District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which eliminates the District of Columbia's already small role in the selection of its local judges.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, D.C. Attorney Brian Schwalb, and the D.C. Bar. September 10, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime. Building on this progress, my Administration established the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving quality of life for every resident.

We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on shared priorities, including public safety, the federal Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix (which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:

Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act, make the District less efficient, competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex unique local government that serves local, county and state functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.

Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail. I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last two years.

And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are both less democratic and untenable for District operations. The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney General who represents the public interest. Changes to these charter agencies would significantly undercut the already thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.

Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-part eduction funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always been contingent on parity among all three education sectors-- public, private, and charter--and this approach is working. We will not support changes that tip the scales away from this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model for urban education. We outpace the national average on all tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice. Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history reflects, has made our city stronger. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser, Mayor. ____ Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, September 8, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The Council of the District of Columbia is aware that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to mark up more than a dozen proposed measures that would severely and negatively impact the operations, public safety, and autonomy of the District of Columbia. We ask that you oppose these measures in full, save one, H.R. 2693, District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act. While we have not seen the final text of this legislation, the public summary of H.R. 2693 is consistent with the long held request by the District of Columbia to allow the ability to electronically transfer legislative acts to Congress, rather than only allowing physical copies be transferred. The challenge and barriers created by this current requirement were clearly exposed during both the recent COVID pandemic restrictions as well as the Capitol campus restrictions following the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol.

The other 13 measures that have been shared with us would do direct and serious harm to the District of Columbia and we urge you to reject these measures completely. These bills represent an unprecedented attack on the autonomy and home rule of our local government and the more than 700,000 Americans that call it home. The breadth of these bills is remarkable, and if passed, would result in an erosion of accountability and public safety for the District of Columbia. They range from eliminating and replacing our elected and accountable Attorney General for the District of Columbia with a President's hand-picked and unaccountable associate requiring no confirmation by the U.S. Senate and no local ties, to a full repeal of multiple local DC laws that have been in place for many years, if not decades, that are tested, proven, and effective components of our public safety infrastructure and ecosystem. The effect of these Congressional repeals would put our legal and Court system into chaos and directly undermine successful tools that focus on serious accountability and effective rehabilitation when a crime occurs. As always, when revisions or amendments to DC laws are necessary, those changes should only take place within our local legislature which has the best capacity to provide effective oversight and accountable actions for the residents of the District of Columbia.

We respectfully request that all members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and all members of Congress, reject these harmful measures whether in committee mark up or before the full House of Representatives. Given the breadth of the multiple measures before you, we also request an opportunity to provide a more in-depth discussion of each bill before the Committee's mark-up, especially in light that the Committee will not hold public hearings on these measures. Sincerely,

Chairman Phil Mendelson; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At- Large; Councilmember Robert White, Jr.; Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, Ward 4; Councilmember Charles Allen, Ward 6; Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, At-Large; Councilmember Christina Henderson, At- Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1; Councilmember Matthew Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5; Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7; Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8. ____ Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Attorney General, September 9, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to markup fourteen bills tomorrow related to the operations of the District of Columbia. With the exception of H.R. 2693, the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal Act, I write in strong opposition to these bills. They address inherently local issues and laws that were passed after careful consideration by the District's elected representatives, who are directly accountable to District residents. Members of this very Committee have long advocated for the principles of federalism on which this nation was founded. They have consistently condemned federal overreach and fought forcefully and convincingly for the uniquely American values of local control, freedom, and self-governance. These principles should apply to the more than 700,000 people who call Washington, DC home, just as they do for your constituents across the country.

I specifically want to call attention to the significant incursion on local self-governance reflected in two bills, the District of Columbia Attorney General Appointment Reform Act and the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. Both laws would displace the ability of District residents to have a voice in the selection of local leaders who wield significant power over local judicial matters: the judges on our local courts and the Attorney General for the District. The judges on the DC Court of Appeals and DC Superior Court rule on inherently local matters such as criminal prosecutions, landlord-tenant cases, probate proceedings, civil cases, and divorce proceedings, all of which have profoundly important impact on our community. For more than 50 years, the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) has successfully allowed DC residents to have a voice in judicial appointments, while also granting the President and Senate a role in confirming our judges. I urge the Committee not to overturn that well-established process.

