D.C. leaders begin lobbying Congress against effort to block policing bill

A D.C. police car blocks traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue SE. (Al Drago for The Washington Post)

House Republicans are preparing for the next round in their perennial boxing match against D.C. home rule, this time targeting D.C.’s police accountability legislation after Congress voted to block the city’s criminal code overhaul.

But whether their new effort succeeds will once again depend on Democrats.

The looming congressional examination of D.C.’s policing legislation is expected to test the extent to which Democrats support D.C. home rule, as most say they do — and how vulnerable they could be to Republican political attacks that they are “anti-police.”

The decision among dozens of Senate Democrats and President Biden this month to support blocking the city’s revised criminal code led local officials and statehood advocates to wonder what to expect from Democrats in this next round. Does previous broad support in the Democratic caucus for federal police accountability legislation — namely the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act — mean they’ll avoid trying to block D.C.’s bill? Or will fear of being painted as “anti-police,” or disagreement with certain police revisions specific to the D.C. bill, push them away from defending D.C. self-government?

Not waiting to find out, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) penned a letter to House and Senate leadership on Friday opposing congressional efforts to overturn the bill, getting a much earlier start in lobbying Congress against the disapproval legislation after Mendelson and others acknowledged that murky and disunified messaging hampered the city during the previous debate over the crime bill.

The two city leaders noted that many of the elements in the city’s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 have already been enacted on a temporary basis and that “disapproval at this point in time would be disruptive to our public safety processes.”

“We encourage you to see this legislation for what it is: a package of reforms not unlike reforms under consideration elsewhere, including the United States Congress. Regardless of the substance, we are united in opposition to H.J. Res 42 because it offends the basic democratic principles of self-determination and local control.”

Biden, Bowser messages likely to hold sway

While D.C. is accustomed to intervention in its affairs when Republicans control one or both chambers, it’s rare for Congress to reject D.C. legislation; it’s only happened four times in the past 50 years, including the most recent vote. And it would be unprecedented for Congress to vote to block legislation in back-to-back actions should the policing resolution proceed to a vote. So far, Rep. Andrew S. Clyde (R-Ga.), the sponsor of the resolution, is still searching for a Senate co-lead, his office said, and has said he hopes the bill could have a hearing. The House Oversight and Accountability Committee will also hold a hearing targeting D.C. city management and public safety March 29, at which the policing bill may come up.

The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 would make permanent certain reforms the city enacted on an emergency or temporary basis after the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd in 2020, such as prohibiting the use of neck restraints. It also would expand public access to police disciplinary records and access to police body-camera footage in excessive force incidents. Additionally, the bill would require officers to issue Miranda-like warnings before conducting a search with a person’s consent, would prevent hiring officers who have committed past misconduct and would not allow the police union to negotiate police discipline, which the union strongly opposes.

Any messages from Biden and Bowser regarding the effort to overturn the legislation early in the process could hold significant sway in the debate, considering they carried weight during the crime bill vote.

Bowser had unsuccessfully vetoed the criminal code legislation, saying she was concerned about reductions in certain sentences — a move many Congress members on both sides of the aisle had pointed to as reasoning for why they voted to block the bill. Noting Bowser’s objections, Biden said he would sign the disapproval resolution, though he maintained he was still a strong supporter of D.C. autonomy and statehood.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), often a D.C. ally, said he was leaning against the disapproval resolution — until he reviewed the mayor’s comments and veto. And Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), the sponsor of the Senate D.C. statehood bill, also announced that he supported the disapproval resolution, pointing to Biden’s position. “At the end of the day, we can support a rewrite [of the criminal code legislation], which is much, much needed, and at the same time, not fall into a trap laid for us by our friends on the other side of the aisle,” he said.

Statehood supporters found Biden’s comments and Democrats’ votes inconsistent with their stated support for home rule. “I think President Biden’s words about supporting statehood and home rule feel emptier and emptier by the day,” said Bo Shuff, executive director of DC Vote.

In a statement to The Washington Post, a White House spokeswoman reiterated Biden’s support for D.C. statehood and noted his support for home rule also extends back decades, providing clippings from as far back as the 1970s in which Biden advocated giving D.C. representation in Congress. Regarding the new disapproval effort, the spokeswoman said Biden is reviewing the legislation but also stressed actions he has taken to support police accountability, including an executive order he issued aimed at preventing and punishing police misconduct, which included the creation of a national database of police with substantiated misconduct.

“President Biden set the gold standard for policing at the federal level with his Executive Order, which earned the support of law enforcement and civil rights leaders,” the statement said. “He will continue to fight for Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The President’s support for D.C. statehood and home rule extends back decades, and we are currently reviewing the legislation.”

A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office pointed to Bowser’s letter to congressional leadership following questions about the city’s strategy in response to the new disapproval effort.

