Congress - Greater Greater Washington

House may scrap Ike design

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:51:00 EDT

A House committee wants to start over with a new design for the Eisenhower Memorial. The Eisenhower family has fiercely lobbied against Frank Gehry's design. (Examiner)

Comment

Commuter buses escape fee

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:26:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

A $5 surcharge for commuter buses entering the District likely won't make it into the final DC budget after 10 Congressmen from Maryland and Virginia objected. (Post)

Comment

Fix the laws

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A petition is asking the US DOT to make street standards that work for cities instead of just suburban arterials. ... A bipartisan group of Congressmen want to keep the transit benefit equal to the parking benefit, permanently. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Reps want to keep nonstops

Mon, 03 Jun 2013 08:36:00 EDT

by David Alpert

100 members of Congress don't want US Airways and American to give up slots at DCA airport in a merger, because it might mean fewer flights to their smaller cities (including flights many of them use regularly). (Reuters)

Comment

Foxx outlines vision

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Anthony Foxx said he would support more multi-modal infrastructure as well as safety and efficiency initiatives in confirmation hearings for transportation secretary. (WAMU)

Comment

Will autonomy survive?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:28:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Now that DC voters have approved budget autonomy, will DC actually get it? It's unlikely to be killed during the Congressional review period, but it could get repealed later as part of other legislation or face a court challenge. (Post)

Comment

Less intrusive government, only if you behave

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:38:00 EDT

by David Alpert

John Mica isn't so hot on DC budget autonomy, saying his teenagers also wanted budget autonomy, but "As long as [DC is] minding [its] P's and Q's ... I think the government can back off." That's real small-government conservatism right there. (Fox 5)

Comment

Budget referendum passes easily

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:15:00 EDT

by Nick Casey

DC voters overwhelmingly supported the budget autonomy referendum Tuesday. Will DC's congressional overlords be upset by citizens asserting their rights? (DCist)

Comment

Referendum is the right strategy for DC budget autonomy (Feb 7, 2013)
Vote for the budget autonomy referendum on April 23 (Apr 17, 2013)
How much federal money does DC actually get? (Jul 5, 2011)
Budget deal keeps government open but hurts DC (Apr 9, 2011)
Congressional fellows can get parking space, not Metro pass (Apr 6, 2008)

Empty warehouse or market?

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Congress will hold a hearing at a vacant government-owned warehouse in the Capitol Riverfront area, to bring attention to underused GSA properties. Neighbors hope to turn this one into a market. (City Paper)

Comment

Vote for the budget autonomy referendum on April 23

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:28:00 EDT

Besides the race for DC Council at large on April 23, DC residents will have the opportunity to vote on a charter amendment that would free the District from having to submit its budget to Congress and wait for approval before being able to spend local tax money raised right here in DC. We hope residents vote yes on this amendment.

Photo by l'ennui d'ennui on Flickr.

It would free the District from members of Congress attaching riders to score political points back home while trampling on DC residents' right to self-government in local affairs. It would free the District from the threat of having to shut down basic public services if the federal government shuts down.

In the comments on a guest post we ran in February by DC Appleseed's Walter Smith, several readers expressed a belief that a referendum would just be advisory, that Congress would not follow our request, and it's a waste of time. This is incorrect. The referendum is not advisory at all.

If it passes, DC will have amended its own charter, which it has the power to do. It will no longer have wait for Congress to approve its budget before spending local tax dollars. Congress could block the amendment from taking effect, but to do that, both houses of Congress would have to act.

Congress can also always pass laws forcing DC to do things in the future, or taking away DC's autonomy, but again, it would require an affirmative act of Congress (and the President could veto such changes).

Besides, there are both Democrats and Republicans who support this. They can't get a clean bill through Congress to give us the right, but by this method, they don't have to; all they have to do is get Congress not to interfere. That's not so hard.

Why does DC have this power?

The Home Rule Act, which Congress passed in 1973, has several sections. Title IV, the main part, sets up the DC locally-elected government and its powers and structure.

