Jun 26, 2009  |  By: Lou Chibbaro Jr.  | COMMENTS     

Attorneys for a minister seeking a voter referendum to overturn the District’s same-sex marriage recognition law are asking a D.C. judge to issue an injunction to suspend the July 6 deadline for meeting all the referendum’s requirements, including the submission of 21,000 valid petition signatures.

The attorneys representing Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of Hope Christian Church in Maryland and six others who proposed the referendum told D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Retchin at a hastily called hearing June 18 that their clients face an unfair litany of requirements to place the marriage law on the ballot. They said the July 6 deadline should therefore be suspended.

“Given that July 6, 2009, is only two weeks away, it simply is not feasible for the proponents to complete this judicial review process and all other required steps for a referendum before the act becomes law,” Jackson’s attorney stated in a brief filed Monday.

“Accordingly, unless this court enters an injunction staying the effective date of the act, the people of D.C. will be deprived of their right to vote on the critical public policy issue of whether D.C. should defer to the laws of states and foreign countries regarding what constitutes a marriage,” says the brief.

The attorneys were referring to the Jury & Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, the law passed by the D.C. Council on May 6 that allows the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.

Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the law the following day, triggering the process of sending it to Capitol Hill for its required congressional review of 30 legislative days.

Attorneys representing the city and a local gay rights group voiced strong objections to postponing the referendum deadline and vowed to file strongly worded motions opposing any stay order.

Retchin initially called the June 18 hearing to schedule the filing of briefs and possible oral arguments surrounding a lawsuit that Jackson and the other referendum backers filed one day earlier to appeal a June 15 decision by the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics that denied Jackson’s referendum petition. The board ruled that the proposed referendum could not be held because, if approved by voters, the resulting ban on same-sex marriage recognition would violate a provision of the city’s Human Rights Act prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“At the hearing, they conceded they were out of time to get the needed requirements for a referendum by the July 6 deadline,” said gay rights attorney Mark Levine. He filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a local LGBT group that opposes the referendum.

Steven Aden, a senor legal counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund and the lead attorney representing Jackson and the referendum backers, did not return a call seeking comment.

Referendum law requires, among other things, that people who propose a referendum obtain board approval affirming the issue to be a proper subject for a referendum. Because the board denied approval, referendum supporters were forced to file a court appeal, a process that is expected to take at least a week.

In the event that referendum supporters win the appeal, they must next obtain board approval of the referendum’s specific wording. The board is required under the referendum law to provide a 10-day period for public comment on the wording of the measure, after which the board must issue a decision to approve or propose a change in the wording.

Following that, backers of the referendum must obtain about 21,000 valid petition signatures. These and other hurdles, including a public hearing on the wording of the referendum, must be completed between the time the City Council passed and the mayor signed the marriage law and the time Congress completes its review of the law.

City officials and Capitol Hill observers expect the congressional review to be completed July 6.

Levine called the request for a stay of the referendum deadline an unprecedented development that, if approved by the court, would overturn a key provision the city’s referendum law, which was approved by the D.C. City Council in the late 1970s and cleared by Congress.

“They want the court to upend the entire referendum law,” Levine said. “The effect would be to change the [D.C.] Home Rule Act.”

According to Levine, Retchin said she did not know if she had legal authority to approve such a request. He said the judge instructed Jackson’s attorneys to file a motion explaining their legal rationale for such a stay order.

Levine noted that Jackson and the other referendum supporters waited 16 days ...