Norton Introduces Bill for an Elected D.C. District Attorney - 3/1/2007
March 1, 2007
Washington, DC—Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today introduced a bill to establish an Office of the District Attorney for the District of Columbia, to be headed by a District Attorney elected by D.C. residents, as the fourth bill in her “Free and Equal D.C.” series of bills to eliminate anti-home rule legislation, and to remedy obsolete or inappropriate intervention into the local affairs of the District of Columbia, or denials of federal benefits or recognition routinely granted to other jurisdictions. Norton said that the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2007 is necessary to fulfill the promise of full home rule to the city and gives residents more control over one of the most important issues in their lives. The bills filed so far this year in the “Free and Equal D.C.” series are the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act, the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act, and the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act.
The Norton bill follows a November 2002 referendum where D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82%) approved a locally elected D.A. Subsequently, the City Council approved legislation authorizing the Home Rule Act to be amended. “A referendum plus a Council vote equals a double dose of democratic preference for an elected D.A.,” Norton said. “D.C. could not be clearer about the priority citizens put on an accountable criminal justice system.” The Norton bill would make the new District Attorney the city’s chief legal officer for local criminal prosecutions currently under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The Congresswoman said: “There is no issue of greater importance to our citizens and no issue on which D.C. residents have less say than the prosecution of local crimes. No U.S. attorney has any business in the local criminal affairs of local jurisdictions. No other citizens of the United States are treated so cavalierlyon an issue of such major importance. My bill would make the D.A. accountable to the people who elect him or her as elsewhere in the country.” Norton’s bill would have the election of a D.A. to begin in 2008.
Norton said that when the U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President, he refers to the same job description that he uses in appointing every other U.S. attorney in the country. “There is one important difference. The majority of the workload of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia consists of local crime cases. Our U.S. attorney is more a D.A. than a U.S. attorney. The U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. needs to do his federal work and leave our criminal cases to a D.A. who lives here.”
During the Clinton administration, Norton had senatorial courtesy for the District of Columbia for the first time in the city’s history and appointed the city’s first African American U.S. Attorney, Eric H. Holder, Jr., and later the first woman U.S. Attorney, Wilma A. Lewis. The current U.S. Attorney was Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. He lives in the District, but residency is not a requirement. Norton said that especially today, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. needs to be free to concentrate on crimes related to security and other federal interests, and noted that the prior U.S. attorney has gone on to the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.
Norton’s full statement of introduction follows.
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2007, continuing a series of bills that I will introduce this session to ensure a continuation of the process of transition to full democracy and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. This bill is the fourth in our “Free and Equal D.C.” series of bills to eliminate anti-Home Rule legislation and to remedy obsolete or inappropriate congressional intervention into the local affairs of the District of Columbia or denials of federal benefits or recognition routinely granted to other jurisdictions.
This bill will establish an Office of the District Attorney for the District of Columbia, to be headed by a District Attorney elected by D.C. residents. This bill effectuates a November 2002 referendum where D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82 percent) approved a locally elected D.A.
This important legislation is designed to put the District of Columbia on par with every other local jurisdiction in the country by allowing D.C. residents to elect an independent District Attorney to prosecute local criminal and civil matters now handled by the U.S. Attorney, a federal official. Instead the new District Attorney would become the city's chief legal officer. As presently constituted, the U.S. Attorney's office in the District is the largest in the country only because it serves mainly as the local city prosecutor. That office needs to be freed up to do security and other federal work particularly in the post 9-11 nation's capital.
There is no issue of greater importance to our citizens and no issue on which residents have less say here than the prosecution of local crimes. A U.S. Attorney has no business in the local criminal affairs of local jurisdictions. No other citizens in the United States are treated so unfairly on an issue of such major importance. This bill would simply make the D.A. accountable to the people who elect him or her as elsewhere in the country.
In addition to issues of democracy and self government, such as congressional voting rights and legislative and budget autonomy that District residents are entitled to as American citizens, residents are determined to achieve each and every other element of home rule. Amending the Home Rule Act with a local D.A. provision would be an important development toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
The Norton bill follows a November 2002 referendum where D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82%) approved a locally elected D.A. Subsequently, the City Council approved legislation authorizing the Home Rule Act to be amended. “A referendum plus a Council vote equals a double dose of democratic preference for an elected D.A.,” Norton said. “D.C. could not be clearer about the priority citizens put on an accountable criminal justice system.” The Norton bill would make the new District Attorney the city’s chief legal officer for local criminal prosecutions currently under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The Congresswoman said: “There is no issue of greater importance to our citizens and no issue on which D.C. residents have less say than the prosecution of local crimes. No U.S. attorney has any business in the local criminal affairs of local jurisdictions. No other citizens of the United States are treated so cavalierlyon an issue of such major importance. My bill would make the D.A. accountable to the people who elect him or her as elsewhere in the country.” Norton’s bill would have the election of a D.A. to begin in 2008.
Norton said that when the U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President, he refers to the same job description that he uses in appointing every other U.S. attorney in the country. “There is one important difference. The majority of the workload of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia consists of local crime cases. Our U.S. attorney is more a D.A. than a U.S. attorney. The U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. needs to do his federal work and leave our criminal cases to a D.A. who lives here.”
During the Clinton administration, Norton had senatorial courtesy for the District of Columbia for the first time in the city’s history and appointed the city’s first African American U.S. Attorney, Eric H. Holder, Jr., and later the first woman U.S. Attorney, Wilma A. Lewis. The current U.S. Attorney was Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. He lives in the District, but residency is not a requirement. Norton said that especially today, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. needs to be free to concentrate on crimes related to security and other federal interests, and noted that the prior U.S. attorney has gone on to the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.
Norton’s full statement of introduction follows.
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2007, continuing a series of bills that I will introduce this session to ensure a continuation of the process of transition to full democracy and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. This bill is the fourth in our “Free and Equal D.C.” series of bills to eliminate anti-Home Rule legislation and to remedy obsolete or inappropriate congressional intervention into the local affairs of the District of Columbia or denials of federal benefits or recognition routinely granted to other jurisdictions.
This bill will establish an Office of the District Attorney for the District of Columbia, to be headed by a District Attorney elected by D.C. residents. This bill effectuates a November 2002 referendum where D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82 percent) approved a locally elected D.A.
This important legislation is designed to put the District of Columbia on par with every other local jurisdiction in the country by allowing D.C. residents to elect an independent District Attorney to prosecute local criminal and civil matters now handled by the U.S. Attorney, a federal official. Instead the new District Attorney would become the city's chief legal officer. As presently constituted, the U.S. Attorney's office in the District is the largest in the country only because it serves mainly as the local city prosecutor. That office needs to be freed up to do security and other federal work particularly in the post 9-11 nation's capital.
There is no issue of greater importance to our citizens and no issue on which residents have less say here than the prosecution of local crimes. A U.S. Attorney has no business in the local criminal affairs of local jurisdictions. No other citizens in the United States are treated so unfairly on an issue of such major importance. This bill would simply make the D.A. accountable to the people who elect him or her as elsewhere in the country.
In addition to issues of democracy and self government, such as congressional voting rights and legislative and budget autonomy that District residents are entitled to as American citizens, residents are determined to achieve each and every other element of home rule. Amending the Home Rule Act with a local D.A. provision would be an important development toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.