DC BOEE, clarification memorandum opinion on Initiative 68, September 20, 2004

Respondent respectfully submits the following Clarification Memorandum Opinion in response to this Court’s September 13, 2004 Order remanding the record to the Board for a clarification of its decision rendered on August 3, 2004 which was memorialized in a written Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on August 13, 2004.

Kenneth J. McGhie (Bar No. 385313)
D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
One Judiciary Square
441 4^th Street, N.W., Suite 270N
Washington D.C. 20001-2745

Ronald Drake, D.C. Against Slots, and D.C. Watch, Challengers,
v.
Citizens Committee for the D.C. Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2004, Proponents.

In an oral ruling of the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics ("the Board") rendered on August 3, 2004, as memorialized in a written Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on August 13, 2004, the Board concluded that the petition circulation process for the "Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2004" ("Initiative Measure No. 68") was so polluted by irregularities and improprieties as to warrant the rejection of signatures collected by Stars and Stripes, Inc., the primary petition drive subcontractor operating out of the Red Roof Inn hotel. Following an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Court, by Order entered on September 13, 2004, remanded the record to the Board for a clarification of the Board’s Opinion. Specifically, the Board was directed to address the question whether the Board’s finding regarding "false signings" is an independent basis – separate from its "false advertising" finding – upon which the Board intends its decision to invalidate the Stars and Stripes petition sheets to rest, and if so, the reasons why. (See Order at 5.) The Board was also invited to offer any additional explanation for the "exclusion of signatures gathered by particular Stars and Stripes circulators or sub-classes of such circulators in addition to those who testified or were named in testimony before the Board." (Id.) This Clarification Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Board’s response to the Court’s inquiries.

The Board’s finding regarding "false signings" is separate from its "false advertisement" finding and provides an independent basis on which the Board intends its decision to rest. Because of the pervasiveness of the irregularities associated with the "false signings" and the accompanying pollution of the process that those irregularities fostered, the Board’s decision invalidating the Stars and Stripes petition sheets rests independently on the finding regarding "false signings." The reasons, together with explanatory information regarding the justification for excluding Stars and Stripes circulators, are discussed below.

The Board attempted to subpoena 102 circulators, fifty-three of whom could not be served and sixteen of whom ultimately appeared before the Board. Of the sixteen subpoenaed circulator witnesses who appeared, twelve were from the Red Roof Inn operation. Of the twelve witnesses, eight testified of false signings; two witnesses asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and were not recalled; and two witnesses were found by the Board to have essentially complied with the "in the presence" component of the circulator affidavit requirement. Thus, ten of twelve – or 83% -- of the circulator witnesses who responded to the Board’s subpoena from the Red Roof Inn operation either testified about false signing irregularities in the petition circulation drive, or asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in connection with questions concerning the affidavit they had signed. All of these witnesses worked under the auspices of Stars and Stripes.

The fact that such a high percentage of the subpoenaed circulator witnesses who appeared before the Board from the Red Roof Inn operation testified to false signing irregularities or chose not to testify raised serious concerns regarding whether the irregularities were isolated instances confined to these individuals, or were indicative of a pervasive pattern of wrongdoing as the Challengers had alleged. The testimony of these individuals and others, together with relevant documentary and other evidence, confirmed that the wrongdoing went beyond the witnesses who testified and the three other individuals implicated by name in their testimony.

First, the Red Roof Inn circulator witnesses, whose testimony the Board credited, implicated not only the three specifically named individuals, but a much larger group of unnamed wrongdoers – thus forming the basis for the conclusion that the wrongdoing was not isolated, but systemic. For example, Tenisha Colbert stated that she had suggested to Mike Jones, a Stars and Stripes affiliate, that she sign someone else’s petition sheets because it was, in reality, a common practice. In this regard, she stated: "So, the D.C. residents were signing on the out-of-towners and they was getting other people to sign theirs. So, I figured it was okay, since everybody else was doing it." (BOEE Ex. 69 at 29, n.28; BOEE Ex. 6h at 27-28). Ms. Colbert further described the nature of this practice that she personally observed:

