This is the seventh time that we have addressed whether an initiative, either passed or proposed, runs afoul of the law's prohibition on initiatives "appropriating funds." See Dorsey v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections Ethics, 648 A.2d 675 (D.C. 1994); Hessey v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections Ethics, 601 A.2d 3 (D.C. 1991) (en banc) ( Hessey II); District of Columbia Bd. of Elections Ethics v. District of Columbia, 520 A.2d 671 (D.C. 1986); Hazel v. United States, 516 A.2d 944 (D.C. 1986) (per curiam); District of Columbia Bd. of Elections Ethics v. Jones, 481 A.2d 456 (D.C. 1984); Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections Ethics, 441 A.2d 889 (D.C. 1981) (en banc) ( Convention Center II). We have said that "the word `appropriations,' when used in connection with the functions of the Mayor and the Council in the District's budget process, refers to the discretionary process by which revenues are identified and allocated among competing programs and activities."
We therefore do not consider appellant's other contentions, except for one which we shall discuss briefly in footnote 8, infra. We note that one issue which he raises, concerning the legality of the mandatory minimum sentence, was resolved against him in Hazel v. United States, 516 A.2d 944 (D.C. 1986). I
The division opinion in the instant case acknowledges that the issue is one of first impression for which there is no case directly on point. Hazel v. United States, 516 A.2d 944 (D.C. 1986) (per curiam) (rejecting, on basis of the division opinion in the instant case, a challenge to the D.C. Mandatory-Minimum Sentences Initiative of 1981 as within exception for "laws appropriating funds"); Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Board of Elections Ethics, 441 A.2d 889 (D.C. 1981) (en banc) (initiative compelling defunding of Convention Center for which funds had been authorized by Act of Congress violates the D.C. Charter prohibition on "laws appropriating funds"); Board of Elections v. Jones, 481 A.2d 456 (D.C. 1984) (initiative raising unemployment benefits and disbursing District government funds without further legislative action violates prohibition on "laws appropriating funds."). Unlike previous initiatives considered by the court, the shelter initiative includes the mechanism of court judgments to obtain funding to carry out its purposes.