[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E49]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS JUDICIAL VACANCY 
                             REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 24, 2023

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia 
Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act. This bill would expedite the 
appointment of local D.C. judges. The sole purpose of this bill is to 
protect public safety and promote justice by ending the perpetual 
judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts.
  The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, 
which delays resolution of criminal and civil cases, has existed 
regardless of which party controls the presidency and Senate because 
presidents and senators are, understandably, more focused on nominees 
to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. 
courts.
  This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. 
Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a 
state and Congress could--and should--give D.C. control over the local 
D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over 
the local D.C. courts.
  Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the 
organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts, including the 
nomination and appointment of judges. A 7-member commission, which is 
comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to 
the president a list of 3 persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. 
courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, appoint 1 person from the list. If the president fails 
to nominate 1 of the persons from the list within 60 days, the 
commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, appoint 1 of the persons from the list.
  This bill would not change the role of the president or the 
commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would 
apply the congressional review period for D.C. legislation to the 
appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local D.C. judges 
would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day congressional 
review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the appointment was 
enacted into law during that period.
  Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only 
requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the 
federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article 
III judges will be appointed, and has chosen to subject some non-
Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, 
Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy 
or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. 
Congress would retain the authority to block the appointment of local 
D.C. judges, but it would only have a limited time period to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

                          ____________________