2023: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.'s Criminal Code Modifications. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove D.C.'s Criminal Code Modifications. In February 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove A D.C. Policing Reform Law. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove A D.C. Policing Reform Law. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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]