The practice of non-residents circulating petition sheets unaccompanied by a D.C. resident and then appearing at the Red Roof Inn at the end of the day to have their petition sheets witnessed by any D.C. resident who happened to be available was also reflected in the personal experience to which Antoine Jeffries testified. Mr. Jeffries, a D.C. resident who had no previous involvement in the petition circulation drive, but was simply present in the hotel room of Mike Jones when petition sheets were being turned in, stated that he was drafted to sign the sheets of two non-residents who had no D.C. resident witness to sign their petition sheets. (BOEE Ex. 6h at 58-63). Danielle Campbell testified about similar experiences:

(BOEE Ex. 6f at 304, 312-315). Andre Rempson also testified that he participated in this brand of false signing activity without even knowing whose petition sheets he was signing:

Other non-residents appeared to plan ahead in securing an "after-the-fact" D.C. resident witness. As reflected in the complaint of Angela Rooney, who wrote to the Board about her encounter with non-residents who were circulating petition sheets:

(Board Ex. 26 (Angela Rooney Complaint)). Complaints were also submitted by other individuals who encountered non-residents on the streets of the District of Columbia circulating petition sheets without a D.C. resident present or in close proximity. Board Exs. 1, 3; BOEE Ex. 69 at 32 (John Capozzi Complaints) Board Ex. 26 (J. Marcus Meeks and Norman L. Brown Complaints).

The evidence thus showed that this fraudulent practice, which yielded false affidavits that compromised the integrity of the petition circulation process, was not an isolated occurrence. To the contrary, the testimony of the individual witnesses, as well as other evidence, revealed that this was a well-known, common practice engaged in by non-residents, assisted by D.C. residents, and accomplished with the knowledge, direction, and active participation of at least one mid-level/supervisory affiliate of the Stars and Stripes organization to whom petition sheets were turned in. The seemingly common nature of this practice apparently was not lost on members of the Citizens Committee, who met to discuss "rumors of possibly non-D.C. residents petitioning" and responded with the drafting of a memorandum to "all petitioners." (Challengers’ Ex. 16; BOEE Ex. 6c at 319-320; 426).

Second, in addition to the foregoing, there was also other evidence which suggested that false signings extended beyond mere isolated occurrences. Among the many allegations of irregularities and improprieties asserted by the Challengers – all of which are properly considered in assessing the totality of the circumstances – there was one alleging that circulator affidavits had been altered. Fifty-four petition sheets were challenged on this basis, forty of which were conceded by the Citizens Committee. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 21 and nn.16, 17). The challenges to twelve of the remaining fourteen sheets were upheld by the Board. (BOEE 69 at 21 and n.18).

The fact that most of these challenged petition sheets were conceded does not obviate the underlying problem that a physical inspection of these sheets discloses. The altered sheets reveal that the signatures or printed names on the circulator affidavits were crossed out and another signature or name substituted. On seven of the sheets where the original signature can be discerned, Ray Kingsford’s name appears. This non-resident was the same Stars and Stripes affiliate whose petition sheets Danielle Campbell testified to having signed, notwithstanding that he had circulated the sheets outside of her presence. See BOEE Ex. 69 at 29. The Ray Kingsford example strongly suggests that some circulator affidavits were being altered in an attempt to conceal – through false affidavits – that non-residents were unlawfully circulating petition sheets. These altered petition sheets provide physical evidence of the "false signing" irregularities about which there was testimony.

Also of significance with respect to the Ray Kingsford example is the fact that this time, it was not Danielle Campbell whose name appeared on his petition sheet, but that of Hope Williams – a different D.C. resident. Consistent with the testimony, it is apparent that non-residents who were recruiting D.C. residents to engage in the "false signing" activity did not necessarily restrict themselves to a single D.C. resident. Indeed, the names of twenty-three different circulators appear as the replacements for the crossed-out signatures or names on the altered petition sheets. Only three (Tenisha Colbert, Gwendolyn Squirewell and Evelyn Gerst) overlapped with the individuals who appeared before the Board. This evidence further confirms that the false signing irregularities were not confined to those who appeared as witnesses at the Board proceeding.

