Skip to main content
HR 4419 114th Congress House Government Operations and Politics District of Columbia Government ethics and transparency, public corruption Government information and archives Judges Judicial procedure and administration State and local courts State and local government operations

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

Introduced: February 1, 2016 Introduced by: Norton, Eleanor Holmes Democratic · District of Columbia See on congress.gov
 Everywhere this bill has been 23 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Dec 14, 2016
Became Public Law No: 114-257.
Dec 14, 2016
Signed by President.
Dec 2, 2016
Presented to President.
Nov 30, 2016
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Nov 29, 2016
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6575)
Nov 29, 2016
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6575)
Sep 26, 2016
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Sep 22, 2016
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Sep 22, 2016
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sep 22, 2016
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 0 (Roll no. 551). (text: CR 09/20/2016 H5664-5665)
Sep 22, 2016
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 0 (Roll no. 551).(text: CR 09/20/2016 H5664-5665)
Sep 22, 2016
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5839-5840)
Sep 20, 2016
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
Sep 20, 2016
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4419.
Sep 20, 2016
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5664-5665)
Sep 20, 2016
Mr. Carter (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Sep 13, 2016
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 578.
Sep 13, 2016
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-745.
Jul 12, 2016
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Jul 12, 2016
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Feb 1, 2016
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Feb 1, 2016
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E83)
Feb 1, 2016
Introduced in House
 Votes taken on this bill 1
DateChamberWhat was voted onResultYes–No
Sep 22, 2016 House · vote #551 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended Passed 4140 See who voted →
 Plain-English summary Congressional Research Service

(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.

What's happening now December 14, 2016

Became Public Law No: 114-257.

 Committees of jurisdiction 1