H.R. 4419District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

1 recorded action126 of these members are on the 2026 ballotWhat the measure does Read on Congress.gov

Sponsor: Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC]
Policy area: Government Operations and Politics
Committee: Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Latest action: Dec 14, 2016 · Became Public Law No: 114-257.

IntroducedFeb 1, 2016
Passed the HouseSep 22, 2016
Passed the SenateNov 29, 2016
Sent to the PresidentDec 2, 2016
Became lawDec 14, 2016

What the measure doesCRS summary

(This measure has not been amended since it passed the House on September 22, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the District of Columbia Code to revise the financial disclosure requirements for District of Columbia judges. The revisions establish new dollar thresholds and requirements for reporting to the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure the financial interests of the judges and specified family members with respect to:

income;

dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains;
liabilities;
gifts;
real and personal property;
honoraria;
expense accounts or reimbursements for expenses; and
waivers or partial waivers of fees or charges.

The financial disclosure reports must be available for public inspection and copying, unless revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger the judge or a family member. A report may be redacted only: (1) to the extent necessary to protect the individual or family member, and (2) as long as the danger to the individual exists.

(Sec. 3) The Probate Divisions of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia may use magistrate judges. (Sec. 4) DC courts may accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution, bonds, and other payments by credit card or electronic funds transfer. The executive officer of the courts may contract with a bank or credit card vendor, or other third party provider, to accept such payments, making every effort to find the lowest cost vendor among them. (Sec. 5) The maximum amount in controversy for cases under the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of DC Superior Court shall increase from $5,000 to $10,000. (Sec. 6) Each chief judge of the Superior Court or of the Court of Appeals, as appropriate, may delegate to an active or senior judge (in the court in which the chief judge sits) the authority to approve any compensation for court-appointed criminal defense or child abuse and neglect attorneys exceeding the usual maximum.

Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, describing H.R. 4419 as public Law on Dec 14, 2016. It is not the text of the measure; a later amendment may have changed what it does.

How every member votedHouse roll call 551

House Sep 22, 2016

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

Passed · Two-thirds required

414 Yea 0 Nay 17 not voting

Crossed both parties No voting member broke with their own party.

Open the official roll call

How the chamber split

One dot per member. Select a seat or a bar to filter the list.

DemocratsRepublicansFilled: YeaRing: NayGrey: not voting or present

By party select a segment to filter

All members431 members

Democratic186 members

Republican245 members

marks half of the votes cast. A party’s majority is the side most of its voting members took.

Loading the public record