2023: Fitzpatrick Voted To Disapprove D.C.'s January 2023 Ordinance
That Would Allow Reform D.C.'s Criminal Code Starting In 2025, Which
Included Eliminating Most Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Expanding Jury
Trials For Misdemeanors, And Lowering Maximum Penalties For Certain
Crimes. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for a resolution that would "establish congressional
disapproval of, effectively repealing, the January 2023 District of
Columbia Council legislation that would overhaul D.C.'s criminal code
effective October 2025. Among other provisions, the overhaul would
eliminate most mandatory minimum sentences, require jury trials for
misdemeanor offenses and reduce maximum penalties for certain crimes."
The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of
250 to 173, thus the resolution was sent to the Senate. The Senate
passed the resolution, sent it to President Biden, and signed it in law,
effectively repealing the D.C. law. [House Vote 119,
2/9/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/9/23;
Congressional Actions, H.J.Res.
26]
D.C. Mayor Bowser Vetoed The D.C. Law, Claiming The Reductions To
The Maximum Penalties Sent "The Wrong Message" On Crime Prevention
And Opposing The Jury Trials For Misdemeanors Because They Could
Overwhelm The Local Justice System. According to the Associated
Press, "The debate has put D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in a curious
political position. Bowser vetoed the rewrite of the city's criminal
code in January, saying the maximum penalty reductions send 'the
wrong message' on crime prevention, Bowser also apposed a measure
that would allow for jury trials in most misdemeanor cases, saying
the sudden spike in jury trials would overwhelm the local justice
system." [Associated Press,
2/9/23]
D.C. Mayor Bowser's Veto On The D.C. Law Was Overridden By The
D.C. Council. According to the Associated Press, "Her veto was
quickly overridden by the D.C. Council in a 12-1 vote." [Associated
Press,
2/9/23]
Republicans Claimed D.C.'s City Council Was Soft On Crime During A
Multi-Year Violent Crime Spike. According to the Associated Press,
"Republican lawmakers decried the D.C. government as soft on
criminals in the midst of a multi-year local spike in violent crime.
Several Republican lawmakers have cited Bowser's opposition to
bolster their own arguments." [Associated Press,
2/9/23]
The Criminal Code Overhaul Was Approved Unanimously By The D.C.
Council And Supported By Major Stakeholders, Including D.C. Attorney
General Brian Schwalb. According to the Associated Press, "The
sweeping rewrite of D.C's criminal code has been years in the
making; it was approved unanimously last year by the 13-member D.C.
Council and carries the support of major stakeholders, including
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb." [Associated Press,
2/9/23]
The Criminal Law Reformed D.C.'s Criminal Code For The First Time
Since 1902, Including By Lowering Sentences And Expanding The
Ability For Jury Trials In Misdemeanor Cases. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The criminal bill would overhaul D.C.'s
criminal statute for the first time since 1901, including by
reducing sentences and expanding the right to a jury trial for
misdemeanor cases. The D.C. Council advanced the bill in November."
[Congressional Quarterly,
2/9/23]
The D.C. Police Union Opposed D.C.'s Criminal Code Reform,
Claiming That Violent Crime Rates Would Continue To Increase.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "But the legislation, which
would take effect in 2025, earned pushback from law enforcement. The
D.C. Police Union said in a statement that the bill 'will lead to
violent crime rates exploding even more than they already have.' And
in January, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser vetoed it, writing in a
letter that she had 'very significant concerns' about some of the
bill's proposals." [Congressional Quarterly,
2/9/23]
Mayor Bowser Was Concerned With Provisions That Would Reduce
Penalties For Firearm Possession, Robberies, Burglaries And Home
Invasions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Bowser
specifically cited provisions that would reduce penalties for
criminal offenses related to firearm possession as well as for
robberies, burglaries and home invasions." [Congressional
Quarterly, 2/9/23]
Senator Elizabeth Warren Argued That The Criminal Code Overhaul
Brought D.C. Code Into The "Middle Of Most States, Red And Blue,"
And Emphasized That D.C. Citizens Should Have The Right To Elect
Local Representatives To Determine Their Own Criminal Laws.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "Other Senate Democrats,
however, have stood by the D.C. Council. Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., said she opposes the resolution because the criminal code
revisions bring the D.C. code 'into line with the middle of most
states, red and blue.' 'But even more importantly, D.C. citizens
should be accorded the same right to pick their elected
representatives and have those representatives determine the
criminal laws, the same way as every other state in the union,'
Warren said." [Congressional Quarterly,
3/8/23]
One Of The Controversial Provisions Of The D.C. Criminal Code
Reform Would Reduce The Maximum Penalty For Offenses Such As Armed
Carjacking From 40 Years To 24 Years. According to NPR, "At issue
in what was a sweeping but otherwise noncontroversial effort to
overhaul D.C.'s criminal statutes are provisions to reduce the
maximum penalties for crimes like armed carjacking from 40 years
down to 24, which supporters argue is in line with the actual
sentences handed down in court in recent years." [NPR,
3/8/23]
Many Criticized The Expansion Of Jury Trials Fro Certain
Misdemeanors, Arguing It Would Overload The D.C. Court System And
Lead To Prosecutors Dropping Cases. According to NPR, "There was
also objection to a provision to expanding the right to jury trials
for certain criminal misdemeanor offenses, which critics say would
overload a taxed D.C. court system and result in prosecutors
dropping more cases." [NPR,
3/8/23]
Senator Ben Cardin Emphasized That The Criminal Code Overhaul
Would Increase Penalties For Gun Crimes. According to NPR, "The
split frustrated Democrats like Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, who voted
against the GOP resolution. He said lost in the debate was that the
revised code would also enhance penalties for gun crimes --- a major
Democratic priority." [NPR,
3/8/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.'s Criminal Code
Modifications. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 97) that would
provide for consideration of [...] a joint resolution (H J Res 26)
disapproving D.C. Council criminal code adjustments." The vote was on
the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217 to
208. [House Vote 109,
2/7/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/7/23;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
26;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
97]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.'s Criminal Code
Modifications. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus
ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 97) that
