Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Via Email
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
Wilson Building Room 123
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, DC, 20004
RE: Written Testimony Comprehensive Elections Reform Bill
Dear Chairman Charles Allen,
Please accept this document as written testimony in relation to the Comprehensive Elections Reform Bill hearing that took place on January 6, 2022.
Thank you for accepting my testimony. My name is Tom Donohue I am a small business owner and resident of Ward 8 located at 2200 Prout Street Southeast, Washington, DC 20020.
I’d like to note this is the first time I have ever involved myself in any sort of politics. I’ve found myself here before you as a result of attempting to execute my right to initiate a recall against my elected ANC Commissioner, Ms. Holly Muhammad, ANC8A.
§ 1–204.111. “Recall” defined. “The term “recall” means the process by which the qualified electors of the District of Columbia may call for the holding of an election to remove or retain an elected official of the District of Columbia (except the Delegate to Congress for the District of Columbia) prior to the expiration of his or her term.”
On July 13, 2021, ANC08 Chairwoman Holly Muhammad ejected me from our monthly ANC meeting after I echoed concerns of others in the meetings chat how Ms. Muhammad needed to give her fellow commissioner the appropriate access in order for her to have a voice in the matter they were discussing at the time to be heard by everyone. Without warning, discussion or cause Ms. Muhammad ejected me from the zoom meeting, by doing this this action also prevented me from returning to the meeting where I had planned on (I had even emailed this to Ms. Muhammad to cover in case I was unable to attend the meeting) covering two matters of concern which included lighting under the overpass that leads to Anacostia Park where just weeks later a homeless woman was murdered. Immediately upon realizing I had been ejected from the meeting I wrote a request to the ANC Executive Director, Gottlieb Simon and I copied each of the ANC’s immediately requesting the “preservation of this evenings ANC8A meeting which was conducted via the Zoom platform and lead by my ANC Commissioner and Chairwoman Holly Muhmmad
This request sparked a back and forth between Ms. Muhammad and myself in which she makes false claims that I am associated with the proud boys of Charlottesville and where she directs me to no longer contact her, she
copies MPD 6D representatives to intimidate me saying, “You don’t dictate to me. I don’t
take instructions from the Proud Boys from Charlottesville. Don’t email me again.” In another email
she informs me “I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO”.
As a result of Ms. Muhammad’s comments, I felt she could no longer represent me, and I filed a
Intent to recall notice with the DC Board of Elections. You can see my reasons and her
response below.
Following is a snapshot of the actual petition as submitted for approval:
At no point within her 198 words does she address any of my job-related concerns which I base my request for the recall. Rather she decides to attack me personally claiming falsehoods intended to discredit me and to create doubt with our neighbors, the very neighbors who would be considering signing the recall. Additionally, the information she provided would also become a matter of public record. By doing this any search attempt using my name could provide her response as a matter of record that could follow me forever and without context or discussion it could play a role in decision making for future jobs or any future political ambitions I may have in the future. I shared these concerns at the Board of Elections Meeting on August 26, 2021.
During this August 26, 2021, meeting (See transcript attached) I was basically told by the board that I had two options. 1) Accept the petition as is with both sides verbiage including the false information and personal attacks submitted by Ms. Muhammad or 2) decline the verbiage and the petition would go away.
Members of the Committee, I am not an elected official, I am not subject to the public scrutiny of an elected official. Ms. Muhammad’s response was to attack me personally listing false accusations of actions she says I’ve taken since moving here eight years ago while not even referencing the very job-related concerns I listed in my petition.
I believe this to be strategic. I am a white man living in a predominately black neighborhood. I believe Ms. Muhammad thought if she responded by telling my neighbors lies about matters that would alarm our black neighbors that they would put a heavier weight towards her accusations and my neighbors would decline my request to support the recall. Now it is true that at the time I would have the opportunity to defend myself against these accusations however, unfortunately this petition likely will be made public, or even picked up by the media resulting in several people seeing or hearing about what is printed without any context or ability for me to defend myself. At what point did I agree to be subjected to having to defend myself? I am not the elected official. I am just a resident who decided my elected official’s behavior rose to the level where she could no longer represent me and for those reasons, I submitted the recall.
The areas on the petition where the elected official is given opportunity to defend or respond is not intended to attack the petitioner its is intended to allow the elected official to defend themselves against the claims levied against them by a voter. If every elected official decided to attack the petitioner personally that action alone could keep voters from filing for a recall. According to the board members present at the August 26, 2021, meeting, Ms. Muhammad could have responded by saying Tom Donohue is a murderer and that verbiage would have been the verbiage printed on the ball and the verbiage I would have to accept or deny. If I decline the verbiage the petition goes away. If I accept the petition as submitted by the elected official, the lies and false information is printed on the petition/ballot and made public for everyone to see and even used as the collection device to collect signatures. Now, you have the Board of Elections responsible for not only helping to spread the false information (I want to move forward so my only option is to accept the verbiage) but paying for the duplication and support needed to execute a recall. I’d imagine that most voters take what is on an official ballot as truth and so having such false claims attacking me would be concerning and likely reason enough to not even file or to have it dropped. (No place on the ballot does it indicate the statements are those of each side and have not been verified for accuracy even if it did this would not be enough) What if I choose to run for public office sometime in the future, these false claims would be presented on public record and seen by anyone. What if for example as an independent contractor or small business owner someone Google’s my name to find this petition and false claims by an elected official to be true, without additional context her claims could be reason for my contract being denied or another contractor being chosen, and I didn’t even know it.
During the August 26, 2021, meeting I was able to discuss a third option. I requested that the petition be tabled for a future hearing in order to provide me an opportunity to have my options legally considered and reviewed. A vote to have the matter tabled was taken and approved. On December 15, 2021 I spoke with Mr. Jack Gilmore, the Attorney Advisor for the DC Board of Elections requesting that the board provide a written order that describes the boards only two options in how I can move forward, “you have the opportunity now to either approve the petition as it’s been submitted, or you can choose not to approve it” I made it clear to Mr. Gilmore that it would be my intention to take the order by the board and present it before the US Court of Appeals for argument and decision making. Mr. Gilmore refused such a request saying that the bored took no action therefore no order could be created.
I am attaching the transcript of the August 21, 2021, Board of Elections Meeting please reference pages 63-79 which pertains to my petition. I am also attaching the proposed ballot/petition as prepared by the Board of Elections which required approval by the voter in order to proceed with the recall and collection of signatures.
In summary the recall process needs to be revised No voter should be subject to having to defend themselves personally against false claims. The elected official should be limited to responding to the matters the voter has raised. I respectfully ask that you review this part of the law and find a way to resolve this. You’d think an elected official wouldn’t attack a voter however that very attack should not be the reason a voter drops a recall petition due in part to personal attacks directed at the voter.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas M. Donohue, Jr.
