Timeline of Initiative Events
Summer of 1998: A coalition of local AIDS activists submits the required number of signatures of D.C. registered voters to qualify a medical marijuana initiative for the November 1998 ballot. If enacted, the local law would protect marijuana-using patients from arrest and imprisonment.
October 1998: Congress passes a federal law prohibiting the local D.C. government from spending any money to process the medical marijuana ballot initiative.
November 1998: Because the D.C. government had already printed the ballots prior to Congress' spending ban, the medical marijuana question appears on the D.C. ballot — but the D.C. government feels that it cannot legally count or release the vote tallies.
September 1999: Responding to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal judge rules that Congress' October 1998 law does not prevent the D.C. government from counting and releasing the vote tallies. The vote is released three days later, showing that 69 percent of D.C. voters had passed the ballot measure.
November 1999: Using its authority to oversee the affairs and laws of D.C., Congress overturns the local medical marijuana law before it takes effect. In addition, Congress passes the Barr Amendment which prevents the D.C. government from spending any money in the future to "enact or carry out" any local law that would reduce the penalties for marijuana.
July 2001: Seeking no publicity, the Marijuana Policy Project submits a new medical marijuana initiative to the D.C. government, in the hope of placing it on the November 2002 ballot.
December 14, 2001: The D.C. government responds by saying that the congressional ban prevents it from spending any money in connection with MPP's proposed initiative, and therefore the D.C. government cannot provide MPP with the petitions that MPP needs to place the question onto the local ballot.
December 18, 2001: MPP sues the D.C. government and the federal government in federal court, arguing that the federal spending ban violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the ban allows D.C. to increase but not decrease the penalties for marijuana. This is viewpoint discrimination. Some would say that it is analogous to the federal government saying that D.C. citizens can elect their choice of Republicans to office, but not Democrats or Libertarians.
January 3, 2002: MPP's Rob Kampia files an affidavit asking the federal court to rule quickly on the lawsuit, in order to give MPP time to collect signatures for the ballot measure in the spring.
January 18, 2002: Five City Council members — Jim Graham, Sandy Allen, Phil Mendelson, Kathleen Patterson, and Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp — file affidavits in federal court that are sympathetic to MPP's lawsuit.
February 25, 2002: Federal court hears oral arguments on the case, whereby MPP's attorneys debate the constitutionality of the Barr Amendment with lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department.
March 28, 2002: The federal court rules in MPP's favor.
May 20, 2002: Five local D.C. activists take MPP to court, arguing that D.C. citizens should not be permitted to vote on MPP's initiative because it supposedly discriminates on the basis of disability in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
June 7, 2002: MPP wins the disability lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court, allowing the Board of Elections and Ethics to print the petitions to put the medical marijuana initiative on the ballot.
June 13 to July 8, 2002: Volunteers and others gather 39,000 signatures in the District.
September 16, 2002: The Board of Elections and Ethics informs MPP that Initiative 63 has enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
September 19, 2002: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reinstates the Barr Amendment, preventing the D.C. Initiative from appearing on the ballot.
