Ask AI
Public Law114th CongressGovernment Operations and Politics
H.R. 4419Became Law

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

This bill became law

Filed
Comm.
Floor
Both
Law

What it doesSummary public law (Dec 14, 2016)

(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 just happenedDec 14, 2016

Became Public Law No: 114-257.

Who’s behind it

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large](D-DC)Sponsor
Read on Congress.gov
1committees28actions1related bills7subjects
  1. Dec 14, 2016President

    Became Public Law No: 114-257.

  2. Dec 14, 2016BecameLaw36000

    Became Public Law No: 114-257.

  3. Dec 14, 2016President

    Signed by President.

  4. Dec 14, 2016BecameLaw36000

    Signed by President.

  5. Dec 2, 2016Floor

    Presented to President.

  6. Dec 2, 2016President28000

    Presented to President.

  7. Nov 30, 2016Floor

    Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  8. Nov 29, 2016Floor

    Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6575)

  9. Nov 29, 2016Floor17000

    Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6575)

  10. Sep 26, 2016IntroReferral

    Received in the Senate, read twice.

  11. Sep 22, 2016FloorH38800

    The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

  12. Sep 22, 2016FloorH38310

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  13. Sep 22, 2016FloorH37300

    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)

  14. Sep 22, 2016Floor8000

    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)

  15. Sep 22, 2016FloorH30000

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5839-5840)

  16. Sep 20, 2016FloorH37220

    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.

  17. Sep 20, 2016FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4419.

  18. Sep 20, 2016FloorH30000

    Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5664-5665)

  19. Sep 20, 2016FloorH30300

    Mr. Carter (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

  20. Sep 13, 2016CalendarsH12410

    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 578.

  21. Sep 13, 2016CommitteeH12200

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-745.

    Oversight and Accountability Committee
  22. Sep 13, 2016Committee5000

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-745.

    Oversight and Accountability Committee
  23. Jul 12, 2016Committee

    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

    Oversight and Accountability Committee
  24. Jul 12, 2016Committee

    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

    Oversight and Accountability Committee
  25. Feb 1, 2016IntroReferralH11100

    Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

    Oversight and Accountability Committee
  26. Feb 1, 2016IntroReferralB00100

    Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E83)

  27. Feb 1, 2016IntroReferralIntro-H

    Introduced in House

  28. Feb 1, 2016IntroReferral1000

    Introduced in House

Public LawDec 14, 201649

(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.

Passed Senate without amendmentNov 29, 201682

(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.

Passed House amendedSep 22, 201636

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 13, 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.

Reported to House with amendment(s)Sep 13, 201617

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.

Introduced in HouseFeb 1, 2016

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

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.

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act — Informed