It is this type and caliber of evidence that was presented to the Board in a virtually unbroken chain by the circulator witnesses from the Red Roof Inn operation during the course of the Board proceedings and that went to the "core" of the Challengers’ allegations. (See BOEE Ex. 69 at 25). In addition to this evidence, there were forgeries – another brand of "false signings" – about which some of the witnesses testified. There was also the evidence upon which the Board based its conclusion that the Red Roof Inn operation was "ripe for the types of improprieties and irregularities that occurred"; was "fraught with opportunities for abuse of the process, system and laws;" and "would encourage, on a systemic basis, the kinds of violations about which there was testimony." (BOEE Ex. 69 at 45, 50-51, 45-48 (excluding "false advertising" evidence)). Further, there was the fact that the Board was unable to locate, for purposes of serving subpoenas, fifty-three of the 102 potential circulator witnesses (over half), thus rendering these individuals unavailable to testify. Eight of these individuals – all of whom were the subject of allegations of wrongdoing by the Challengers – listed addresses that were either non-existent or premises that were abandoned. (See BOEE Ex. 69 at 47, n.45). When taken together, there was thus a wealth of evidence – independent of the "false advertising" finding – which supports the Board’s conclusion that "serious violations of law that cast doubt on the validity of the signatures gathered permeated and polluted the petition drive operation conducted from the Red Roof Inn" (BOEE Ex. 69 at 51), and upon which that conclusion rests.

In striking contrast to the steady flow of adverse evidence that was presented to the Board concerning the Red Roof Inn operation, and further reinforcing the strength of that adverse evidence was the "deafening silence" from the Citizens Committee. See BOEE Ex. 69 at 48. Simply stated, the Citizens Committee produced nothing to rebut the adverse evidence regarding the Red Roof Inn operation, although it had full opportunity to do so. The Citizens Committee produced no evidence in response to the testimony of the individual witnesses – choosing not to even cross-examine some, and failing to produce evidence even when the Board granted the Citizens Committee’s request to be allowed time to submit rebuttal evidence. Nor did the Citizens Committee produce any rebuttal to the evidence that there was a systemic pattern of wrongdoing that permeated the Red Roof Inn operation. (See BOEE Ex. 69 at 48-50).

The Citizens Committee was equally silent in response to the difficulty experienced by the Board in attempting to secure the appearance of D.C. resident circulator witnesses to testify before the Board. One would have expected that, having worked on the Citizens Committee’s behalf as circulators during the petition drive, and given that circulators are the individuals charged with vouching for the integrity of the process, the Citizens Committee would have secured the appearance of at least some of these witnesses to present favorable evidence – if such existed – regarding the signature gathering process that was being challenged. However, not a single such witness from the Red Roof Inn was produced by the Citizens Committee.

Similarly, there were several non-resident affiliates of the petition circulation companies who were implicated in the wrongdoing – indeed, as the ones who were responsible for directing the "false signing" activities. Having worked on behalf of the Citizens Committee, one would have expected that the Citizens Committee would have secured their appearance and the appearance of other non-resident "assistants" to defend their actions and the conduct of the petition drive generally. Once again, however, no such witnesses were produced by the Citizens Committee. Most notable in this regard was Mike Jones. Although Mr. Jones was identified as a principal player in alleged wrongdoing at the Red Roof Inn, and his photograph and subsequently his identity were disclosed from relatively early in the proceedings (BOEE Ex. 6e at 9-10), the Citizens Committee ultimately advised that, because he was employed on another job, he was unavailable to testify until August 3—the day on which the Board was statutorily required to render its ruling. (BOEE Ex 6i at 49-50, 136-142). Accordingly, neither Mr. Jones, now any of the other non-resident circulator or mid-level affiliates from the Red Roof Inn operation who were familiar with the details of the signature gathering process were produced by the Citizens Committee. In short, although counsel for the Citizens Committee asserted during his closing argument that the "incidents of fraud or forgery [were] not representative samples, but rather the working of individuals who acted for self in violation of the District laws and the committee’s procedures," (BOEE Ex. 6i at 225) the Citizens Committee failed to present any evidence to support this assertion.

It is, of course, well settled that the Challengers bear the burden of persuasion as to the claims that they asserted. (See D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 3 § 424.1 (1998).) Nonetheless, once the Challengers have satisfied their initial burden of production – as they did here – it is incumbent on the Proponents to come forward with rebuttal evidence, with the Challengers, of course, responsible for carrying their ultimate burden of proof. The Citizens Committee’s utter and complete lack of evidence to counter the Challengers’ claims of individual and pervasive wrongdoing in the Red Roof Inn operation rendered the evidence presented by the Challengers dispositive. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 48-50.)

