The House of Representatives on Feb. 7 passed two bills overruling bills passed by the Council of the District of Columbia.

Specifically, the bills would overturn two measures recently approved by the D.C. City Council.

One of these measures, the Revised Criminal Code Act, would lessen penalties for violent crimes even as Washington buckles under a record-breaking crime wave. The legislation was vetoed by Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser; the D.C. City Council later overruled Bowser’s veto in a 12–1 vote.

The other measure, the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, would allow non-citizens in Washington to vote.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who serves as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, indicated that he would be focusing on the issue.

“The D.C. Council’s reckless decision to allow non-U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants the right to vote in local elections is an attack on the foundation of this republic,” Comer said in a statement. “This move by the Council is irresponsible and will only exacerbate the ongoing border crisis, subvert the voices of American citizens, and open the door for foreign adversaries to peddle influence in our nation’s capital.”

The Revised Criminal Code Act seeks to lessen penalties for violent crime.

The House voted 250–173 to pass the measure.

The Washington Metropolitan Police has reported a substantial uptick in violent crime on their website.

According to that info, homicides are up 29 percent over the same time last year; sex abuse is up 143 percent; motor vehicle thefts are up 89 percent.

Republicans say that the D.C. Council’s bill will only serve to exacerbate this situation.

“The D.C. City Council seems unperturbed” by the increase in violent crime, Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) said.

During a Feb. 6 hearing of the Rules Committee, one Republican noted that the bill was “too radical” for Democrat Mayor Bowser, who vetoed the bill.

Only one member of the D.C. City Council voted against the measure.

During comments in the Rules Committee, Republicans noted that the capital city receives around 19 million visits a year, many by the constituents of members of Congress. This fact, Republicans said, puts the GOP well within its rights to disapprove the resolution.

The measure would also overrule a bill that would allow illegal aliens in Washington to vote.

The House voted 260–162 to pass the measure. Forty-two Democrats joined Republicans to vote for the measure.

During testimony to the Rules Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), asked “Why anyone [would] care” about Washington allowing illegal aliens to vote.

Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) during a speech on the House floor gave his answer to this.

“If D.C. allowed illegal aliens to vote, it would have massive consequences all over our nation,” he said, adding, “Where would it end?”

The 26th Amendment “is clear,” Alford said: “Voting is a privilege for citizens.”

The amendment lowered the required age to vote.

Specifically, the 26th Amendment, the second most recent addition to the Constitution, reads: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

Democrats portrayed the effort to overrule the D.C. City Council’s bills as “colonialism” by Congress.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) in a speech on the House floor called the measures “profoundly undemocratic.”

“Instead of abusing its power over D.C. by nullifying legislation enacted by the D.C. Council, the House should adhere to democratic principles and pass my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full control over their local affairs,” Norton said in a statement.

Norton is a non-voting member of Congress, known as a delegate.

While delegates can speak on the issues that matter to their constituents, they cannot introduce or vote on bills, nor do they serve on committees.

In her statement, Norton argued that the issue should be left to D.C. to decide.

“Congress has 535 voting members,” Norton said. “The members are elected by the residents of the several states. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, even on legislation that applies only to D.C., such as the two disapproval resolutions, they can only ask politely for the residents of the several states to vote members out of office.”

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) called the bills a challenge to D.C.’s right “to political self-determination.”

“If my Republican colleagues insist on acting like a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they could do is hear from the people of D.C.,” Scanlon added.

Raskin echoed the sentiment.

“I rise today in strong opposition to H.J.Res. 26,” the Maryland Democrat said. “The second episode in the new mini-series where the House Majority asks the United States Congress to act as a supercity council of 535 members to make decisions for the people of Washington, DC.”

Republicans argued in response that the Constitution is clear that Congress has the power to regulate and legislate D.C.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress, reads: “[Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States.”

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) made this point in a Feb. 9 speech on the House floor.

“Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to, and I quote, ‘exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district,'” Clyde began.

“We don’t just have a Constitutional obligation to stop the soft-on-crime bill from becoming law. We also have a moral obligation to protect Americans’ safety and security in our nation’s capital city.

“Under the DC council’s radical crime bill, residents, small businesses, constituents, and our own staff here on Capitol Hill will inevitably encounter additional danger and violence.

“Clearly, crime after crime is on the rise here in DC, yet the DC council’s bill will only make matters worse.

“Combating crime is not a conservative or a liberal objective. It’s not Republican or Democrat. It’s simply a commonsense one.”

Many Democrats, including most prominently Norton and Raskin, took the opportunity to reiterate calls for D.C. statehood. Republicans, however, are hesitant to accept such a move.

“There will be a parade of attacks on local democratic self-government in Washington, DC,” Raskin said. “Now, I believe that the people of Washington should be treated like all other American citizens. And right now, what they’ve asked for is admission to the union as a state.”

Likewise, Norton called for Congress to drop consideration of the bill and instead consider one that would make D.C. a state.

The federal district regularly votes over 90 percent for Democrats.

If D.C. were made a state, it would almost certainly mean a major increase in Democrats’ control over the Senate, as all states receive two senators regardless of size.

To advance, Republicans’ bills will also need to win the approval of the Senate, where they will face a tougher challenge.
Democrats have broadly expressed opposition to the measures.

Like all legislation in the upper chamber, it will need at least 60 senators’ support. If it overcomes this hurdle, it would still need to win President Joe Biden’s approval.