DC lawmakers overturns mayoral veto of criminal code revision

MARTIN AUSTERMUHLE DCist/WAMU

The D.C. Council voted Jan. 17 to override Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto of a sweeping overhaul of the city’s century-old criminal code, with multiple lawmakers decrying what they called “fear-mongering” and “dangerous rhetoric” around the issue of public safety in the city.

The 12-1 vote to override her veto was not unexpected; the 450-page-bill, which was 16 years in the making, was unanimously approved by lawmakers late last year. But it again shows the significant distance that can exist between Bowser and the city’s legislature, even with lawmakers she is otherwise friendly with, and surfaces simmering frustrations over how the mayor approached the work that went into rewriting the code.

The overhaul of the criminal code — which doesn’t take effect until Oct. 2025 — redefines offenses and adjusts penalties, in some cases decreasing maximum allowable sentences and in other cases adding new crimes and possible sanctions that do not exist in the current code, which dates back to 1901. It also expands the right to a jury trial for people charged with misdemeanor offenses, eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for all offenses except firstdegree murder, and offers more people serving time in prison the opportunity to petition a judge for early release.

Proponents — including Attorney General Brian Schwalb — say the rewrite will make the code more consistent and proportionate, not to mention easier to understand and navigate for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and juries. They also say that it will put D.C. alongside the many states that have modernized their own criminal codes. But Bowser repeatedly said that while she agreed with 95% of the overhaul, specific provisions decreasing maximum possible penalties for certain offenses during a period when D.C. has seen an uptick in gun violence and youth homicides “sends the wrong message.” She also said she worried that the provision expanding jury trial rights would swamp the courts.

But during a brief debate on Jan. 17, lawmakers argued that Bowser’s veto amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

“There were pieces of the bill that I did not support, and I worked to amend. However the vast majority of the bill are common sense changes that even the mayor says she agrees with,” said Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2), who led the charge to override Bowser’s veto. “Allowing the veto to stand would be a significant setback in our work, negating years of work and compromise. There is simply too much good to abandon all that work, without a backup plan from the mayor.”

Pinto, who recently became chair of the council’s judiciary committee, said the fact that the overhaul does not take effect until late 2025 means there is still time to review proposed sentences and amend them if necessary. After the vote, Pinto said she would work through the spring on specific provisions related to sentences for gun crimes. (Proponents of the overhaul say that it actually adds new gun-specific offenses that do not currently exist, and allows for significant sentences for violent crimes involving guns.)

Later in the afternoon, Bowser similarly said in a statement that within the next month her office will be sending the council legislation “that addresses the most concerning policies and weakened penalties included in the updated code.”

Other lawmakers expressed frustration with the timing and tenor of Bowser’s opposition, saying her team had skipped a majority of the work sessions where attorneys and advocates discussed the fine print of the revisions and that they later deployed aggressive rhetoric linking the overhaul to the city’s current public safety challenges.

“Because crime is front of mind it’s easier to misconstrue [the revised criminal code],” said Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), the former chairperson of the judiciary committee who shepherded the bill through the legislative process last year. “I’m frustrated. This veto should not have happened. It’s easy to take the easy way out and talk tough about holding people accountable. That’s how our criminal code got so bad.”

“This veto is a distraction. The mayor knows the council would override it. This is political theater. At a time we should be working together, we have politicians and the Post’s editorial board spreading lies. It is shameful,” said Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), referring to a weekend editorial from The Washington Post urging lawmakers to uphold Bowser’s veto.

“This bill does not go into effect until 2025,” said Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At Large). “All the fear-mongering is totally unnecessary, hyperbolic, and counterproductive. I am not immune to the concerns that have been raised by the public. Will this law make our city less safe? I say no, emphatically, it will not make our city less safe. What we’re doing here is the work to make our city safer and not engage in hyperbole.”

Councilmember Trayon White (D-Ward 8) was the sole holdout in voting to uphold Bowser’s veto, though he did not explain why during the council’s debate. After the vote, he said he both believed the revised code did not do enough to prevent crime and might make crime worse by decreasing certain penalties.

“I believe in a public health approach when addressing crime. I believe the former code or new codes will not deter violence in the city. This is an opportunity for me to create dialogue around real issues addressing mental health services, jobs, a real strong education system, [and] wrap-around services for families. That needs to be the real conversation. Laws are needed… but we need to add meat to the bones and that’s simply what’s missing. We have to put more emphasis on preventative measures,” he said.

“We don’t know if decreasing the penalties for certain crimes is going to increase public safety. I’m very cautious and wary,” he added.

In a letter published in The Washington Post on Jan. 17, Jinwoo Park, the director of the D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission, addressed the concerns about how the overhaul would impact penalties.

“The penalties in the act were the product of a long, deliberative process that included input from the U.S. attorney’s office, the executive branch and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. A decade of sentencing data was also used to ensure that the measure’s maximum sentences are as high or higher than nearly all sentences actually imposed under current law. The act would retain significant penalties for violent crimes, especially when committed with firearms,” he wrote.

In a statement, the chairman of the D.C. Police Union that the revised criminal code would “lead to violent crime rates exploding even more than they already have,” and called the council’s move “reprehensible.”

The bill’s long trip through the drafting and legislative process isn’t yet over. It goes next to Congress for a 60-day review period, where Republicans could attempt to overturn the bill in its entirety or otherwise make changes to it.

Speaking after the council’s vote, Chairman Phil Mendelson worried that Bowser’s unsuccessful veto of the overhaul would embolden Republicans to attack it.

“The mayor’s rhetoric around this, that this is actually endangering public safety, plays into the hands of our critics on the Hill,” he said. “I hate to predict trouble, but I think members of the Freedom Caucus are going to cause trouble on this. This just plays into the tough-on-crime rhetoric that presumably plays well with constituents. It’s nonsense. Sentencing is not what makes a difference in crime. It’s arresting people, it’s prosecuting them.”

This article was originally published by DCIst/WAMU