The DC Attorney General, as the District's chief law officer, is also responsible for local legal issues, namely, protecting the District and its residents in a wide range of matters, such as enforcing child support laws, handling abuse and neglect proceedings in the child welfare system, enforcing our housing code, and defending District agencies and officers when they are sued. In no other place in the United States are such local issues determined by a federally appointed person with no local accountability. The proposed legislation would be especially undemocratic in light of the fact that, in 2010, an overwhelming majority of District voters (76 percent) exercised their right to amend the District Charter to make the DC Attorney General an independent, elected office, rather than a position appointed by and subordinate to the Mayor. With that vote, District residents clearly expressed their desire that the Attorney General should be independent and accountable to them. The pending bill would displace that choice in favor of installing an Attorney General accountable not to District residents, but to the President. Given that the U.S. Attorney for the District is already appointed by the President, if passed, this bill would concentrate all criminal and civil litigation authority in the President, divesting the District and its residents of any local control over these essential functions.

No one knows or cares more about keeping DC safe than DC residents who work, live and raise their families here. Our democratically elected officials work closely with local law enforcement, policy experts, and community leadership to pass laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians. Substituting the will of DC voters with the whim of federal politicians is undemocratic and un-American.

I urge you to reject these measures and uphold the values Congress sought to advance more than 50 years ago when it passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act: that District residents should enjoy the ``powers of local self- government'' that all other Americans enjoy. See DC Code Sec. 1-201.02. Respectfully submitted, Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia. ____ DC Bar, Washington, DC, September 12, 2025. Re: District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission. James Comer, Chair, Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: I am writing to you on behalf of the District of Columbia Bar (the D.C. Bar) and its Board of Governors in support of the vital work of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC or Commission) and its essential role in maintaining the integrity and excellence of the District of Columbia's courts. In particular, the D.C. Bar supports the views presented by members of the Commission in their September 9, 2025, letter, a copy of which is attached here. The continued work of the JNC is important and valuable to D.C. Bar members, District residents, and the administration of justice in the District of Columbia.

Congress created the Commission in 1973 to ensure that the District's local judges are selected based on professional qualifications, experience, judicial temperament, and commitment to justice. Comprised of Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia, and the D.C. Bar, the JNC is a hallmark of bipartisan commitment to merit-based judicial selection, and has produced one of the nation's most well-respected local court systems.

The JNC's mission is straightforward: to recommend to the President highly qualified individuals to fill judicial vacancies on the District's local courts, and to select the chief judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. For more than five decades, through rigorous evaluation of legal experience, integrity, intellectual capacity, and community standing, the Commission has consistently provided the President with a carefully vetted pool of highly qualified nominees.

Despite having numerous vacancies in recent years, our local courts constantly handle demanding caseloads comprising complex matters. The commitment and dedication of our local judges are a testament to the work and value of the Commission.

The D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission represents the best of American democratic institutions: independent, merit- based, and committed to the public good. Its continued effectiveness depends on timely confirmation of nominees and sustained support for its mission and recognition of its vital contribution to the administration of justice in the District of Columbia. We respectfully urge your continued support for this exemplary institution and its critical work in the service of justice in the nation's capital. Sincerely, Sadina Montani, President, D.C. Bar.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I also insert into the Record a letter on this bill from the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission. District of Columbia, Judicial Nomination Commission, Washington, DC, September 9, 2025. Re H.R. 5125, District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. James Comer, Chair, Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: Members of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission respectfully submit this letter to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in response to H.R. 5125, District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act.

The District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC or Commission) was established by Congress on December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198, 87 Stat. 796). The JNC is composed of seven members--two appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, two by the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar Association (Unified), one by the Council of the District of Columbia, one by the President of the United States, and one judicial member appointed by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Each member is appointed for a six-year term, except for the member appointed by the President, who serves a five-year term

The JNC solicits, screens, and recommends a panel of three candidates to the President of the United States for each judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. From the panel of names recommended by the JNC, the President nominates a person for each vacancy and submits the nominee's name to the United States Senate for confirmation. The JNC also designates the Chief Judges for the District of Columbia courts.

