Washington, D.C., $15 per hour Minimum Wage Initiative (November 2016)

• Text of measure
  • Summary statement
  • Full text
• Support
• Opposition
• Path to the ballot
  • Lawsuit
  • Attorney General intervention
• Background
• Related links
  • Related measures
  • Recent news
  • Related elections
  • External links
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Washington, D.C., Minimum Wage Initiative
The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
Not on the ballot
Topic:
Local wages and pay
Related articles
Local wages and pay on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in Washington, D.C. Local Ballot Measures Local ballot measures, Washington, D.C.
See also
Washington, D.C. Municipal elections in Washington, D.C. (2016)

A $15 per hour minimum wage measure, which was called "the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2016" by petitioners, was not put on the ballot for voters in Washington, D.C., on November 8, 2016. Upon the approval of an ordinance by the city council designed to increase the city's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020, supporters of this minimum wage initiative abandoned the effort to put this measure on the ballot.

This initiative was designed to increase the city's minimum wage to $12.50 in July 2017 and increase the minimum wage each year after that until the city's minimum wage became $15 per hour by July 2020. It was also designed to increase the base minimum wage for tipped workers to at least $15 per hour by 2025.

Overview

The city council's minimum wage ordiance

On June 7, 2016, the D.C. Council voted unanimously to approve an ordinance designed to increase the city's minimum wage for non-tipped workers to $15 per hour by 2020 and to increase the minimum base wage for tipped workers to $5 per hour by the same year. Part of this compromise between unions, labor advocates, and the city council included the abandonment of efforts to put the $15 per hour minimum wage citizen initiative on the ballot. City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said, "It should be clear on the record that [dropping the ballot initiative] is an element in the understanding here."

Delvone Michael, director of D.C. Working Families, a group that backed the initiative petition campaign, said, "A year ago, this would have been unthinkable. Not only that the Council would vote unanimously to increase the minimum wage, but that the restaurant industry and business community would come along. It's a testament to the grassroots organizing and hard work [our campaign] did."

Critics of the city council's ordinance argued that it was not enough of an increase for tipped workers, such as waiters and baristas. The city council's ordinance was written to increase the minimum base wage of tipped workers to $5 per hour by 2020. The citizen initiative, however, was designed to increase the base minimum wage for tipped workers to at least $15 per hour by 2025. These opponents called the council's ordinance a bad compromise. Saru Jayaraman, who co-founded the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, called the ordinance a "disgrace," and Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said that it was "disappointing that city leadership as progressive and diverse as D.C.’s would not do more" for tipped workers in the city. Concerning these criticisms of the tipped worker minimum wage, Delvone Michael said, "It could have been worse. There was support inside the Council for a much lower number [than $5 per hour]. I think everyone’s a bit uneasy. That’s the nature of compromise."

Lawsuit

The initiative was originally blocked from the ballot by a judicial ruling. Proponents appealed the ruling that invalidated the initiative and ultimately the court sided with them, allowing the signature gathering effort to continue.

This measure was designed to increase the city's minimum wage to $12.50 per hour in 2017. Under the initiative, the minimum wage would then increase annually until it reached $15 per hour in 2020, after which the minimum wage would be adjusted each year according to increases in the cost of living. The initiative was also designed to increase the minimum wage of tipped employees to $15 per hour by 2025. The minimum wage in Washington, D.C., was $10.50 per hour in 2015. It was set to increase to $11.50 per hour in 2016.

The court decision that originally invalidated this initiative was based on the expired terms of the members of the city's board of elections. Since all of the members' terms had expired in 2014 or before, the judge's ruling potentially cast into doubt the validity of 2014 and 2015 city elections, which could have undermined the mayor, seven city council members, and Initiative 71, the marijuana legalization measure approved in 2014.

Minimum wage increase as a national agenda

See also: Using local measures to advance national agendas

Increasing the minimum wage is part of the political discussion at the state and federal levels of government. This high-profile and significant measure was important to large-scale advocates on both sides of the debate, including the D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party, which backed this measure, and the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the initiative and backed the lawsuit against it. As such, it formed a key example of a national agenda being advanced through a local ballot measure battle. This use of local ballot measures to advance larger interests was a key narrative in local U.S. politics in 2016.