Title III section 303 says that DC can amend any part of Title IV with three exceptions:

401(a), which says "There is established a Council of the District of Columbia; and the members of the Council shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District";
421(a), "There is established the Office of Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the Mayor shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District";
all of section C, which relates to the judiciary.

The budget process, which DC wants to change, is in section D. That's not on the list. Therefore, lawyers supporting the referendum conclude, DC is within its rights to try to amend that part of the charter.

Congress also made a specific list of things DC can't do without Congressional approval, such as changing the height limit, imposing a commuter tax, exercising any power over the zoo, or changing the way the judiciary operates. Another section of the law prohibits charter amendments from giving DC power over these things. The budget process is not on this list either.

(Congress was really quite nervous about what DC would do with power over the criminal laws; another provision blocks the DC Council from changing the criminal laws for the first 4 years of Home Rule.)

There is one provision which makes some lawyers doubt whether the referendum is legal. That's section 603, which says in part,

(a) Nothing in this act shall be construed as making any change in existing law, regulation, or basic procedure and practice relating to the respective roles of the Congress, the President, the federal Office of Management and Budget, and the Comptroller General of the United States in the preparation, review, submission, examination, authorization, and appropriation of the total budget of the District of Columbia government.

Wait, doesn't that mean nothing can change with the budget process?

But what is "this act"? That's the 1973 Home Rule Act. This provision doesn't say that DC can't change the budget process by amendment, but rather than in 1973, when the act passed, Congress didn't intend to revamp the budget process at the time.

As DC Vote chairman John Bouker said in his testimony to the DC Council,

Section 603(a) is not framed as a "limitation" on the Council's authority, as is the case with some of the other provisions in Section 603. Instead, it is a rule of construction which clarifies that, at the time of passage in 1973, "[n]othing in the Act shall be construed" to change then-existing law regarding the District's budget process.

Supportive lawyers note that Congress went to great lengths to enumerate the parts of the charter DC couldn't change, like all of section C on the judiciary, so if they wanted to keep the budget process sacrosanct, why wouldn't they have listed section D as well? It doesn't make a lot of sense to be extremely clear about which parts DC can't amend and then have a subtle additional part with language that sounds like it refers to 1973.

Some others don't see it this way. But ultimately it's in Congress' hands. The DC government believes it's legal and, if the referendum passes, will operate on that basis. If Congress wants DC to still have to submit its budget, both houses can pass a resolution to say so. Since there are leaders on both sides of the political aisle who do support the idea, Congress will most likely not step in.

Even if some lawyers and judges disagree, the courts won't intervene, because Congress is probably the only body with standing to sue, explained Smith. You have to be harmed by something to sue to stop it, and only Congress' power over the budget will change. But Congress won't sue because it doesn't have to; it could just pass a resolution to stop the change. Which it won't do.

Essentially, this referendum shifts the burden from one where Congress has to act (very hard to achieve) to one where it simply has to not act (far easier). DC voters can take this step knowing that Congress almost certainly won't act, and by voting for this amendment, they will gain an important element of self-government.

15 comments

What counties are larger than whole states?

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:08:00 EDT

by David Alpert

We know that DC has more people than Wyoming and about to pass Vermont. Reddit user desert_wombat created a map of all US counties that are more populous than some states.

With 9.8 million people, Los Angeles County is larger than North Carolina, the 10th most populous US state. (It's also geographically larger than Rhode Island and Delaware, combined).

Baltimore County (which doesn't include Baltimore City) is more populous than Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska; Prince George's is also larger than South Dakota; Montgomery County larger than Delaware; and Fairfax County has more people than all of those as well as Montana and Rhode Island.

Thanks to Dan Malouff for the tip via Twitter.

28 comments

Congressman v. architects

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:47:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced a bill to kill the Frank Gehry design for the Eisenhower Memorial and start a new design contest. But the American Institute of Architects vowed to fight the bill. (WAMU, WJLA)

Comment

Senate to the rescue

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:41:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The Senate has restored transportation funding to the tune of $500 million for highways and $100 million for transit that the House cut. (WAMU)

Comment

FBI not near Metro?

