The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote by federal lawmakers comes just two days after D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson withdrew the controversial piece of legislation, which took 16 years to develop. The Senate nevertheless moved forward with the vote, claiming Mendelson didn't have the authority to withdraw the legislation from congressional consideration.
President Joe Biden had announced last week that he would sign House Joint Resolution 26 disapproving of the revised code.
Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., an original co-sponsor of the joint resolution, said in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday the changes unanimously approved by D.C. Council would "send the wrong message that D.C. is not serious about fighting crime." He hailed the fact that Congress has the authority to step in and prevent the bill from purportedly deteriorating public safety further.
"No matter how hard they try, the council cannot avoid accountability for passing this disastrous, dangerous, soft-on-crime bill," Hagerty said shortly before the chamber voted. "Stopping violent crime shouldn't be a Democratic or Republican objective, it should be a common-sense one."
Mendelson said the council plans to revisit the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 and reevaluate certain areas of concern before attempting to pass it again.
Violent crime is down 8% overall in D.C. compared to this time last year, but property crime is 32% higher, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC, said she would work to convince Biden to not sign the joint resolution, claiming it is counterintuitive to his previous statements of support for DC statehood and his stated administration policy.
If, however, the president signs the joint resolution into law, Holmes Norton called Congress' action a "powerful argument" for statehood.
"Statehood would give the nearly 700,000 residents of the nation's capital voting representation in Congress and full local self-government, and would ensure that Congress and the Executive Branch will never again be able to overturn local D.C. laws.," she said "I will not stop until the job is done."
The revised code would have completely overhauled D.C.'s current set of statutory provisions cobbled together over the past century by providing clear definitions and elements of each crime, updating sentencing guidelines and generally modernizing the code. The revisions also included a jury trial requirement for nearly all misdemeanors and expanded eligibility for the district's early release program.
While local leaders agreed on roughly 95% of the changes, the bill's Achilles heel turned out to be its D.C. Superior Court data-based sentencing guidelines, which eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes other than first-degree murder and lowered penalties for certain hot-button violent crimes such as the most common form of carjacking that occurs in the district.
Congress' action against the revised code is only the fourth time in history, and the first in 30 years, that the body has overridden a D.C. law.
Wednesday's vote was a culmination of local critiques, national politics and several congressional reelection bids, which shows congressional Democrats will talk the talk when it comes to statehood and self-governance for the district but won't walk the walk, according to Michael Fauntroy, an associate professor of policy and government at George Mason University.
"The Democrats talk Home Rule support, but when it comes down to it, there's enough of them to fold," Fauntroy said, referring to the D.C. Home Rule Act, which allows the council to pass laws for the district but reserves ultimate authority for Congress.
There is nothing in the Home Rule Act preventing the D.C. Council from attempting to enact the revised code, or parts of it, again. But Wednesday's vote overriding the revised code shows crime will be a major topic in the upcoming 2024 election — and could mean the council will have a hard time getting any piece of the legislation enacted during this election cycle, Fauntroy said.
"In such a closely contested period, I think the Republicans will jump on anything" the council passes, he said.
Republican members of Congress have already used the revised code to differentiate themselves from Democrats, whom they describe as anti-law enforcement.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday claimed higher crime rates nationwide were the result of criminal justice reforms pushed by Democrats.
"This is what happens when the political left spends years spotlighting anti-law-enforcement rhetoric," McConnell said. "This is what happens when Democrats at all levels decide we need fewer arrests, shorter sentences and more leniency for violent criminals."
Sen. Shelley Capito, R-W.Va., in a speech on the Senate floor called the revised code "tone-deaf" and an "irresponsible overhaul" of the district's current code.
"It's the complete opposite of what is needed to control the out-of-control crime," she said.
Other Republican members of Congress took time during floor debate over the revised code to criticize the U.S. Department of Justice and immigration policies, express support for law enforcement, discuss their state's fentanyl overdose problems and push their own crime-related bills.
Two Democrats, Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Cory Booker of New Jersey, were the only lawmakers to speak in opposition to the joint resolution to block the revised code from taking effect. Both of them called on their colleagues to allow D.C. citizens to govern themselves.
Van Hollen said the joint resolution was effectively Congress infantilizing the D.C. Council, with federal lawmakers treating the district's leaders as children who can't make decisions on their own.
"This resolution is an attack on the democratic rights of the people of the District of Columbia," he said. "Its residents and citizens are fully capable of deciding its own law and deciding its own future."
Booker argued that preventing the revised code from taking effect would actually make D.C. residents less safe, pointing out that the revised code would have upgraded several crimes from misdemeanors to felonies, as well as established some brand-new crimes.
"Don't strip them of their ability to protect themselves," he said of the district. "Don't take away their ability in this law to protect their citizens."
But there will be no substantial changes in self-governance until D.C. is granted statehood, Maya Efrati, public policy counsel at New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, told Law360. Until then, Congress will continue to meddle in local affairs, she said.
"There isn't another place in the United States where Americans vote for representatives, make laws, and a member of Congress from somewhere else gets to say, 'No, that doesn't work,'" Efrati said. "That's the thing about D.C. Home Rule."
--Editing by Alanna Weissman.
Update: This story has been updated to include comments from Holmes Norton.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