Text of measure

Summary statement

The following is a statement summarizing the initiative:

“

This initiative would raise D.C.’s minimum wage to $12.50 per hour in July 2017, and then raise it each year after that until it reaches $15.00 per hour in July 2020; after that it would apply D.C.’s existing requirement that the minimum wage be adjusted each year to match the rising cost of living. It would also gradually raise the minimum wage employers have to pay employees who receive tips until it matches the full minimum wage by July 2025. These increased minimum wage levels would not apply to employees of the D.C. government or of D.C. government contractors.

”

Full text

The full legislative text of the proposed initiative is below:

“

Section 1. Section 4 of the Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992, effective March 25, 1993 (D.C. Law 9-248; D.C. Official Code § 32-1003), as amended by the Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2013 (D.C. Law 20-459) is further amended as follows: Paragraph (6) of subsection (a) is amended to read as follows: (6) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2017, the minimum wage required to be paid to any employee by any employer in the District of Columbia shall be not less than $12.50 an hour. Subsection (a) is further amended by adding new paragraphs (7), (8), (9) and (10) to read as follows: (7) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2018, the minimum wage required to be paid to any employee by any employer in the District of Columbia shall be not less than $13.25 an hour. (8) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2019, the minimum wage required to be paid to any employee by any employer in the District of Columbia shall be not less than $14.00 an hour. (9) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2020, the minimum wage required to be paid to any employee by any employer in the District of Columbia shall be not less than $15.00 an hour. (10)(A) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, beginning on July 1, 2021 and no later than July 1 of each successive year, the minimum wage provided in this subsection shall be increased in proportion to the annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the previous calendar year. Any increase under this paragraph shall be adjusted to the nearest multiple of $.05. (B) The Mayor shall publish in the District of Columbia Register and make available to employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate as provided in this paragraph. The bulletin shall be published at least 30 days before the annual minimum wage rate adjustment. Show more Subsection (f) is amended by redesignating subsection (f) thereof as subsection (f)(1) and adding to subsection (f) the following new paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) to read as follows: (2) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2017, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $4.50 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (3) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2018, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $6.00 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (4) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2019, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $7.50 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (5) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2020, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $9.00 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (6) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2021, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $10.50 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (7) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2022, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $12.00 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (8) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2023, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $13.50 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (9) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2024, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than $15.00 an hour, provided that the employee actually receives gratuities in an amount at least equal to the difference between the hourly wage paid and the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. (10) Except as provided in subsections (h) and (i) of this section, as of July 1, 2025, the minimum wage required to be paid by any employer in the District of Columbia to any employee who receives gratuities shall be not less than the minimum wage as set by subsection (a) of this section. A new subsection (i) is added to read as follows: (i) The provisions of paragraphs (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of subsection (a) of this section, and the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of subsection (f) of this section shall not apply to employees of the District of Columbia, or to employees employed to perform services provided under contracts with the District of Columbia. Such employees shall continue to be subject to the minimum wage requirements of the Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992, effective March 25, 1993 (D.C. Law 9-248; D.C. Official Code §§ 32-1003, et. seq.), as amended by the Enhanced Professional Security Amendment Act of 2008, effective March 20, 2008 (D.C. Law 17-114), as amended by the Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2013 (D.C. Law 20-459), as they existed prior to the effective date of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2016, and to the requirements of all other applicable laws, regulations or policies relating to wages or benefits, including but not limited to, the Living Wage Act of 2006, effective June 8, 2006 (D.C. Law 16-118; D.C. Official Code §§ 2-220.1, et seq.).” Section 3. Nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing the Council of the District of Columbia from increasing minimum wages or benefits to levels in excess of those provided for in this Act for any category of employees, including but not limited to those employees described in D.C. Official Code section 32-1003(i) as added by this Act. Section 4. If any section of this act or its application to any persons or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this measure, or the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected. To this end, the provisions of this act are severable. Section 5. This act shall take effect after a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act (Home Rule Act), approved December 24, 1971 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code §1-206.02(c)(1)).

”

Support

The D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party backed this initiative.

Delvone Michael, director of the D.C. Working Families Party, said, “People should not work a full-time job and live in poverty."