Political debate shapes up

The strokes of the next political debate are already filling in. Clyde and co-sponsor Rep. Andrew R. Garbarino (R-N.Y.) have framed D.C.’s policing bill as “anti-police,” and have the support of the D.C. Police Union in seeking to overturn the bill. In a robo-text, the police union told D.C. residents that it lost over 1,200 MPD officers in the past three years and only replaced 700, blaming the “mass exodus and public safety crisis” on “misguided legislation passed by the D.C. City Council.”

“We need Congress to take the necessary steps to restore the ability for police officers to protect communities,” the message said.

While Bowser did not veto the policing bill, she did not sign it — echoing some concerns from D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III about a civilian police complaint board having “unfettered” access to police disciplinary records. Contee has not commented publicly about the House Republicans’ efforts to block the legislation and police spokesmen did not immediately respond to a request.

Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) argued that D.C. also has enacted plenty of policies to incentivize police to join the force, such as a $20,000 signing bonus, and said the changes in the police reform package are important for transparency and accountability.

“Similar laws have been passed all over the country,” he said, noting that this time around, the city needed to send a unified message that “Congress is not welcome to meddle with local laws passed by the local elected leaders through our local democratic process.”

Meagan Hatcher-Mays, the director of democracy policy for the liberal group Indivisible who previously worked for Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), said she hoped Democrats “learned some difficult lessons” during the crime debate, believing that, in fact, Democrats did fall for a trap laid by Republicans.

In her view, Republicans forced Democrats to take a tough vote by framing the D.C. crime bill (and Democrats who didn’t support the disapproval resolution) as “soft on crime” — and that Republicans will do so on any police- or crime-related bill.

“What I’m hoping Democrats have learned from this is there’s really no glory in violating the principle of D.C. home rule,” Hatcher-Mays said. “Republicans are never going to stop attacking bills that the city council passes or stuff the residents here support. They use D.C. as a political prop, and it’s up to Democrats not to fall for it.”

Norton said she hoped past support among Democrats for police accountability meant House Republicans’ latest effort would lead to a different outcome — but she believes a number of her Democratic colleagues feel vulnerable on policing and crime, making it difficult to predict what they will do. She was also worried that, like the disapproval resolution targeting D.C.’s criminal code, the bill is eligible to be expedited for a floor vote without requiring committee approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The disapproval resolution will also not be subject to the Senate filibuster — meaning that once again, the fate of the legislation is likely to come down to just a handful of Senate Democrats.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who strongly opposed efforts to overturn the crime bill and urged his colleagues to respect D.C. home rule, said that is exactly what he feared could continue to happen if Democrats did not shoot down the effort to block the crime bill.

“This was obviously part of our concern, that this would just invite more efforts to try to undermine the self-governance of the people of the District of Columbia,” he said. “So unfortunately, it looks like that’s the case. So we’re going to fight this one, and I hope it will be much more successful this time around.”

Many other Senate Democrats were not yet familiar this week with the details of the House disapproval resolution targeting the D.C. policing bill. But several Senate Democrats made clear they intended to weigh the merits of the policing legislation versus solely voting on the principle of D.C. home rule, as Van Hollen and others like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) had called for.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who voted to block the criminal code revision and is one of just a handful of Senate Democrats who has not sponsored the D.C. statehood bill, said he believed Congress had an important role to play in reviewing D.C. legislation. “On this last one, I voted with the mayor and against the council. But on home rule, for me, it’s really about the merits” of the underlying legislation, he said. He added that while he does see room for improving policing, as the son of police officers, “I know better than most people how hard a job that is.”

Asked for his position on D.C. statehood, he said, “I think there are other ways that D.C. could try to get some representation. I think it’s important that people are represented in the United States Congress and have more than just their local representation.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former prosecutor who also backed the disapproval of the D.C. crime bill, said he considered himself a strong supporter of D.C. statehood. But he, too, felt that until D.C. is a state, there is room for Congress to review the merits of D.C. legislation as the Constitution allows. “If I’m forced to vote on specific issues, I need to consider the merits of those issues,” Blumenthal said, adding on the last vote he was “heavily influenced by the mayor” and would need to review the particulars of the policing bill.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee with oversight of the D.C. statehood bill, said he did not believe the previous vote against the D.C. crime bill would hurt D.C.’s efforts toward statehood, seeing that decision as distinct from the statehood fight.

Statehood advocates are hoping that’s the case.

“While many of our friends made a decision that was of interest to politics, we have built so much leading up to this point from a momentum standpoint,” said Jamal Holtz, the 24-year-old president of DC Young Democrats, “and we have to continue to live up to that momentum and not let our foot off the gas. I still believe that we’re closer to achieving statehood and that did not change after the disapproval resolution.”

Advocates are already planning more action to protest the disapproval resolution targeting the policing bill. The Hands Off DC Coalition, which launched ahead of the vote on the criminal code resolution, is organizing visits to Clyde’s office throughout the day Tuesday to demand he stop interfering with D.C. legislation.

“He is making decisions on behalf of us as if we are his constituents, but we are not,” said Maxine Davis, organizing director of the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. “It’s creating a stalemate for statehood right now, because we have to fight these individual battles instead of just the larger fight at hand.”

Emily Davies contributed to this report.