HARRY JACKSON, et al., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, et al., Respondents., 2009 D.C. Super. LEXIS 9

Summary

The individuals sought to have the voters of the District decide whether the District should recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. The Board found that the proposed referendum would violate the District Human Rights Act (DCHRA). The individuals sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to accept their proposed referendum. The Dean decision did not support the individuals' argument that their proposed referendum was consistent with the DCHRA. The individuals argued unsuccessfully that their proposed referendum does not discriminate against same-sex couples--in violation of the DCHRA--because there was no material District benefit that marriage status afforded, that domestic partnership status did not. The individuals failed to show that they were entitled to injunctive relief. The court questioned whether it had the authority to stay the JMA's effective date. To do so might encroach on the well-defined role of the District of Columbia City Council and Congress.