Source: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/turner-v-dc-board-elections-court-decision?redirect=cpredirect/10752
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:30:31+00:00

Document:
the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Because the Court holds that the Barr Amendment does not preclude the Board from counting, announcing or certifying the results of the referendum on Initiative 59, the Board may release and certify them and the Court need not reach the constitutional question.
None of the funds contained in [the District of Columbia Appropriations Act] may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I subs substance under the Controlled Substances Act . . . or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
Id, Because Initiative 59 attempts to reduce penalties for some use and possession of marijuana, it falls under the purview of the Barr Amendment.
On November 3, 1998, residents of the District of Columbia voted on Initiative 59 since it had been printed on the ballots prior to passage of the Barr Amendment. (Def.'s Mem. at 8.) The Board has not released the results of the vote on initiative 59, however, for fear of violating the Barr Amendment.
releasing, and certifying the results of the election is part of conducting a ballot initiative.
1/ The parties in this case are oddly configured. The plaintiffs and the defendant are united in their argument That the Barr Amendment is unconstitutional while the intervenor argues in favor or the Amendment's constitutionality. As is discussed below, the difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendant seems to be their construction of the Barr Amendment and whether it allows the elect on results to be released.
actions, it seems apparent that the Board views any expenditure on initiative 53 -- whether before, during or after the election -- as violating the Barr Amendment.
The Barr Amendment. itself provides no guidance on exactly what "conduct any ballot initiative" is meant to entail. The sparse legislative history offers scant clarification. 144 Cong. Rec. H73883 3 (daily ed. Aug. 6, 1998). The plaintiffs' argument that the Board's activities after election day are excluded finds support, however, in the D.C. Code section describing the Board of Elections' responsibilities in D.C. elections. The D.C. Code directs the Board to, among other things, "(3) Conduct elections; (4) Provide for recording and counting votes by means of ballets or machines or both; [and] . . . (11) Certify . . . the results of elections." C.C. Code Ann. § l- 1306 (1981). By listing these tasks separately, the D C. Code implies that each is a distinct responsibility, and that conducting an election does not encompass counting or certifying the vote.
of the election, from the moment an Initiative is proposed for the ballot until the results are certified to Congress. Alternatively, it could mean merely managing election activity on the day of the election. There is no reason to distinguish between counting, release and certification when defining this phrase. All of these tasks are ministerial. All involve minimal expenditure. All occur after the voting is over.
Constitutional issues would be implicated if the Barr Amendment precluded the Board from announcing and certifying the election results. One question, though, is whether Congress's unique relationship to the District creates a different analytical context in which to consider the alleged burden on -First Amendment rights. It may be that because Congress has the power to withdraw the ballot initiative process from D.C. voters in its entirety, Congress could therefore take the lesser step of withdrawing particular kinds of ballot initiatives from D.C. voters.
2/ This conclusion does not necessarily render the Barr Amendment meaningless. For example, from the day the amendment was enacted up through the election day, the amendment precluded other initiative-related expenditures such as "publicity surrounding that ballot." 144 Cong. Rec. H7389 (daily ed. Aug. 6, 1998) Statement or Rep. Barr).
issue here is whether Congress's plenary power over the District of Columbia encompasses the power to prevent political speech, in the form of the results of votes proper y cast in a properly conducted ballot referendum, from being made public. to that question must be no.
Congress' s power over the District is granted my the Constitution and is very broad. Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District . . . as may . . . become me Seat of the Government of the United States." U.S. Const. art. I § 8 (the "D.C. Clause"). That clause has been Interpreted to grant plenary power to Congress over the District of Columbia. See Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 397 (1973). Congress acts as a local legislative body for D.C. Id. Home Rule and other subsequent legislation have allowed District residents some measure of governmental power. See D.C Code Ann. §§ 1-201 to 299 (1981). Even after the passage of Home Rule, however, Congress retains broad authority to pass local laws on any subject. See D.C. Code Ann. § 1-206 (1981). Thus, this Court is mindful of Congress's broad legislative powers over the District, as granted by the D.C. Clause.
others, Congress's actions are constrained by the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Court has explained. See Palmore, 411 U.S. at 397 ("Congress 'may exercise within the District all legislative powers that the legislature of a state might exercise within the Stare . . . so long as it does not contravene any provision of the constitution of the United States'" (quoting Capital Traction v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 5 (1899))) (emphasis added)) cf. Grant v. Meyer, 828 F.2d 1446, 1456 (10th Cir. 1987) (having granted citizens the right of an initiative procedure, the State was obligated to confer the right in a manner consistent with the Constitution), aff'd, 486 U.S. 414 '1988).
to interfere with First Amendment rights. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13-20 (1976). Indeed, the very idea of judicial review is premised on the idea that the courts exist, in part, in order to ensure that Congress does not overstep the lines described by the Constitution. See Marbry v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) (stating that "law is repugnant to the Constitution is void").
Congress's acts controlling The District are no exception to that fundamental rule. See Palmore, 421 U.S. at 397. Congress's laws for the District must pass constitutional muster as much as any other Congressional enactment must. Congress's power over the District therefore does not exempt the Barr Amendment from First Amendment review.
also Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979) (stating that "voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure").
The right to vote has been most powerfully raised in Equal Protection claims where burdened parties sought relief from the inability to cast their votes ''effectively." See Socialist Workers, 440 U.S. at 164. When the right to vote is raised In the context of the First Amendment, it gives rise to layered standards of review. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433-34 (1992) (stating that "the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights"). Debates about the standard of review, however, only reinforce the idea that the results of votes properly cast in a properly conducted ballot referendum are due some level of First Amendment protection.
burning a flag is protected by the First Amendment); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. S03, 514 (1969) (holding that wearing black armbands to protest the war in Viet Nam was protected under the First Amendment).
3/ The Burdick Court added that the purpose of an election is "not to provide a means of giving vent to 'short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrels. ' Attributing to elections a more generalized expressive function would undermine the ability of States to operate elections fairly and efficiently. " Burdick, 504 U.S. at 438 (internal citation omitted). This quote does not undermine the fact that voting is speech in this case.
intend to send a particularized message which is received by those who act on the results of the elections, voting results can be categorized as protected symbolic speech under the Texas v. Johnson test.
(footnote continued from previous page) the names of candidates not listed on the ballot and to have those votes counted. Id. at 430. The Supreme Court held that a state need not allow voters the opportunity to express their opinions on every possible candidate or subject in any given elections where candidates' ballot access and voters' rights to cast a vote were otherwise provided for adequately. Id. at 438. States were therefore not required to count write-in votes. Id.
The issue in this case is the level of protection to be granted to votes lawfully cast on an issue properly placed before the voting public. Burdick held that there was not a sufficient First Amendment interest in voting for write in candidates to outweigh the state's Everest in efficient elections. Id. at 440. The matter before this Court concerns the First Amendment rights of citizens of the District of Columbia to have made known the results of their votes properly cast on an issue properly placed on the ballot.
speech about political candidates or ideas, see id., but not necessarily the vote itself.
The reasons or protecting core political speech shed some light or the nature of what that term should entail. Core political speech is given the broadest protection in order "'to assure [t]he unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social charges desired by the people.'" McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 346 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957 ). If discussion about social and political change is core political speech, it follows that the instrumentality used to bring about political and social change, that is, a lawful vote and its results, should be given the same kind of protection.

References: § 8
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.