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Congress could drop the requirement that the FBI locate near Metro and the Beltway. This would open up cheaper sites such as in Loudoun, but at great intangible cost. ... Montgomery bowed out of the competition and will support Greenbelt. (WBJ, City Paper)

Comment

Less for transportation

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The House has cut funding for transit, New Starts, and highway safety, backing off of funding promises made when the latest transportation bill was passed. And it doesn't look like the Senate will fix it. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Go higher?

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:43:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The Congressionally-mandated study on whether to ease the height limit will wrap up by September after 3 phases. Arrington Dixon wants more height east of the river; some commissioners think all Americans outside DC ought to weigh in too. (City Paper)

Comment

The shadow knows

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:43:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Vincent Orange wants to pay DC's shadow delegation a salary, but can other steps also to make them more effective, like more focus on the House or 4-year terms? (NUDCS, Josh B.)

Comment

Longer Metro

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:43:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran have a bill to study extending Metro further into Virginia, with the Orange Line to Centreville, the Yellow Line down Route 1, and the Blue Line to Woodbridge. But what about the core? (Patch)

Comment

Referendum is the right strategy for DC budget autonomy

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:29:00 EDT

by Walter Smith

On March 27, Congress' continuing resolution that appropriates federal and DC funds will expire. If Congress does not pass additional legislation by that date, it risks not only a federal government shutdown, but also shutting down the DC government. This is because unlike every other jurisdiction in the country, the District cannot spend its own local revenue without Congress first affirmatively enacting the city's budget.

Image from DC Vote.

Fortunately, the days of the District being caught in such federal budget impasses may be coming to an end. After years of urging Congress to grant the District budget autonomy, the DC Council recently adopted a new strategy on this issue.

It unanimously passed legislation to put a referendum before the voters that would amend the Home Rule Charter and give the District local budget autonomy. The referendum will be on the ballot in the city's April 23 special election.

DC Appleseed has long supported this new strategy for advancing DC democracy. In 2010, DC Appleseed proposed using this strategy to allow DC residents to elect their Attorney General, a move which was ultimately successful. Last May, I testified to the Council about other potential uses for this strategy, including budget autonomy. For several reasons, this referendum is the right strategy now for the District.

Budget autonomy is important

Unlike other states and cities, the District cannot spend the roughly $6 billion in revenue it raises every year without an act of Congress. As a practical matter, this requirement is completely unnecessary. Congress almost never changes the city's budget request. But the requirement nevertheless imposes significant burdens and costs on the District.

First, it adds about 3 months to the budget process. That creates temporary cash shortages that force the District to borrow more money and incur millions in additional interest charges. Second, the lag time between Council approval and the start of the federal fiscal year undermines the District's ability to accurately forecast revenues and expenditures. Finally, the process permits the District to be needlessly ensnared in a federal budget battle that could shut down the government.

The budget autonomy referendum would fix all of this by allowing the District to enact the local budget just as it does all other legislation. The budget would be introduced in the Council, subjected to hearings and markups, and passed after 2 readings.

After receiving mayoral approval, it would be transmitted to Congress and become law after a 30-day review period. Congress would still retain its ultimate authority to legislate for the District, but the budget could take effect without the need for affirmative congressional action. This would be an important step forward for DC democracy.

The District needs a new strategy

The District has long sought, but been unable to, obtain budget autonomy despite bipartisan support in Congress. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House committee overseeing the District, has been at the forefront with his support, along with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).

The difficulty lies in the fact that Congress has been unable to pass a "clean" budget autonomy bill that did not also take away certain other District rights. Just last June, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) withdrew his budget autonomy bill when it became clear that it would not pass without riders undermining the Council's Home Rule prerogatives.

Riders similarly doomed bills that would have given the District's Delegate a vote in the House of Representatives. These riders have become the fatal obstacle to congressional action that would otherwise advance DC democracy.

This is not to say that such efforts on the Hill should not continue. However, it's time to explore other strategies that might produce a "clean" bill advancing DC democracy. The budget autonomy referendum is such a strategy.

