Prohibiting Voting By Noncitizens in District of Columbia Elections

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic bill, which would repeal a law enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government and impose a new law on D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from every member of D.C.'s local elected legislature, the council, opposing this bill. Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, June 9, 2025. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we understand will be considered on the House floor this week. All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the benefit of all District residents.

H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to ensure that police officers who violate the law and contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater than those recommended by the board investigating the allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management of its authority in this area would greatly undermine both MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C. Auditor's report catalogued cases where MPD was barred from firing officers who had committed sexual and domestic violence, who were arrested for assorted criminal activity, or who gave false statements, misused their firearms, or slept on the job. H.R. 2096 would also restore a 90-day statute of limitations for claims against police officers that, in the past, was repeatedly used by officers seeking to avoid accountability. Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years has supported this reform because it empowers police leadership--not a third- party board or arbitrator--to determine the appropriate standards of conduct and discipline for their officers. Congress should not substitute its authority for that of local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs who have examined these issues closely.

We support having a robust and strong police force and work closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own, residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who undermine that trust.

We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law extending voting rights in local District elections to non- citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law cannot and does not attempt to change that.

Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other District agencies participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13 years and makes it clear that District officials must cooperate with any court order directing that an individual in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would also eliminate rules governing information sharing between the District and federal law enforcement on immigration matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing. This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation. The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do that work.

Thank you for your consideration and your attention to these important matters. We look forward to working with you on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and prosperity of the District. Sincerely, Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, At-Large. Anita Bonds,

Councilmember,

At-Large. Robert C. White,

Councilmember,

At-Large. Brooke Pinto,

Councilmember,

Ward 2. Kenyan R. McDuffie,

Chair Pro-Tempore,

At-Large. Christina Henderson,

Councilmember,

At-Large. Brianne K. Nadeau,

Councilmember,

Ward 1. Matthew Frumin,

Councilmember,

Ward 3. Janeese Lewis George,

Councilmember,

Ward 4 Charles Allen,

Councilmember,

Ward 6. Zachary Parker,

Councilmember,

Ward 5. Wendell Felder,

Councilmember,

Ward 7.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from D.C.'s locally elected attorney general, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill. Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Attorney General, June 9, 2025. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write in opposition to three pieces of legislation before you today, H.R. 2096, H.R. 884, and H.R. 2056. These bills seek to repeal, explicitly or in effect, three local D.C. laws pertaining to three inherently local issues, namely the administration of local elections, the allocation of finite local law enforcement resources, and the processes for disciplining local police officers if they engage in misconduct. The D.C. Council--whose members are elected by and are directly accountable to District residents--passed those laws after extensive debate and consideration. It would be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of local autonomy on which this country was founded for Members of Congress, in whose election District residents have no say, to vote to upend these purely local laws.

District residents should have the same right as all other Americans to govern our local affairs. Just like your constituents in Louisiana and New York, and indeed the constituents in all of your colleagues' home states across the country, the more than 700,000 residents who call the District home know and care deeply about the local issues that uniquely impact our lives. Our democratically elected local officials work closely with policy experts, local law enforcement, and other community stakeholders to pass laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians. Substituting the will of District voters and the duly elected D.C. Council for that of federal politicians is, simply put, un-democratic. Even if members of Congress might vote differently on similar local issues for their own jurisdictions, the residents of D.C. deserve to have our local laws respected without interference from the federal government.

I urge you and your colleagues to vote against advancing these proposals. Sincerely, Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Republicans introduced 26 bills or amendments to change local D.C. election laws, including 14 to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify, or prohibit the carrying out of the local D.C. law that allows noncitizens to vote in local elections.

Yet, Republicans refused to make the only election law change D.C. has requested, which is to make D.C. a State so they can hold elections for voting Members of the House and Senate.

While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it is not required to do so. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''

In 1953, the Supreme Court held that ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss democracy, or lack thereof, in D.C. There are 700,000 D.C. residents. D.C. residents are required to pay Federal taxes, register with the Selective Service System, and serve on Federal juries in the same manner as residents of States. Yet, D.C. residents have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has the ultimate say on local D.C. matters.

The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.

The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never jurisdiction for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. However, I will briefly discuss it.

D.C. allows noncitizens to vote in local elections because it believes that all adult residents deserve a say in their local government. While D.C. law allows noncitizens to vote only in local elections, 40 States and the Federal Government allowed noncitizens to vote in local, State, territorial, and Federal elections at various points, including at the founding.

The Federal Government first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections only 29 years ago. Today, nearly 20 cities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

As the House has considered this bill, Republicans have repeatedly said the franchise is a right of citizenship. If that is what Republicans believe, I hope they will finally grant American citizens who live in D.C. the right to vote for voting representation in Congress. I have introduced H.R. 51 to do so.

Pursuant to the Admissions Clause and District Clause of the Constitution, H.R. 51 would admit the residential and commercial areas of D.C. as a new State. Statehood would not only give D.C. voting representation in Congress, but it would also give D.C. full local self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting ``no'' on H.R. 884.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source