Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides the District of Columbia (DC) with exclusive authority to prosecute, and grant clemency for, violations of its criminal laws. (Currently, the authority to prosecute crimes is shared between DC and the federal government, while the authority to grant clemency is held by the President.) Additionally, the bill eliminates the congressional review period that applies to legislation passed by the DC council. (Under current law, Congress reviews legislation passed by the council and may issue a joint resolution disapproving of the legislation; if the President signs the resolution, the legislation may not become law.)
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 700000
- The bill impacts the governance structure of the District of Columbia, specifically regarding legal and legislative processes.
- It gives DC exclusive authority to prosecute violations of its criminal laws, affecting the legal proceedings in DC.
- The bill influences how clemency is granted in DC, transferring this power from the President to the local authorities.
- By eliminating the congressional review period for DC legislation, it affects how laws are enacted in DC.
- The majority of the impact will be on the residents of DC, who number around 700,000.
Reasoning
- The main impact of the policy will be felt by the residents of the District of Columbia, as the clarification and expansion of their home rule directly influence the governance and legal processes within the district.
- The Wellbeing scores will differ based on personal circumstances such as involvement with the legal system, interest in local governance, and trust in local vs federal authority.
- Not all individuals in DC will be equally impacted; those with direct interaction with the legal and legislative processes may feel the changes more acutely.
- Estimated scores for people not residing in DC are projected to remain as unaffected since they are not directly influenced by this policy change.
- Interviews include a mix of opinions providing diverse perspectives, from government officials to everyday residents.
Simulated Interviews
Local Government Official (District of Columbia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will strengthen DC's ability to govern itself effectively.
- Removing the Congressional review streamlines our legislative process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Criminal Defense Lawyer (District of Columbia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having DC exclusively manage prosecutions may lead to fairer trials and sentencing.
- I'm concerned about the capacity of DC to handle this change initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Federal Employee (District of Columbia)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact me much as my work and life are federal-focused.
- I'm neutral about DC's increased autonomy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Organizer (District of Columbia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a significant step forward for DC's residents to have true self-governance.
- It will change how we engage in local policy advocacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retail Manager (District of Columbia)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to less federal interference in local matters.
- I'm worried whether DC will handle criminal prosecutions effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Congressional Staffer (Maryland)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy simplifies my oversight tasks but doesn't affect my personal life.
- DC having more control could set precedents for other areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Local Business Owner (District of Columbia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More local control over laws could reduce red tape for my business.
- I'm optimistic, but implementation will be critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Judge (District of Columbia)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is long overdue to align DC's judicial powers.
- It's crucial that the transition plans are robust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Law Student (Virginia)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting legal development; might offer more internships in DC.
- I'm curious to see changes in clemency processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (District of Columbia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy empowers our local community, a great example for my students.
- I hope it leads to more civic engagement in schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $9000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Key Considerations
- The main costs will be associated with the increased need for local criminal justice resources in DC.
- Funding for this policy may need clarification as it's unclear if DC will require additional federal assistance for implementation.
- While there will be minor federal savings from reduced oversight, the cost savings might not balance local expenses within the first few years.