Bill Overview
Title: Home Rule for All Americans Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows an individual who is on trial for a crime committed in the District of Columbia to change the venue of the trial to the U.S. district court that covers the individual's primary residence.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: People subject to trial for crimes committed in the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill affects individuals on trial for crimes committed in the District of Columbia, allowing them to transfer their trial venue.
- This would primarily impact residents of DC who are charged with crimes, as well as non-residents who commit crimes in DC and wish to have their trial closer to home.
- According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Washington, D.C. is over 700,000 people.
- The bill also affects the judiciary system, involving both the D.C. courts and U.S. district courts across the country.
- This legislation might see a significant impact on residents of nearby states who frequently visit or work in D.C.
Reasoning
- The target population includes individuals who have committed crimes in the District of Columbia and desire to change their trial's venue to be closer to home.
- This applies both to residents of D.C. and people who travel to or through D.C. and commit a crime there.
- The policy will most likely not affect ordinary citizens with no connections to crime in D.C.
- Resource allocation must focus on facilitating the judicial processes in districts this policy would affect.
- Given the estimated 7,000 to 8,000 individuals affected annually, the budget must primarily cover administrative costs of transferring venues and possibly increased trial durations in the district courts.
- The focus of this simulation is on capturing diverse perspectives, including those marginally affected, based on the policy’s scope.
Simulated Interviews
Accountant (Washington D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've never been in trouble with the law, so this policy doesn't impact me personally.
- It sounds fair for someone who doesn't live here to have their trial closer to their family.
- I hope this doesn’t overburden other district courts.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’s a good idea. People accused should have a fair chance close to home.
- As long as it doesn’t add complications to the legal process, I'm fine with it.
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 |
Barista (Maryland)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could help folks avoid jury prejudice away from D.C.
- I think it might help people like me who can end up in the wrong situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Legal Consultant (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes a lot of sense for my clients, offering them more strategic options.
- Concerned about overburdens in smaller district courts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (California)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this impacts me, but it could be important for fairness if I was in such a situation.
- It’s comforting to know the law considers such details.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Government Worker (North Carolina)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would have made my situation easier if my trial was closer to home.
- I believe this can help those falsely accused to be more supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Doesn't really affect me personally.
- I am worried about resource and court issues in D.C.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Judge (Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could redistribute caseloads, which may be beneficial for balance.
- Concerns about uniform application across different states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is quite useful for people who travel for work like me.
- It's a relief considering what could happen by accident.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Federal Employee (New Jersey)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems practical; everyone should have access to justice from a supportive community.
- This might save lots of unnecessary logistical issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $9500000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9700000 (Low: $8200000, High: $12200000)
Year 3: $9900000 (Low: $8400000, High: $12400000)
Year 5: $10300000 (Low: $8800000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $11200000 (Low: $9600000, High: $14200000)
Year 100: $19000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $24000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative and logistics cost of coordinating trials across different jurisdictions will play a significant role in total costs.
- Judicial efficiency can be impacted by the uneven distribution of court cases across U.S. district courts.
- Costs related to secure transportation of defendants and handling of evidence across state lines need consideration.
- Potential impacts on trial timelines and justice delivery due to shifted venues might influence caseloads elsewhere.