SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
DOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, (202)
234-6982,
THELMA JONES, 2217 T Place, SE, Washington, D.C. 20020, (202) 678-8194,
ANTHONY MUHAMMAD, 1609 21st Place, SE, Washington, D.C. 20020, (202)
359-3517
Plaintiffs
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 250,
Washington, DC 20001
Serve: KENNETH J. McGHIE, General Counsel, Defendant
and
BARRY JERRELS, et al., Intervenor/Defendant
Civil Action No. 2006 CA 003939 B
Calendar 14
Next Event: Initial Conference
(9/15/06)
Judge Judith E. Retchin
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS
Notice is hereby given that Dorothy Brizill, Thelma Jones, and Anthony
Muhammad appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from the
order of this court entered on the 8th day of June, 2006, which is
attached to this notice.
Dorothy Brizill, pro se
Thelma Jones, pro se
Anthony Muhammad, pro se
June 12, 2006
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
DOROTHY BRIZILL, 1327 Girard Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, (202)
234-6982,
THELMA JONES, 2217 T Place, SE, Washington, D.C. 20020, (202) 678-8194,
ANTHONY MUHAMMAD, 1609 21st Place, SE, Washington, D.C. 20020, (202)
359-3517
Plaintiffs
V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 250,
Washington, DC 20001
Serve: KENNETH J. McGHIE, General Counsel, Defendant
and
BARRY JERRELS, et al., Intervenor/Defendant
Civil Action No. 2006 CA 003939 B
Calendar 14
Next Event: Initial Conference
(9/15/06)
Judge Judith E. Retchin
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS
The plaintiffs herein set forth the points and authorities in support
of their notice of appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
filed today.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On April 10, 2006, Barry E. Jerrels (the initiative’s proponent)
submitted a proposed initiative to the Board entitled the "Video
Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2006." (The title of the initiative
was amended by the Board to the "Video Lottery Terminal Gambling
Initiative of 2006.") As proposed, the initiative would amend the
"Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and
Raffles for Charitable Purposes," (D.C. Official Code §3-1301 et
seq.) to authorize the licensing of video lottery terminals (more commonly
called "slot machines" and hereinafter also called "slot
machines"). The initiative would mandate that the Lottery Board of
the District of Columbia issue the initial license for a slot machine
casino to the person who owns or controls three specified lots in Square
5770 at the intersection of Good Hope Road and Martin Luther King Avenue
in the historic Anacostia neighborhood of the District of Columbia. The
initiative also provides for a procedure to license additional casinos
throughout the District of Columbia.
2. The Board of Elections and Ethics advertised notice of a public
hearing to determine whether the initiative would be a proper subject for
an initiative in the D.C. Register, the official legal bulletin of the
District of Columbia, on April 21, 2006. In the same issue of the D.C.
Register, it published the Short Title Summary Statement, and Legislative
Text of the initiative and gave notice that it would hold a hearing on the
Short Title, Summary Statement, and Legislative Text immediately following
its approval of the initiative as a proper subject for an initiative.
3. Under District law, the Board is charged with determining whether a
proposed measure is a proper subject for a voter initiative pursuant to
criteria prescribed by statute. To that end, the Board must reject any
proposed initiative that is contrary to the terms of the Home Rule Act,
seeks to amend the Home Rule Act, would appropriate funds, would violate
the U.S. Constitution, is not in compliance with the Office of Campaign
Finance filing requirements, is not in the proper legislative form, would
unlawfully discriminate, or would negate or limit a budget act.
4. At its hearing on May 3, 2006, the Board approved the initiative as
a proper subject for an initiative.
5. Public notice of the Board’s actions at the May 3, 2006, meeting
was subsequently published in the D.C. Register on May 12, 2006.
Plaintiffs filed a timely Complaint in the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia on May 22, 2006, within 10 days of publication, under D.C.
Code §11001.16(e)(1)(A).
6. The Superior Court received a Motion to Dismiss from the defendant,
the DC Board of Elections and Ethics; a Motion to Intervene from the
proponent of the initiative, Barry Jerrels; and a Motion to Dismiss from
the Intervenor/Defendant. It granted the Motion to Intervene, and allowed
plaintiffs to file an Amended Motion in Opposition to the Motions to
Dismiss. No court hearing was held.
7. On June 8, 2006, the Superior Court issued an order (Attachment A)
granting the defendant’s and intervenor/defendant’s Motions to Dismiss
and notified the parties by postal mail.
8. The plaintiffs are appealing that order as a matter of right under
the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Title 2, "Appeals from Orders
and Judgments of the Superior Court," Rule 3.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did, this day, June 12, 2006, personally
deliver a copy of this Notice of Appeal to:
Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel
District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 727-2194
and to attorney for intervenor/defendant Barry Jerrels:
Jeffrey D. Robinson, Esq.
Baach Robinson & Lewis, PLLC
1201 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004-1225
(202) 833-8900
Dorothy Brizill |