Opposition

The D.C. Chamber of Commerce opposed this initiative, and Harry Wingo, the president of the chamber, filed the lawsuit against the initiative.

Background

The big picture

See also: Using local measures to advance national agendas

Voting on Minimum Wage
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Labor and unions Local wages and pay

Local politics has always been affected by larger agendas and issues, as well as outside interests and funding. In local ballot measure races, the influence of state or national interests on local issues has been brought into sharp relief when advocates for certain statewide and national agendas or outside corporations back local measures. As this occurs more frequently and in races that garner national attention, the use of local ballot measures to advance a statewide or national agenda has become an important narrative in U.S. politics.

Path to the ballot

Petitioners needed to collect 23,200 valid signatures—5 percent of the city's active voters—by early July 2016 to qualify this initiative for the election ballot on November 8, 2016. Before petitioners could circulate the initiative to collect signatures, the petition language had to be approved by the District of Columbia Board of Elections. The board of elections approved the minimum wage petition language on July 22, 2015, although the board was required to reapprove the petition language after a lawsuit.

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Signature validity and ballot language; whether the petition language was misleading and whether the expired terms of the D.C. Board of Elections invalidated the board's certification of the initiative petition for circulation.
Court: Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Ruling: The court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, invalidating the petition, but the ruling was ultimately reversed to allow the initiative petitioners to continue to collect signatures.
Plaintiff(s): Harry Wingo, who was president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce at the time	Defendant(s): D.C. Board of Elections, the D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party (by intervention), and the D.C. Attorney General
Plaintiff argument: The petition language for the initiative was misleading and the members of the board of elections—which certified the initiative for circulation—all had expired terms, invalidating the initiative petition.	Defendant argument: The petition language was accurate; the board of elections was, by precedent, supposed to serve until replaced by new board members; and the plaintiff's argument cast doubt on the legitimacy of the previous mayoral and city council elections, as well as the approval of Initiative 71 in 2014.

  Source: NBC Washington

This lawsuit was ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating this initiative. Initiative proponents appealed the decision, and the D.C. attorney general filed a motion to intervene because of the court case's implications concerning the validity of past city elections. Ultimately, the appeal was ruled in favor of initiative proponents and the D.C. attorney general, allowing the proponents to continue gathering signatures for the initiative. Details are below.

Arguments

Misleading language

Harry Wingo

Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit against the city's board of elections and ethics seeking an injunction to keep the initiative off the ballot. The lawsuit claimed that the petition language's description of the initiative as a proposal to "gradually increase" the city's minimum wage was misleading. The lawsuit, citing exceptions in the initiative for certain government contractors, claimed, “By mandating increases in the wages of some, but not all, employees in the District of Columbia, the initiative arbitrarily and unfairly discriminates."

Delvone Michael responded to the lawsuit by saying, “These are the same arguments they threw at the Board of Elections earlier this summer, and the board ruled against them. Our opponents feel they can’t beat us at the ballot box so they’re trying to take us to court. But the suit is baseless.”

Board of elections

In December 2015, Wingo's lawyers filed another argument in the lawsuit against the city's board of elections focusing on the expired terms of the board members. According to the city charter, board members are supposed to serve three-year terms, after which new board members are to be appointed by the mayor. All three of the board members that certified the minimum wage initiative for the ballot had been serving for more than three years. The terms of the board members, Deborah Nichols, Devarieste Curry, and Stephen Danzansky, expired in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. Wingo's lawsuit argued that this invalidated any action by the board of elections after their terms had expired. This argument brought into question the validity of not only the certification of the minimum wage initiative for the ballot but also the certification of the 2014 and 2015 municipal elections, which included Initiative 71, the marijuana legalization initiative, and the election of Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) and seven city council members.

The attorney representing the board of elections argued that, because the board is an independent agency, any decisions made by the board of elections remain valid until the board members are replaced, regardless of expired terms. Section 3(c) of Part F of the city charter—entitled "Independent Agencies"—states:

“

A member may be reappointed, and, if not reappointed, the member shall serve until his successor has been appointed and qualifies.