Thus, the Board’s conclusion that "serious violations of law that cast doubt on the validity of the signatures gathered permeated and polluted the petition drive operation conducted from the Red Roof Inn" (BOEE Ex. 69 at 51) is well supported by the Board’s "false signings" finding – independent of its "false advertising" finding. The Board would, therefore, reach the same conclusion in the absence of the "false advertising" finding.

Based on the evidence presented which indicated that most of the improprieties and irregularities that polluted the Red Roof Inn operation appeared to be associated with Stars and Stripes, the Board concluded that "the clear evidence of wrongdoing was most concentrated and identifiable in the Stars and Stripes operation [.]"(BOEE Ex. 69 at 51), and thus focused on excluding only those petition sheets attributed to individuals who could be identified as working under the auspices of Stars and Stripes. Based on the documentation provided by the Citizens Committee, there are seventy-nine D.C. residents identified as working with Stars and Stripes.

All of the circulators identified as working with Stars and Stripes fall within the Challengers’ allegation that there was a pervasive pattern of fraud, forgeries and other improprieties that permeated the petition circulation process, as well as within the Board’s finding that such a pervasive pattern did, in fact, exist, which polluted the petition drive operation conducted by Stars and Stripes. The Board’s finding in this regard warrants the exclusion of all signatures collected by Stars and Stripes circulators.

This is not a case of isolated instances of wrongdoing, but rather a petition drive process that was polluted with irregularities and improprieties. The unrebutted evidence confirmed that fact. Indeed, the evidence showed that 83% of the subpoenaed circulators from the Red Roof Inn who came forward to testify – all of whom were from Stars and Stripes – testified to "false signings" in which they were involved or with which they were associated. Further, several of these witnesses testified not to individual acts of wrongdoing in an otherwise lawfully functioning system, but to an operation in which false signings were an established practice. This testimony was supported by written and oral complaints as well as by some of the petition sheets themselves. It was further supported by evidence that the petition drive was managed in such a manner and conducted in such a context as to facilitate and encourage precisely the types of irregularities and improprieties about which there was testimony. Given the evidence presented, the individuals who testified – far from representing isolated instances of wrongdoing – more likely represented examples of various ways in which the established pattern of "false signing" irregularities was manifested.

This type and consistent pattern of adverse evidence requires a response. However, the Citizens Committee provided none. The Citizens Committee provided no evidence which contradicted the individual acts of wrongdoing to which the witnesses testified. It provided no evidence to rebut the established practice of "false signings" in which Mike Jones was identified as playing a key role. It provided no evidence that contradicted the accounts presented by those who filed oral and/or written complaints. It provided no evidence to rebut the physical evidence presented by the altered circulator affidavits – indeed, it conceded the vast majority of those challenged sheets. And finally, it made no apparent effort to produce witnesses who could not be located through the Board’s subpoena process. As the Board found, there was a "deafening silence" in the face of the "indisputably troubling evidence of wrongdoing." (BOEE Ex. 69 at 48, 49). In the absence of rebuttal evidence which addresses the evidence of pervasive "false signing" irregularities, the taint on the entire Stars and Stripes process requires the rejection of all signatures associated therewith. (See Attachment A).

Against the backdrop of this evidence of pervasive wrongdoing, there were subcategories of Stars and Stripes circulators who had other disqualifying factors.

Some individuals attested in the circulator affidavit that they resided at a particular address that turned out to be a non-existent address or premises that were vacant or abandoned. In addition to the general taint from the pollution of the system, these individuals executed false circulator affidavits, which by itself is sufficient to invalidate the signatures (see Williams v. District of Columbia board of Elections and Ethics, 804 A.2d 316, 319 (D.C. App. 2002)(citing Brousseau v. Fitzgerald,, which provides that "the filing of a false affidavit by a circulator is a much more serious matter involving more than a technicality. The legislature has sought to protect the process by providing for some safeguards in the way nomination signatures are obtained and verified. Fraud in the certification destroys the safeguards unless there are strong sanctions for such conduct such as voiding of petitions with false certifications."); BOEE Ex. 69 at13-16)), and were also unavailable to testify because they could not be located, another ground for invalidating the signatures. See Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 196 (1999. The lack of a valid address also casts doubt on whether the person is, in fact, a resident of the District of Columbia. (See also D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(h)(1)(circulator affidavit must contain the residence address of the circulator); Attachment A at Section A.)

