safeguards against irresponsibility in municipal government. It is further claimed that their existence in a charter serves as a warning against devious or ill-advised actions on the part of elected officials. However, other factors tend to temper the appeal of these reform devices. (1) All three devices can prove very costly to a city government which has to provide the necessary election machinery to implement initiative, referendum and recall. (2) Almost all city charters have provisions for removing public officials who are negligent or corrupt in the exercise of their duties. (3) In a pluralist political system a more effective device-less time consuming and less costly-than the initiative is the application of political pressure on elected officials. (4) In the case of the initiative and referendum the issues may be too complex or technical for the average voter. Therefore, voters may vote on issues they know little or nothing about or stay home and defeat the purpose of the initia 1 For additional information see Adrian and Press. Governing Urban America (McGrawHill: New York), 1968, and MacDonald. American City Government and Administration (Thomas Y. Crowell Company: New York). 1956. Also, I.C.M.A. is conducting a survey related to this topic at the present time and the results should be ready in late June 1971. tive and the referendum. In most cases public officials will be much better qualified to make these decisions than the public. (5) Initiative, referendum and recall are throwbacks to the days of primary democracy in medium sized cities. A city of 750,000 people must be a representative democracy which is not constantly stymied and delayed by marginal attempts to resurrect Athenian democracy. (6) The recall procedure does not require the public to prove any charges against the officeholder. The objective is to persuade the public, by whatever means possible, to remove the incumbent at all costs. Attempts to recall officials can be repeatedly made by small, vindictive and disillusioned groups. In summary, the referendum is a valuable and meaningful way for public officials to periodically test voter sentiment on controversial issues. It should be a part of every city charter and state constitution. On balance the initiative and recall are likely to be more costly and time consuming than reflective of majority opinion. Large American cities today are characterized by one-party government and unresponsive bureaucracies. To some that is evidence that the initiative and the recall are necessary remedial devices. To others it is a clear mandate that in a democracy citizens have an obligation to involve themselves in the democratic process including candidate selection, primaries, election campaigns and the election. Failure to participate in this process should not result in an already cumbersome governmental process having to bear the costs of initiatives and recalls. STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT HAHN, JR., CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hahn, welcome and you may proceed. Mr. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my statement to you as written and make these few comments. The Council has been unanimously and consistently in favor of full, local, elected self-government. This includes an elected Mayor and Council with legislative powers to be exercised by the Council and with full control by the Council over revenues and expenditures. I have, as you know, always favored the gradual approach. I believe last year's papers reported, in a similar hearing of this kind, that I was the only witness who then favored the elected nonvoting delegate over other measures that were then pending in the Home Rule Commission. I am still a believer that we may get to home rule quicker by other routes but that does not mean that I do not fully, as I do, endorse your bill and Senator Mathias' bill. For example, I think it is entirely possible as the Mayor and Council are now working to take a positive step forward in local elected selfgovernment by the simple devise of having the Mayor and Council elected even if no other action took place. I mentioned that because I was a little distressed to see the Deputy Mayor's testimony, as the Mayor had said he hoped we would not be debating over which powers should reside in the Mayor's office and which in the Council. I believe that amateurs who are well intentioned can make a very important contribution to local government. I think, and have always felt, that the most important aspect of the reorganization plan because it changed the commission form of government to a single executive and the strength that I think this brings to the District government is important. Equally do I feel that the strength that the Council brings to local government is important and that its role in any future government should not be that of a rubber stamp. |