Norton Releases Remarks Ahead of House Debate on Bills to Eliminate D.C.’s Role in Selecting D.C. Judges and Weaken Limitations on Vehicular Pursuits

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released her remarks, as prepared for delivery, in advance of speaking on the House floor later today against the D.C. Judicial Nominations Reform Act, introduced by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), which would eliminate the already limited role D.C. has in the selection of its local judges, and the D.C. Policing Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), which would significantly weaken D.C.’s limitations on vehicular pursuits by police officers.

Debate on the D.C. Judicial Nominations Reform Act, followed immediately by debate on the D.C. Policing Protection Act, will begin at 12:15 p.m. today. Votes on both bills are expected to begin at 5:30 p.m. The general public can watch the proceedings on C-SPAN or live.house.gov. 

Norton’s remarks follow, as prepared for delivery.

Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act of 2025

September 17, 2025

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

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb and the D.C. Bar.  I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter on this bill from the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission.

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 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.

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.

Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

The District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025

September 17, 2025

I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which amends D.C. law.  The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.  I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

D.C.’s local legislature, the Council, has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how 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 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 justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Nevertheless, I will discuss it.

Vehicular pursuits by police officers are inherently dangerous, not just for officers and suspects, but for bystanders, too, and often there are other options to detain a suspect.  D.C. permits vehicular pursuits, but it imposes limitations on them. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, vehicular pursuit policies must “balance the risks, take all of the factors into consideration, and reach a decision that is best suited to their jurisdictions.”  Unlike D.C., two percent of local police departments prohibit vehicular pursuits altogether.  The sponsor of this bill, who is from Louisiana, thinks he knows better than D.C. how to strike the proper balance in D.C.

I will read for my Republican colleagues part of the signing statement your fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon, issued on the D.C. Home Rule Act:

One of the major goals of this Administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively.  The measure I sign today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington.  It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.  As the Nation approaches the 200^th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.

D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes, serving on juries and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self-government and voting representation in Congress.  The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.  I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe.

The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-government and voting representation in Congress.  H.R. 51 reduces the size of the federal district from 68 square miles to two square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress. The new state consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C.  The new state has a larger population than two states, pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more total federal taxes than 21 states.

I urge members to vote NO on the D.C. Policing Protection Act, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.

###