The signatures of some individuals appeared on circulator affidavits in which the signature or printed name of the original signer was crossed out and the individual’s name was replaced. In addition to the general taint from the pollution of the system, this alteration raised questions as to the identity of the actual circulator and the likelihood, given other evidence presented, that the D.C. resident signer was executing a false affidavit on a petition sheet that was circulated by another individual, including a non-resident. The evidence of wrongdoing with respect to the altered affidavits casts doubt on the veracity of other petition sheets circulated by these individuals. In addition these individuals were unavailable to testify because they either failed to appear after being properly served, or could not be located. These various factors provide more than ample basis to invalidate the signatures on their petition sheets. (See Attachment A at Section B.)

Some individuals were alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing involving forgeries, altered affidavits, etc., but were unavailable to testify because they either failed to appear after being properly served, or could not be located. In a context, as here, where the Challengers have offered considerable probative and unrebutted evidence of wrongdoing by other individuals, together with evidence that such wrongdoing is systemic, the Citizens Committee cannot be allowed to stand on the challenged affidavit. The unavailability of the witness provides a justifiable basis, in this context, to invalidate the signatures. (See Attachment A at Section C.)

The testimony revealed that Stars and Stripes was the predominant subcontractor operating from the Red Roof Inn hotel. Nonetheless, only 79 circulators could be identified from the documents provided by the Citizens Committee as working under the auspices of Stars and Stripes. The affiliation for approximately 167 circulators could not be determined from the documentation provided; thus, their petition sheets and accompanying signatures were not excluded.

The large number of circulators in the "unaffiliated" category, due to inadequacies in the documentation, is significant in that many of those individuals had the same disqualifying factors discussed above. Nonetheless, because they could not be linked through the documentation to Stars and Stripes, the Board did not exclude those signatures. (See Attachment B.)

I hereby certify that on this 20^th day of September, 2004, the foregoing Respondent’s Clarification Memorandum Opinion was served via facsimile or e-mail on the following parties:

George Jones, Jr., Esq.
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20005
gjones@sidley.com

John L. Ray, Esq.
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
700 12^th Street ,N.W., Suite 1100
Washington D.C. 20005-4075
Fax #: 202.585.6600

Erik S. Jaffe, Esq.
Law Office of Erik S. Jaffe. P.C.
5101 34^th Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20008
Jaffe@esjpc.com

Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area
1400 20^th Street, N.W. #119
Washington, D.C. 20036
ArtSpitzer@aol.com

Ronald L. Drake, Esq., Pro Se
5 P Street, S.W.
Washington D.C. 20024
Fax #: 202.554.3313

Dorothy Brizill
DC Watch
1327 Girard Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20009
Dorothy@dcwatch.com

* This individual is also subject to allegations of forgery.
** This individual also participated in alteration of affidavits.

Larry Fisher 19 (No Apt. Number)
Tyrone Hodges 13 (Unable to gain access into Bldg.)
Robert Howard* 114 (Halfway House)
Antoine Walker** -- (Abandoned Home)

* This individual is also subject to allegations of forgery.
** This individual also submitted a false declaration of residence address.

	Reason for Challenge
Stephen Jones	Affidavit Forgeries	288
Annitta Riddick	Affidavit Forgeries	10
Rickey Satterthwaite*	Altered Affidavit	76
Randolph Green	Petition Forgeries	111
Sheila Washington	Affidavit Forgery	40
Gerald Williams	Affidavit Forgery	28

	Reason for Challenge
Cynthia Allen*	Petition Forgeries	--	(Abandoned shelter)
Paul Belt	Affidavit Forgeries	147	(No longer lives there)
Patricia Boggs	Affidavit Forgeries	113	(No longer lives there)
Lionell Butler	Residency Questioned	205	(Church)
Doris Jean Clark	Affidavit Forgeries	86	(No Apt. Number)
Alan Clipper	Residency Questioned	12	(Vacant house)
Rose Daniels	Affidavit & Petition Forg.	230	(Unable to gain access)
Alvina Edwards	Residency Questioned	232	(No access to building)
Thomas Green	Petition Forgeries	103	(Shelter)
Phillip Howard	Residency Questioned	8	(Unable to gain access)
Angela Jackson	Affidavit Forgeries	165	(Shelter)
Scott Smith	Affidavit Forg.	56	(Shelter)
Latawrang Jumhariyah	Altered Affidavit	72	(Shelter)
Donnell Sweat	Affidavit Forgery	111	(No Apt. Number)

