Harry R. JACKSON, Jr., et al., Appellants,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Appellee, and District of Columbia, Intervenor-Appellee.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued en banc May 4, 2010.
Decided July 15, 2010.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Austin R. Nimocks, Biloxi, MS, with whom Timothy J. Tracey and Cleta Mitchell, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellants.
Rudolph McGann filed a brief for appellee.
Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General for the District of Columbia, with whom Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, and Stacy L. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for intervenor-appellee.
D. Jean Veta, Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Paul A. Ainsworth, Anne Y. Lee, Washington, DC, Richard Anthony Lopez and Jonathan Herczeg, Washington, DC, filed an amicus curiae brief for Trevor S. Blake, II, Jeff Krehely, Amy Hinze-Pifer, Rebecca Hinze-Pifer, Thomas F. Metzger, Vincent N. Micone, III, Reginald Stanley, Rocky Galloway, D.C. Clergy United, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and the Campaign for All DC Families, in support of appellees.
Miriam R. Nemetz and Jasmin Sethi, Washington, DC, filed an amicus curiae brief for the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Association of Social Workers, Virginia Chapter, the National Association of Social Workers, District of Columbia Chapter and the National Association of Social Workers, Maryland Chapter, supporting appellees.
Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, and RUIZ, REID, GLICKMAN, KRAMER, FISHER, BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, THOMPSON and OBERLY, Associate Judges.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
THOMPSON, Associate Judge:
The specific issue before us in this appeal is whether the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (the "Board") acted lawfully when it rejected appellants' proposed initiative measure on the ground that the measure would authorize, or have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act, and therefore was not a proper subject of initiative. As will be seen...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.