District of Columbia
Capital Stonewall Democrats host forum on proposed ranked choice voting, open primaries
Initiative 83 supporters, opponents attended event at Shakers
The Capital Stonewall Democrats, one of D.C.’s oldest LGBTQ political organizations, hosted a forum on on Monday night, Feb. 19, on the proposed D.C. ballot measure known as Initiative 83, which calls for the city to put in place a ranked choice voting system and for party primaries to be open to all registered voters regardless of their party affiliation, including independent voters.
The forum included presentations by one of the leading supporters and a leading opponent of the controversial initiative. Longtime D.C. LGBTQ rights and Ward 8 community activist Phil Pannell, who serves as treasurer of Make All Votes Count DC, the lead organization advocating for Initiative 83, spoke on behalf of the initiative.
Deirdre Brown, who identified herself as a longtime Ward 3 Democratic Party member and LGBTQ community ally, spoke on behalf of Vote No on Initiative 83, the lead group opposing the initiative.
Brown pointed out that her organization was separate and distinct from the D.C. Democratic Party, which also opposes Initiative 83 and has filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court to prevent the measure from being placed on the ballot. A judge was expected to hand down a ruling on whether the lawsuit should be dismissed or continue at a Feb. 23 hearing.
Capital Stonewall Democrats President Michael Haresign, who introduced both speakers, told the Washington Blade after the event, which was held at the D.C. gay bar Shakers, that the LGBTQ Democratic group may not take an official position on Initiative 83. He said that if it does take a position, it would not do so until later this year if the initiative is approved for placement on the ballot in the city’s November election.
An informal survey of local LGBTQ activists conducted by the Blade shows the LGBTQ community appears divided over Initiative 83, with prominent activists emerging as both supporters and opponents of the measure.
In his presentation in support of Initiative 83, Pannell called ranked choice voting an important electoral reform that has worked successfully in many states and cities across the country. He noted that ranked choice voting serves as an instant, automatic runoff election if no candidate receives at least 50 percent of the vote in a primary or general election.
As proposed, Initiative 83 would allow voters to rank candidates running for office in order of their preference. Under this system, if no candidate receives at least 50 percent of the vote during the initial ballot counting process, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated.
The votes cast by voters who picked that candidate as their top choice would then go to their second-choice candidate. This process would continue, under the ranked choice system, until at least one candidate emerges with at least 50 percent of the votes and is declared the winner.
The second part of Initiative 83 would allow more than 80,000 D.C. residents who currently choose not to register as a member of one of the local political parties and who are not allowed to vote in a primary, to vote in the city’s primary elections, including the Democratic primary. Political observers point out that the Democratic primary usually decides who will win the general election in D.C, where registered voters overwhelmingly elect Democratic candidates to public office.
“In terms of ranked choice voting, it’s very basic,” Pannell told the gathering. “You have to start with , do you believe people who are elected should have a simple majority of the vote? If you don’t believe that, I’m not going to be able to convince you,” he said.
Pannell pointed out that in recent D.C. elections, under the city’s public campaign finance law, as many as 20 candidates have run for both at-large and ward seats on the DC Council, with some of them winning with just 30 percent or even a little over 20 percent of the vote.
Calling himself a lifelong, loyal member of the Democratic Party, Pannell criticized party leaders for opposing what he calls broadening the democratic process by allowing all residents to vote in primaries, especially independents, and for opposing a ranked choice voting system that Pannell said also broadens the electoral consensus by requiring that a candidate receive at least 50 percent of the vote to win an election.
“Initiative 83 will make politics more inclusive, less divisive,” he told the forum. “Let’s embrace it. Closed primaries are the result of closed hearts and closed minds,” he said. “Let’s open the windows and the doors … Let’s change our party for the better and vote for Initiative 83.”
Brown, who also described herself as a loyal Democratic Party member from Ward 3 and a native Washingtonian, disputed arguments by Pannell and his colleagues in support of Initiative 83, saying the democratic process is alive and well under the current D.C. electoral system and backers of Initiative 83 are waging a “propaganda campaign” to confuse voters.
Among other things, she said it’s not an infringement of democracy by requiring people to register for a party to vote in a party primary. All they need to do is register under D.C.’s rapid registration system, vote in a primary, and then withdraw their registration at any time. She also said independent voters, who Initiative 83 supporters say have a right to vote in primaries, often do not agree with the principles of the Democratic Party.