would provide for consideration of [...] a joint resolution (H J Res
26) disapproving D.C. Council criminal code adjustments." The vote was
on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the
motion by a vote of 217 to 208. [House Vote 108,
2/7/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/7/23;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
26;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
97]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted To Override President Biden's Veto And
Disapprove D.C. Legislation That Would Codify Accountability Measures
And Restrictions On Policing In D.C. In June 2023, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted to override President Biden's
veto on a resolution that would "establish congressional disapproval of,
effectively repealing, the January 2023 District of Columbia Council
legislation that would codify or establish accountability measures and
restrictions on policing in the district. Among other provisions, the
D.C. law would establish a board to review the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department's use of force; expand officer training requirements;
prohibit the hiring of officers with a history of serious misconduct;
ban the use of neck restraints by officers; restrict MPD purchases of
military-grade equipment; and establish new procedures to expand access
to body-worn camera footage and police disciplinary records." The vote
was on a veto override. The House failed to acquire a 2/3 majority vote
and rejected the motion by a vote of 233 to 197, thus the veto was
sustained. [House Vote 253,
6/13/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/13/23;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
42]
The D.C. Bill Banned Police Chokeholds, Raised Public Access To
Police Cameras, And Mandated De-Escalated Techniques, Which All
Mirrored A Similar Biden Executive Order. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "D.C.'s measure bans police chokeholds,
increases public access to police body cameras and requires that
police use de-escalation techniques. It largely mirrors an executive
order from the Biden administration that set similar rules for
federal law enforcement." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/13/23]
While Republicans Claimed The D.C. Bill Overly Burdened Police And
Was Part Of A "Soft On Crime" Agenda, Democrats Contended The Law
Needed A Policing Overhaul. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Republicans have argued the law overly restricts police and is part
of a 'soft on crime' agenda among Democrats. Democrats, meanwhile,
have argued the law represents needed policing reforms"
[Congressional Quarterly,
6/13/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted To Disapprove A D.C. Policing Reform Law That
Would Codify Accountability Measures And Restriction On Policing. In
April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for
a resolution that would "establish congressional disapproval of,
effectively repealing, the January 2023 District of Columbia Council
legislation that would codify or establish accountability measures and
restrictions on policing in the district. Among other provisions, the
D.C. law would establish a board to review the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department's use of force; expand officer training requirements;
prohibit the hiring of officers with a history of serious misconduct;
ban the use of neck restraints by officers; restrict MPD purchases of
military-grade equipment; and establish new procedures to expand access
to body-worn camera footage and police disciplinary records." The vote
was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 229 to 189, thus
the resolution was sent to the Senate. The Senate passed the resolution
but President Biden vetoed the resolution. [House Vote 188,
4/19/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/19/23;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
42]
D.C. Officials And House Democrats Argued The D.C. Law
Strengthened Public Safety Because It Increased Training
Requirements, Barred Hiring Officers With A Misconduct History, And
Sought To Enhance Police Accountability And Transparency.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "D.C. officials and House
Democrats contend the law increases public safety, as it strengthens
training requirements, prohibits hiring police who have a history of
misconduct, and aims to bolster police accountability and
transparency." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/19/23]
Republicans Claimed The D.C. Law Restricted Officers From
Performing Their Duties And Made Officer Retention Difficult.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "But House Committee on
Oversight and Accountability Chairman James R. Comer and Republicans
say the local measure restricts officers from doing their job and
makes officer retention difficult at a time when carjacking rates
grab headlines in D.C." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/19/23]
The D.C. Law Established A Board To The Evaluate The D.C. Police's
Use Of Force, Expanded Training Requirements, Banned The Hiring Of
Officers With Serious Misconduct Histories, Banned The Use Of Neck
Restraints, Restricted Purchases Of Military Equipment, And Expanded
Access To Body-Worn Camera Footage And Disciplinary Records.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "Among other provisions, the
D.C. law would establish a board to review the D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department's use of force; expand officer training
requirements; prohibit the hiring of officers with a history of
serious misconduct; ban the use of neck restraints by officers;
restrict MPD purchases of military-grade equipment; and establish
new procedures to expand access to body-worn camera footage and
police disciplinary records." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/19/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove A D.C. Policing
Reform Law. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 298) that would
provide for floor consideration of the [...] the joint resolution (H J
Res 42) disapproving a D.C. policing reform law. The rule would provide
for one hour of general debate on each measure." The vote was on the
adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217 to
202. [House Vote 186,
4/18/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/18/23;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
298;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
42]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove A D.C. Policing
Reform Law. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus
ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 298) that
would provide for floor consideration of the [...] the joint
resolution (H J Res 42) disapproving a D.C. policing reform law. The
rule would provide for one hour of general debate on each measure." The
vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to
the motion by a vote of 218 to 203. [House Vote 185,
4/18/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/18/23;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
298;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
42]