New strategy has many benefits

There are several clear benefits to the budget autonomy referendum. First, it gives DC residents a meaningful role in achieving greater democracy and makes use of the city's broad authority under the Home Rule Act to make changes to that Act. The referendum also offers DC residents an opportunity to make visible to Congress the importance of this issue to the people of the District.

Second, the referendum will itself be the "clean" budget autonomy bill the District is seeking. And under the Home Rule Act itself, Congress is not permitted to amend the referendum by adding riders; instead, it must either approve it by doing nothing, or disapprove it by joint resolution.

Finally, the Home Rule Act makes it hard for Congress to disapprove the referendum. Under that Act, the referendum giving the city budget autonomy will automatically become law unless both Houses of Congress disapprove it within 35 days and the President signs that disapproval.

Even if both houses could pass the disapproval resolution, it seems highly unlikely that the President would sign it. When he decided to put DC's "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on his inauguration vehicles, President Obama issued a strong statement declaring his "willingness to fight for voting rights, Home Rule and budget autonomy for the District."

DC should move forward despite concerns

Some have raised concerns that the referendum is beyond the District's authority, or that it will undermine the city's relationship with Congress, or that it does not bring us full democracy. None of these concerns should keep the residents of the District from fully supporting the referendum.

First, no proposal for greater DC democracy has ever been or will ever be a "slam dunk" legally or politically. There were similar doubts about the soundness of the DC Voting Rights Act, but that bill received strong support and passed both Houses of Congress nonetheless—because it was the best and only viable option then available. That is true now of the referendum.

Second, the referendum is the city's way of showing its support for budget autonomy, and in no way detracts from Congress's own authority on that issue. In fact, former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA)—Issa's predecessor on the oversight committee—testified to the DC Council that Congress would not view the measure as a slight. And Rep. Jose Serrano, ranking member of the subcommittee on DC appropriations, issued a statement in favor of the referendum, calling it "democracy at its very core."

Finally, some of the top law firms in the city, and the DC Council's own general counsel, have vetted the referendum's legal underpinnings. All agree that that the measure is within the District's authority. And even though the referendum was challenged before the District's Board of Elections, the Board rejected the challenge and certified the issue for the April 23 ballot.

The road to greater democracy has always been filled with obstacles and uncertainty. That is true also for the April 23 referendum. But that referendum is now the best available step forward on that road.

32 comments

And...

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:31:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Hyattsville may soon get speed cameras. (Gazette) ... 4 Senators introduce a DC statehood bill in the Senate. (Examiner) ... Groups using the Mall will now have to pay for any damage they cause. (Examiner)

Comment

Distribute enforcement camera money to residents, Alaska-style (Dec 9, 2009)

Darrell Issa, DC's best friend

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:42:00 EDT

by David Alpert

When many thought House Republicans might try to re-impose the Control Board, oversight chairman Darrell Issa instead turned out to be a big advocate for more DC budget autonomy. How did that happen? (City Paper)

Comment

Congress on Metro

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:07:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Members of Congress from both parties take Metro, although Eleanor Holmes Norton is not among them. Some complain about reliability and broken escalators, but the system still garners mainly positive reviews. (Politico)

Comment

Weekend links: The end (Apr 1, 2012)
Take Metro in a wheelchair, just once (Apr 14, 2011)
Union Station latest photo flashpoint (Jun 3, 2008)
Park Service inflexibility draws criticism from Congress (Jul 27, 2011)
How good is Congress' word on Metro funding? (Feb 18, 2009)

And...

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:07:00 EDT

by David Alpert

One of the few pro-bicycle Republicans will chair a key House transportation subcommittee. (Streetsblog) ... Glenn Beck really hates central planning, except when he centrally plans his own city. (Streetsblog) ... Bethesda's bus bays might have to close for 2 years for renovations. (BethesdaNow)

Comment

House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds (Jun 8, 2012)
House GOP moves to decimate transit funding (Feb 2, 2012)
GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one (Jul 11, 2011)
House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet (Feb 23, 2012)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)

Norton asks for statehood, again

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:40:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced a DC statehood bill in the House of Representatives, as she has several times before. Her bill reached a vote only once, in 1993, when it lost 153-277. (Post)

Comment

Bush threatening veto of Amtrak funding (Jun 10, 2008)
Union Station latest photo flashpoint (Jun 3, 2008)
Norton wants to push Park Service to be more responsive (Jul 26, 2011)
Weekend links: The end (Apr 1, 2012)
Norton berates Union Station reps over photography, intermodal plans (Jul 22, 2008)

And...