Michael Alston 17
Anthony Braxton 18
Shaunita Brown 13
Carrie Bryson 10
Cheryl Chambers 15
Darius Clarke 32
John Costes 27
Jonathan Earnshaw 16
Howard Franklin 27
Kevin Harris 6
Gregory Hudson 23
Allen Jones 111
Bennie Lawson 7
Ernest Mckee 31
Sylvester Miller 2
Erika Pereira 15
Kevin Charles Patrick (Pedrick) 89
Christopher Peterson 14
Peggy Porter 37
Sheldon Quick 31
Ezekiel Raspberry 59
Ramona Ross 6
William Self 10
Steven Stroman 42
Charles Thornton 66
NiDasiriDa Vitashada 5
Alonzo Williams 8
Arnita Williams 1
Arthur Williams 39
Harold Williamson 15
Clifton Wilson 7
Samuel Young 4
Ronald Bradley 46
James Chasia 6
Dorothy Douglas 88
Barbara Hailes-Payne 35

Total Number of Verified Voters Stricken: 978
Total Number of Signatures Remaining: 15,575

* This individual was found by the Board to have complied with the "in the presence" requirement.

Charles Massenburg 63
Rommel McBride* 7
Clearness Shedrick 26
Hewitt Williams* 34
Jade Beckett 84
Vanessa Afolayan* 144

1. Hope Williams is purported to have signed petition sheets originally signed by Ray Kingsford, a non-resident Stars and Stripes circulator. These altered petition sheets that were conceded by the Petitioners were 2889, 2507, 3191, 2145, 2159, 2822, 1449, 1466, 3465, 3320, 3296, and 3192. An additional 201 signatures, however, were attributable to Ms. Williams but not excluded.

2. These individuals are also subject to allegations of other types of wrongdoing.

	Reason for Challenge
Douglas Avery	Petition Forgery	(No Apt. Number)	91
Michael Brown	Petition Forgery	(Does Not Live There)	97
Oscar Brown	Altered Affidavit	(Shelter)	8
Renee Brown	False Cert. Of Address	(No Apt. Number)	28
Teresa Buchanan	Affidavit Forgery	(Mother Wouldn’t Accept)	69
Penta Burgess, Jr.	False Cert. Of Address	(Church/Salvation Army)	25
Robert Contee	False Cert. Of Address	(Out Of Town)	1
Cassandra Harris	Affidavit Forgery	(Shelter)	239
Darrell Hartley	Affidavit Forgery	(Church)	315
Gregory Marsh	Affidavit Forgery	(No Apt. Number)	50
Arlene Ng	Petition Forgery	(No Apt. Number)	300
Gilbert Petty	Petition Forgery	(Rehab Center)	15
Dave Rowell	Petition Forgery	(No Apt. Number)	167
Nicole Scott	Altered Affidavit	(Vacant Home)	70
Gregory Sims	Affidavit Forgery	(Does Not Live There)	33
Deloris Smith	Affidavit Forgery	(Does Not Live There)	401
Edward Swails	Affidavit Forgery	(Rehab Center)	358
James Taylor	Affidavit Forgery	(Shelter)	334
Tracy Washington	False Cert. Of Address	(Shelter)	116
Anthony Wiggins	Affidavit Forgery	(No Access To Bldg.)	97
Montrell Williams	False Cert. Of Address	(Church)	79
Terrence Wilson	Affidavit Forgery	(Shelter)	15

Total Number of Signatures: 2,908
Total Number Of Signatures In Categories A, B, and C: 3,904

DC Board of Elections and Ethics
Clarification Memorandum Opinion on Initiative 68 submitted to DC Court of Appeals
September 20, 2004

CLARIFICATION MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Independent Nature of the "False Signings" Finding

Rationale for Exclusion of Signatures

The Pollution of the Petition Drive Process

"Pollution Plus"

Signatures Not Excluded

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

DC Board of Elections and Ethics Clarification Memorandum Opinion on Initiative 68 submitted to DC Court of Appeals September 20, 2004