”

Response by Initiative 71 petitioner

Adam Eidinger, who chaired the DC Cannabis Campaign and also worked on the campaign for this minimum wage initiative, defended the validity of Initiative 71, saying, “We did everything by the book. We turned in 56,000 signatures. They were vetted by the staff, who are not appointed by the Board of Elections. The idea that the three-member panel, which gives the final stamp of approval is somehow crucial to the integrity of the election is false. What is crucial is whether we went by the campaign rules. And we did.”

Ruling

Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Ross presided over this case. On January 29, 2016, he ruled in favor of Harry Wingo and against initiative proponents and the board of elections. Judge Ross admitted that his decision could cast doubt on the validity of past city elections. He said, “The Board of Elections argument is that [saying these members’ terms have expired] makes everything in the past four years go to chaos. That may be."

Responses

Delvone Michael, the director of D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party, responded to the ruling by saying, "The Chamber of Commerce is willing to blow up democracy just to keep wages low. Today's outrageous ruling asserts that we do not have the right to determine our own destiny in the District of Columbia. But the fight for a fair, $15 minimum wage has only just begun. And this ruling might slow us down, but it won't stop us, and the right of the people to decide the kind of city we deserve will not be delayed for long. We'll be appealing soon, and we know justice will prevail."

Wingo said, "I'm encouraged by today's decision. It was made possible by business community support and solid legal work."

Appeal and attorney general intervention

The D.C. branch of the Working Families Party, which backed the initiative, appealed the ruling that invalidated this initiative.

Moreover, on February 2, 2016, the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia filed a motion to intervene in the case. This motion was designed to allow the attorney general to represent the district and the public interests that could be affected by the case, especially with regard to the case's implications regarding the validity of past city elections. The attorney general's motion stated, “The citizens of the District of Columbia have an undeniable interest in the disposition of this dispute, not only for the opportunity to vote on the Initiative Measure but to ensure that the Board’s business may continue uninterrupted and without the cloud of doubt a ruling in plaintiff’s favor might create. And a ruling that the Board was improperly constituted when it accepted Initiative Measure No. 76 has potential to ripple far beyond this lawsuit.” The attorney general's motion to intervene was granted.

Putting his authority to intervene in the lawsuit to use, Racine argued, “The residents of our city have a clear interest in ensuring not only that they are allowed to vote on this ballot measure, but also that other actions of the Board of Elections are not called into question." He also pointed to a legal concept called the de facto officer doctrine, saying, "The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient."

Ultimately, Judge Ross overturned his initial ruling and allowed initiative proponents to continue gathering signatures for the initiative.

Related measures

2015 and 2016 local measures

1. Kansas City, Missouri, $15 per hour Minimum Wage Initiative Measure (November 2015) 
2. City of El Paso Fire Department Wage Raise Policy Charter Amendment, Proposition 2 (May 2015) a
3. Cook County, Illinois, Earned Sick Time, (November 2016) a
4. Kansas City, Missouri, Minimum Wage Increase Veto Referendum (November 2015) 
5. Portland, Maine, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative, Question 1 (November 2015) d
6. Riverside, California, Increasing City Council Member Salary, Measure B (June 2016) 
7. San Francisco, California, Paid Sick Leave Changes, Proposition E (June 2016) 
8. San Diego, California, Minimum Wage Increase Veto Referendum, Proposition I (June 2016) 
9. City of Los Angeles $15 per Hour Minimum Wage Initiative (2016) 
10. City of Tacoma $12 per Hour Minimum Wage Alternative Measure, Initiative No. 1B (November 2015) a
11. City of Tacoma $15 per Hour Minimum Wage Measure, Initiative No. 1 (November 2015) a
12. City of Cincinnati Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2016) 

2014 in D.C.

Washington D.C. Minimum Wage Initiative (November 2014)

Related elections

• Municipal elections in Washington, D.C. (2016)
• Washington, D.C. municipal elections, 2015
• Washington, D.C. municipal elections, 2014

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington ,D.C., minimum wage initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington, D.C., $15 per hour Minimum Wage Initiative (November 2016) - Google News

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2016
• Local wages and pay on the ballot

Washington, D.C.

• November 8, 2016 measures in Washington, D.C.
• Local ballot measures, Washington, D.C.

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• Washington, D.C., Board of Elections website