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:37:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Congress passed on a number of new monuments and museums last session. (WBJ) ... DDOT wants your pictures of people moving around DC. (NCH) ... Amtrak's WiFi will get faster. (Post) ... Few people take advantage of their SmarTrip rebate. (Post)

Comment

New oversight

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:20:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Budget autonomy supporter Darrell Issa is moving oversight of DC from a subcommittee to the full House Oversight and Government Reform committee, which he chairs. Eleanor Holmes Norton likes the change. (City Paper)

Comment

Fiscal cliff deal restores transit benefit

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:14:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Congress reached a deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," and transit riders get a bonus: the Senate included a provision raising the federal transit benefit to $240 per month.

Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Today, employers can offer their workers a pretax deduction for transit of up to $125 per month, and some employers, including the federal government, will give that much in transit fare to workers outright as an extra perk. The benefit was $230 per month until the beginning of last year, when a provision in the law expired and it reset to a lower level.

There's a similar benefit for parking costs, but workers can deduct more than for transit—up to $240 per month since the start of 2012. Some members of Congress had been trying to restore parity between transit and parking benefits, and got it into the Senate's transportation bill in March, but the provision didn't survive into the final bill.

The bill Congress just approved for the "fiscal cliff" contains this provision, meaning benefits go up to $240 per month, several people have confirmed. Unfortunately, it's still only temporary, as this new level expires again at the end of 2013 unless Congress extends it once more.

Technically, the new level is also retroactive until the start of 2012, but unlike with tax credits you can claim on this April's taxes for activities in 2012, there's no way for riders to realistically take advantage of it for months gone by.

Tom Bulger, a WMATA board member and lobbyist who's been pushing for the extension, noted that Congressional Republicans had been strongly opposed to any changes in law that increase any taxes, including letting previous tax cuts expire, but hadn't extended that same passion to the transit benefit.

Even if House Republicans just went along somewhat reluctantly with a Senate deal yesterday, in approving this extension, they were now able to give many American workers a tax cut along with helping our cities function more effectively and ending one small example of the many ways government "picks winners and losers" among transportation modes.

36 comments

Is the federal transit benefit actually bad? (May 18, 2010)
House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet (Feb 23, 2012)
Many employers won't refund unused pretax SmartBenefits (Nov 13, 2009)
Debt deal could mean more painful cuts for transportation (Aug 1, 2011)
When will Oberstar's transportation bill drop? Place your bets now (Jun 10, 2009)

Tide turning on national VMT study?

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:24:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Congressman Earl Blumenauer introduced a bill to mandate that Treasury study a VMT tax. The sponsor of a previous bill banning the USDOT from studying VMT tax lost reelection. (Streetsblog)

Comment

House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet (Feb 23, 2012)
Oberstar to release transportation outline on Wednesday (Jun 15, 2009)
House GOP moves to decimate transit funding (Feb 2, 2012)
House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds (Jun 8, 2012)
STAA tuned: Transportation bill leaves funding question hanging (Jun 23, 2009)

What's going to happen to transportation?

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 08:27:00 EDT

by David Alpert

With the newish transportation bill and a new Obama term, what's in store? Congress needs to solve funding, and without it transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects might still be at risk. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Shuster gets transportation chair

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:46:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Bill Shuster (R-PA) will chair the House Transportation Committee. He supports high-speed rail, but only privatized and in the Northeast Corridor, and wants more focus on highways and less on bike paths. (Streetsblog)

Comment

GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one (Jul 11, 2011)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)
House GOP moves to decimate transit funding (Feb 2, 2012)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds (Jun 8, 2012)

DC Home Rule almost had... Congress decide all criminal laws

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:00:00 EDT

by David Alpert

This is part 5 in a series on the legislative history of the 1973 Home Rule Act. See previous parts on the act's bipartisan support, nonpartisan elections, the police chief, and judges.