“And normally independents will tell you I’m independent because I don’t believe in Democratic Party values. I don’t believe in Republican Party values. I don’t believe in statehood values,” she told the gathering. “So, the question becomes, is it okay for people who don’t share your values to pick your leaders? There is no other club or organization that allows people who are not members to pick their leaders. It’s just that simple,” she said.
“That’s not disenfranchising you,” Brown added. “You just have to choose whether you want to work within a party to promote their values and issues or not. And if you don’t, that’s okay, that’s your choice. But you just then don’t get to vote until we get to the general election.”
Regarding ranked choice voting, Brown cited studies conducted by independent research organizations, including universities, that she said show it “marginalizes black and brown voters,” voters in low-income neighborhoods, and voters whose native language is not English, many of whom, she said, become confused by the ranked choice voting system.
She also disputed claims by ranked choice voting supporters that citizens already participate in a ranked choice system in everyday life, including D.C.’s ranked choice public school lottery system, and public housing system and a ranked choice voting system will be similarly easy to understand.
Brown pointed out that unlike the school lottery or public housing system, where making a mistake will not result in serious consequences, ranked choice voting usually doesn’t accommodate people who fill out the ballot incorrectly.
“If you make a mistake if you undervote, overvote, your ballot is thrown out,” she said.
Brown concluded by pointing out that financial reports filed by supporters of Initiative 83 filed with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance shows large sums of money backing the initiative are coming from out of state Political Action Committees or PACS as well as large corporations.
During a rebuttal period, Pannell pointed to other studies he said show that minority voters, especially African American voters, do not have a problem with ranked choice voting, calling it an insult to say Black people and other minorities who would not adopt to ranked choice voting.
He said Brown’s suggestion that there was something wrong with out of state organizations contributing money to a political cause was unfair and baseless.
“I’m the treasurer of this campaign,” he said. “And anyone who knows me knows that I will not play tricks and trash with any political cash,” he told the forum. “And this is in the same way that we in the LGBTQ community had to get donations from outside the city when we were fighting for our rights,” Pannell said. “There is nothing wrong with getting donations from outside of D.C. Candidates do it all the time.”
Pannell drew objections from Brown and other Initiative 83 supporters at the Capital Stonewall Democrats forum when he added, “If we’re going to talk about donations, check out the donations going to the Vote No On 83 committee. And you will see that two of the most virulent opponents of marriage equality are contributors to that committee.”
Brown replied that she and others involved in the No On 83 campaign are not aware of all the political views of the hundreds of mostly small donors who contribute to their committee. She said an examination of the donors for the Make All Votes Count DC committee might also find some who at one time expressed opposition to LGBTQ rights.
One person who attended the forum, who spoke on condition of not being identified, said they believed the two individuals Pannell was referring to, who Pannell said were officials with the D.C. Democratic State Committee, supported holding a voter referendum to decide on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in D.C. The source said the two did not specifically oppose same-sex marriage but wanted the voters to decide the issue rather than the D.C. Council.
As it turned out, the DC Board of Elections rejected the matter as a voter referendum on grounds that the D.C. Home Rule Charter bans voter initiatives or referendums that could lead to discrimination against minority groups, including LGBTQ people. Opponents of same-sex marriage appealed the election board’s decision to the courts and lost in a final ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld a lower D.C. court ruling agreeing with the election board’s decision.
After Pannell and Brown concluded their remarks, Haresign opened the forum to questions from those attending the meeting in person as well as those watching on the organization’s Facebook page. The questioners who expressed their own views on Initiative 83 appeared to be divided evenly among the measure’s supporters and opponents.
“I think the forum went well,” Haresign told the Blade. “We were able to get a high level of information,” he said.
“If we were to take a position it would be after everything is certified and we have a full membership vote,” Haresign said, referring to Initiative 83 being certified by the Board of Elections to be on the ballot in November.
Under D.C. election rules, the board’s certification would come after the lawsuit is dismissed or settled and after Initiative 83 supporters obtain the required number of petition signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
Pannell urged Capital Stonewall Democrats members and others in the LGBTQ community to sign the petition to get the measure on the ballot, even if they don’t support it, saying voters should be given the right to decide the issue.
Brown disagreed, saying “I’m asking you if you believe in I-83, then go ahead and sign the petition. But if you do not, I’m asking you not to sign the petition.”