The JNC, using a merit-based selection process, works to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with the best possible court system by (a) soliciting a diverse and talented pool of applicants for each judicial vacancy; (b) screening applicants to ensure they have the requisite experience, skill, temperament, and qualifications for judicial office; and (c) recommending the three most qualified applicants to the President of the United States for his or her consideration in selecting a nominee to fill each judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Since its first list of applicants was sent to President R. Gerald Ford, Jr. on May 8, 1975, the JNC has recommended more than 93 candidates for 31 vacancies on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals) and more than 513 candidates for 171 vacancies on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Superior Court). Working with both Republican and Democratic Presidents for more than 50 years, the Senate has confirmed 29 Presidential nominations to the Court of Appeals and 159 to the Superior Court. To date, the Senate has confirmed more Republican Presidential nominees to both courts--17 of 29 on the Court of Appeals and 83 of 159 on the Superior Court. All the Presidential nominees were selected from lists the JNC sent to the President pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 1-204.31, 1-204.33. Arguably, the judicial nomination process in the District of Columbia is one of the best nonpartisan processes in the country, a process that President Trump engaged in during his first term (with 10 confirmations to the local courts) and on September 2, 2025, when he nominated candidates for three vacancies on the Superior Court.

In conclusion, the Commission members are united in expressing our pride in the JNC's lengthy history of proficient service. The Commission process has been effective for over 50 years, working with both Republican and Democratic administrations. Our process is carefully designed to ensure that the over 700,000 residents of our city have a voice in judicial appointments, while also respecting the President's authority in nominating individuals for the critical role of judicial service in the District of Columbia. We stand in support of the JNC's current role and configuration, and we look forward to continuing to serve our city in discharging our critically important responsibilities. Respectfully Submitted,

For the Commission:

Hon. Marie C. Johns, PPC-Leftwich, Washington, DC.

Benjamin F. Wilson, Esq., Washington, DC.

Addy R. Schmitt, Esq., Kropf Moseley Schmitt, Washington, DC.

Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Esq., Dechert LLP, Washington, DC.

Yaida O. Ford, Esq., Ford Law Pros PC, Washington, DC.

Hon. Linda W. Cropp, Washington, DC.

Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States Courthouse, Washington, DC.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate--a chamber in which D.C. has no representation--appoints judges to the local D.C. courts. The President must make a nomination from a list of candidates recommended by the Judicial Nomination Commission. The establishment of the Judicial Nomination Commission provided D.C. with three, albeit limited, roles in the nomination of its local judges. First, members of the commission must be D.C. residents. Second, D.C. appoints three of the seven members of the commission. Third, the commission holds a public comment period on applicants for a vacancy on the local D.C. courts, allowing D.C. residents to express their views on applicants.

Republicans claim the Judicial Nomination Commission is unconstitutional because it limits the President's authority to make nominations. They are wrong. The commission has been in existence for 50 years. Congress, not the President, has plenary authority over D.C.

Congress also has plenary authority over the territories, and Congress has given them authority to select their local judges without any role whatsoever for the President or Congress.

I refer my Republican colleagues to the Supreme Court's decision in 2020 regarding the appointments to the Puerto Rico financial control board, which Congress established pursuant to its plenary authority over Puerto Rico. The court held the appointments clause of the Constitution does not ``restrict the appointment of local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties'' pursuant to the territorial or District clauses of the Constitution. Local D.C. judges are local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties pursuant to the District clause.

The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis on the local D.C. courts is not due to any failure of the Judicial Nomination Commission. The commission always meets its 60-day statutory deadline to submit a list of names for a vacancy to the President. The crisis exists because the President and, to a larger extent, the Senate, regardless of the party in power, do not prioritize local D.C. judges. For example, there has been a vacancy on D.C.'s highest local court since 2013.

Congress should give authority to the over 700,000 D.C. residents to select their local judges in any manner they choose. D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.

Since Republicans do not trust D.C. residents with self-government, they should at least address the longstanding vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which is harming public safety and access to justice. A simple solution is to make an appointment to the local D.C. courts effective 30 days after the President makes a nomination, unless Congress enacts a disapproval resolution during that period. That is essentially the same process used for congressional review of legislation enacted by D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Judicial Nominations Reform Act and to grant D.C. statehood instead. Free D.C.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source