Congress decided not to keep the police chief federally appointed when it gave the District home rule, but Congress did initially restrict DC's ability to change its own criminal laws.

Photo by much0 on Flickr.

The Home Rule Act forbade the DC Council from changing the criminal code for the first 2 years. After that, Congress tried to make it eaiser for it to overturn any criminal law change, but the courts took away that perogative in 1985.

Yes, while Congress had no problem with DC setting the laws for licensing barbers or home construction or parking, it was very nervous about letting DC change criminal offenses. Why?

A letter from critics of Home Rule fretted that the DC Council "would be able to alter, amend, repeal or supersede virtually any law including Titles 22, 23, and 24 of the criminal code. (p. 1568) The majority (Democratic) House staff responded in their own memo:

The above statement is a prime example of an assumption of bad faith on the part of duly elected official sunder the bill. It is logical to assume that the local elected government will have just as much stake in maintaining peace, law, and justice as the presently appointed officials have in maintaining the integiity of the city government. (1645)

Nonetheless, the Congressmen in charge of the DC committee acceded to this concern in their committee print, the version of the bill they brought to the floor that tried to respond to some of the opponents' arguments. In that version, the titles of the DC Code involving crimes, criminal procedure, and treatment of prisoners were part of the list of laws the Council can't legislate, such as changing the height limit or imposing a commuter tax.

The House passed the bill with a prohibition on changing criminal laws. That would have meant that Congress would be the one still setting any criminal laws in DC. The Senate version did not restrict this, and the conference committee compromised by limiting this authority for only the first 2 years after Home Rule. (2361)

One-house veto lasted until Chadha and Gary

Congress didn't just let DC have complete control over the criminal laws after that. Instead, it set up a "one-house veto." Normally, to block a DC law, both houses of Congress have to pass a joint resolution, and the President has the ability to veto that, just like with a bill. That sets a fairly high bar for the federal government to overturn a DC law.

With the criminal code, Congress decided to make it easier. They added a provision that a change to criminal law will not take effect even if only one house passes a resolution against it. This one-house veto also applied to an act changing the Mayor or councilmembers' pay. (2917)

This provision lasted until 1983, when something got in the way: the US Supreme Court's decision in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). There had also been a one-house veto in place for deportation decisions: the INS could hold off on a deportation proceeding for 7 years if deportation would create "extreme hardship."

The INS used this discretion to help Jagdish Rai Chadha, who had overstayed a student visa. He had been born in Kenya to Indian parents and had a British passport, but neither India nor Britain would let him back into their nations. The House used its one-house veto to block the leniency, but the Supreme Court held that since the Constitution specifies a set process for Congressional action including bicameralism (both houses must pass the same bill or resolution) and presentment (it goes to the President for the chance to veto), Congress can't decide to elect a different process for some actions.

The decision had far-reaching consequences besides INS procedures: it ended every one-house veto, including the ones in the Home Rule Act. In Gary v. United States, 499 A.2d 815 (1984), the DC Court of Appeals (DC's highest state court) struck down the one-house veto.

Therefore, District residents enjoy the ability to elect officials who can change the criminal laws as needed. A sympathetic young Indian/British immigrant led to Congress' power over the District growing a little less in a significant area.

All numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Home Rule for the District of Columbia, 1973-1974, Background and Legislative History of H.R. 9056, H.R. 9682, and Related Bills Culminating in the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198), Serial No, S-4, US Government Printing Office, December 31, 1974.

3 comments

DC Home Rule almost had... the Mayor picking judges (Nov 20, 2012)
DC Home Rule almost had... the FBI picking the police chief (Nov 19, 2012)
DC Home Rule almost had... nonpartisan elections (Oct 31, 2012)
Republicans and Democrats supported rights for DC (in 1973) (Nov 6, 2012)
Wells to introduce bill for overhead wires on H, Benning (May 29, 2010)