The video recording of the Capital Stonewall Democrats forum can be accessed here:
District of Columbia
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993
Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.
The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”
The statement adds, “The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, post-traumatic-stress disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone.:
Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.
Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.
Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’s offer to settle the case shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to plaintiff or any other person, or that plaintiff has any rights.”
Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”
With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.
He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.
BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?
JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.
And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.
BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?
JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.
BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?
JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.
BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?
JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.
BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?
JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.
BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?
JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.
BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?
JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.
MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.
BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?
JONES: Right.
BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?
JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.
BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?
JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.
BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?
JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.
BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?
JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.
BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?
JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.
BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?
JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.
They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.
BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?
JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.
BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?
JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.
BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?
JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.
District of Columbia
U.S. Attorney’s Office drops hate crime charge in anti-gay assault
Case remains under investigation and ‘further charges’ could come
D.C. police announced on Feb. 9 that they had arrested two days earlier on Feb. 7 a Germantown, Md., man on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation after the man allegedly assaulted a gay man at 14th and Q Streets, N.W., while using “homophobic slurs.”
But D.C. Superior Court records show that prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. violent crime cases, charged the arrested man only with simple assault without a hate crime designation.
In response to a request by the Washington Blade for the reason why the hate crime designation was dropped, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office provided this response: “We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them.”
In a statement announcing the arrest in this case, D.C. police stated, “On Saturday, February 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and continued walking,” the statement says.
“The suspect assaulted the victim and used homophobic slurs,” the police statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers.”
It adds that 26-year-old Dean Edmundson of Germantown, Md. “was arrested and charged with Simple Assault (Hate/Bias).” The statement also adds, “A designation as a hate crime by MPD does not mean that prosecutors will prosecute it as a hate crime.”
Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crime Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a court upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime.
Prosecutors in the past both in D.C. and other states have said they sometimes decide not to include a hate crime designation in assault cases if they don’t think the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction by a jury. In some instances, prosecutors have said they were concerned that a skeptical jury might decide to find a defendant not guilty of the underlying assault charge if they did not believe a motive of hate was involved.
A more detailed arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in Superior Court appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation.
“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmondson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmondson started walking behind both the victim and witness, calling the victim, “bald, ugly, and gay,” the arrest affidavit states.
“The victim stated that upon being called that, Defendant Edmundson pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push,” the affidavit continues. “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay,” it says.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist
Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers
A D.C. Superior Court judge on Feb. 6 partially approved an anti-stalking order against a local LGBTQ activist requested last October by the Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events.
The ruling by Judge Robert D. Okun requires Darren Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers until the time of a follow up court hearing he scheduled for April 17.
In his ruling at the Feb. 6 hearing, which was virtual rather than held in-person at the courthouse, Okun said he had changed the distance that Capital Pride had requested for the stay-away, anti-stalking order from 200 yards to 100 feet. The court records show that the judge also denied a motion filed earlier by Pasha, who did not attend the hearing, to “quash” the Capital Pride civil case against him.
Pasha told the Washington Blade he suffered an injury and damaged his mobile phone by falling off his scooter on the city’s snow-covered streets that prevented him from calling in to join the Feb. 6 court hearing.
In his own court filings without retaining an attorney, Pasha has strongly denied the stalking related allegations against him by Capital Pride, saying “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to show he engaged in any wrongdoing.
The Capital Pride complaint initially filed in court on Oct. 27, 2025, includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out.
“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Pasha (“DSP”) has engaged in a sustained, and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.
In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, last year.
“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” he said of the complaint.
Smith, who has since resigned from his role as board president, did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment at the time the Capital Pride court complaint was filed against Pasha.
Capital Pride Executive Director Ryan Bos and the attorney representing the group in its legal action against Pasha, Nick Harrison, did not immediately respond to a Blade request for comment on the judge’s Feb. 6 ruling.
US wins Olympic gold medal in women’s hockey
Justicia reconoce delito de odio en caso de bullying en Instituto Nacional Mejía de Ecuador
Radical reframing highlights the ‘Wuthering’ highs and lows of a classic
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
PHOTOS: Clash
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Home is where the heart is
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
LGBTQ groups question US health agreements with African countries
-
Baltimore4 days ago‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
-
Real Estate4 days ago
Home is where the heart is
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
-
European Union4 days ago
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
