Opinion ID: 1058647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition for Referendum

Text: A referendum is 'an exercise by the voters of their traditional right through direct legislation to override the view of their elected representatives as to what serves the public interest.'  R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Committee for the Repeal of Ordinance R(C)-88-13, 239 Va. 484, 489, 391 S.E.2d 587, 589 (1990) (quoting City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 426 U.S. 668, 678 (1976)). The referendum process is a means for direct political participation, allowing the people the final decision, amounting to a veto 5 power, over enactments of representative bodies. Id. (quoting City of Eastlake, 426 U.S. at 673). Petitions for initiating the referenda process are the subject of § 35 of the City Charter. That section states that a petition does not have to contain the text of the ordinance or ordinances sought to be repealed. Norfolk City Charter § 35. This language implies but does not specifically address whether a single petition may be submitted for the repeal of more than one ordinance. In the absence of clear legislative direction on this issue, the City and NRHA argue, and the circuit court agreed, that because a referendum is legislative in nature and effect, Collins v. City of Norfolk, 244 Va. 431, 434, 422 S.E.2d 782, 783 (1992), the petition is subject to the same restrictions that apply to a City ordinance. One of those requirements is that City ordinances shall be confined to one subject. Norfolk City Charter § 14.1. Applying this section, the City contends that the circuit court was correct in concluding that because the four ordinances contained in the Petition could not be considered in a single ordinance, they likewise could not be combined in a single petition for referendum, and therefore, the Petition was invalid. We disagree with this analysis. 6 First, nothing in the City Charter indicates that the provisions applicable to City ordinances are also applicable to a petition for referendum. Furthermore, the City and NRHA equate the petition for referendum with the referendum itself. However, the petition is the mechanism for placing the issue before the electorate; the referendum is the vote of the electorate. More importantly, nothing in the Petition precludes a separate vote on each of the ordinances referenced in the Petition. The Committee contended at trial and reiterated here that the Petition only ensures the placement of the ordinances on the ballot and that each ordinance could be voted upon independently. Code § 24.2-684 specifically states that [t]he court order calling a referendum shall state the question to appear on the ballot. This provision does not reference the petition and, contrary to the argument of the City and NRHA, the language of the Petition reciting the ordinances in the conjunctive, does not require the circuit court to structure the ballot to require a single vote on the combined ordinances. The Committee's Petition complied with all stated requirements of the City Charter and the Code. The Petition was not invalid because it listed multiple ordinances and the Committee was not required to circulate a separate petition 7 for each of the four challenged ordinances. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in finding the Petition invalid and in declining to certify and order the referendum requested by the Committee. In summary, we will affirm that portion of the judgment of the circuit court allowing the City and NRHA to intervene. We will reverse that portion of the judgment holding that the Petition was invalid, and remand the case for further proceedings. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.