Order for Temporary Injunction
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Dino Drudi
June 22, 2000

DC Watch Home

Council Period 12

Council Period 13

Council Period 14

Council Period 15

Election 1998

Election 2000

Election 2002

themail

Search DCWatch

DINO JOSEPH DRUDI, Plaintiff
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, et. al.,

Case No. 4716-00

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion and proffered evidence and heard the representation of counsel for the Plaintiff and of D.C. Corporation Counsel and General Counsel for the D.C. Council. The Court has also reviewed the opinion letter dated May 2, 2000, prepared by General Counsel of the D.C. Council. Plaintiff has asked the Court to enjoin the special election scheduled for June 27, 2000 regarding the School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 or alternatively to enjoin the defendants from counting, publicizing or certifying or in any fashion transmitting the special election results. The basis of Plaintiff s request is that the D.C. Council failed to comply with D.C. Code Section 1-229, requiring the Council to read a proposed Act two times in substantially the same form before passing that Act. Based on the foregoing the Court finds:

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to D.C. Code Section 11-921.

2. Defendants received actual notice of today's hearing and a copy of the summons, complaint, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction prior to the hearing.

3. The Court finds that the D.C. Council failed to comply with D.C. Code Section 1-229, in that the Act as passed by the Council on February 17, 2000, was not read at two separate Council meetings in substantially the same form.

4. No adequate remedy exists at law for the Plaintiff.

5. The facts are not substantially in dispute.

6. Plaintiff is substantially likely to prevail on the merits in this matter.

7. The public interest strongly favors the granting of the relief sought by the Plaintiff, in that the D.C. Code Section 1-229 is intended to ensure that the public has adequate notice and opportunity to express opinions on Acts to be passed by the D.C. Council.

8. Based on the public interest, allowing the referendum to proceed and be counted would immediately and irreparably harm the Plaintiff and other citizens of the District of Columbia.

9. The defendants will not be materially harmed if the counting, publicizing and certification of the special election results in temporarily enjoined pending the decision of the Court on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

10. Based on the nature of this matter, no bond shall be required of the Plaintiff.

11. This Court finds the provisions added February 17, 2000, constitute a substantial change from earlier readings, particularly in that they would eliminate the democratic election of a substantial number of school board members.

Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June, 2000 hereby

ORDERED that pending further Order of the Court or 10 days, whichever occurs first, the results of the Special Election regarding the School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000, on June 27, 2000, shall not be counted, publicized or certified or in any manner transmitted by defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, or any person in active concert or participation with them having actual notice of this Order, and it is further

ORDERED that the Court shall hold a status hearing on Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 30, 2000 at 11:00 a.m., Calendar #1.

Judge Margaret Haywood, 6/22/00, 5:00 P.M.