Viewing entries in
Blog Post

Comment

D.C. and New York City Could be Next in Giving the Vote to Noncitizens

By J. Weston Phippen, July 15, 2015, National Journal

In Washington, D.C., about 54,000 people pay taxes, send their kids to school and can join the military because they have green cards, making them legal U.S. residents. But because they're not citizens, they can't vote for who runs their children's' schools, what city hall does with their tax money, or who manages essential public services in their neighborhoods.

There are about 12 million immigrants in similar situations nationwide.

In D.C., about one in eight people are immigrants, but only 30 percent of them are citizens eligible to vote. Last week, local D.C. legislators heard mostly supportive testimony for a bill that would grant voting rights to noncitizen residents.

The Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2015, introduced by council member David Grosso, would allow legal residents to vote for, among other things, leaders on the education board, city council members, and the mayor.

Given today's heated immigration reform debates, the idea is extremely controversial. However, six towns in Maryland have similar laws allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, the oldest being Takoma Park. Chicago allows permanent residents who are parents of schoolchildren to vote in district elections. And in New York City, a council member is currently drafting a similar bill that would extend local voting rights to 1 million people. Two years ago, Queens council member Daniel Dromm had the city council's majority support, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out against it. The bill never saw a vote. But now there's a new mayor, and the proposed law is expected to gain wide support once more.

Critics of such legislation often say that allowing noncitizens to vote would tarnish what is supposed to be a sacred privilege.

Dorothy Brizill, a local D.C. activist, told WAMU that something like this is "particularly sensitive, and of concern to those individuals, both black and white, who are aware of the long historical struggle to secure the right to vote for all American citizens. For many, the right to vote is the essence of citizenship."

Grosso understands this concern, but he thinks that "when you're talking about these very local issues that impact you on a day-to-day basis, I don't think that requires being a citizen."

The history of noncitizen voters goes back several hundred years. From 1776 to 1926, the U.S. allowed some noncitizens to vote in more than 40 states and federal territories

It began, says Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at Queens College in New York, with noncitizens demanding voting privileges. That turned into a battle cry: "No taxation without representation!"

Noncitizen voters helped expand the American West. They settled territories that later became states. Then, in the 1920s, anti-immigrant sentiment spread across the country. In response, the government set quotas for how many people could enter the United States, and from which countries.

Hayduk advocates for noncitizen voting rights in local elections, and he even wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. In it, he wrote that in some towns, noncitizens make up almost half of voting-age adults who have no say in their local government. Even in places like Los Angeles and New York City, they make up one-third to a quarter of the voting age of the population.

"Noncitizens suffer social and economic inequities, in part, because policymakers can ignore their interests," Hayduk wrote in the op-ed. "The vote is a proven mechanism to keep government responsive and accountable to all."

Opponents believe that noncitizens get a good deal from their tax money. They gain access to social services and public schools. They can serve in community organizations. And, some argue, blurring the line between citizens and noncitizens will only lead to confusion.

"Boy, is that a slippery slope," says Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

Boehm says his wife immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua and spent years obtaining citizenship. Voting is a privilege for those who struggled through the process. Anything else would be "diluting the value" of citizenship, he says.

There's also, he believes, quite a bit of political pandering in a bill like this. "The people who advocate this clearly think they would get the votes of the noncitizens," Boehm says.

Yet there are a lot of people who live in this country for many years, hoping to become citizens, but can't because of how hard it has become. "We always encourage people to become full citizens," says Jaime Contreras, vice president of the D.C. division of the Service Employees International Union, called 32BJ. "This is a good first step to give them a local voice in their politics."

Most of the people Contreras advocates for in D.C. are Latino immigrants. Many come from El Salvador and work as security officers or in maintenance. They clean public schools, offices, and buildings where politicians meet. The majority would like to become citizens, Contreras says, but the average wait is about eight years. And it's expensive. So as they wait for citizenship, they live, work, and become part of communities in which they have no say.

D.C. residents can empathize with this, as they have no voting power in Congress. This despite paying federal taxes and having a population as large as the state of Wyoming. They are constantly reminded of this fact, because their license plates bare that revolutionary slogan, "No taxation without representation."

Comment

Comment

Grosso addresses concerns with Department on Disability Services

During the March Performance Oversight Hearing with the Department on Disability Services (DDS), a number of public witnesses raised concerns about how the agency was performing its duties. After the hearing, Councilmember Grosso heard from constituents and advocates with further concerns and complaints about DDS. On March 30th, Grosso sent a letter to DDS Director Laura Nuss, and received a short response a little over a week later, which the Councilmember found to be unresponsive to the issues that he sought to address. Grosso felt that these issues required close attention as they concern some of the most vulnerable residents of the city. 

After a Budget Oversight Hearing during which Grosso continued to feel unsatisfied with the agency's answers to his questions, the Councilmember asked the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Brenda Donald to look into what was happening at DDS. On July 2, Grosso received a memo from DDS Director Nuss to Deputy Mayor Donald, which went into much more detail regarding the many issues that constituents, employees of DDS, and advocates had shared with Grosso's office. You can view all three documents below. Councilmember Grosso will continue to monitor DDS and listen to complaints about the agency from constituents and advocates.

Comment

Comment

Watch the video of my Ward 5 education town hall

The last of my education town hall meetings are this week, and thanks to the D.C. Office of Cable Television, you can see what they were like even if you weren't able to attend. OCT recorded my Ward 5 town hall, with Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Niles, and others in attendance. 

Comment

Comment

City leaders rally to oppose Pepco-Exelon merger

By Kristi King, WTOP, May 12, 2015

WASHINGTON — New voices are joining the debate over a proposed power company merger and whether it would mean better or worse conditions for people now served by Pepco.

Twenty-two of the District’s 40 Advisory Neighborhood Commissions have declared their opposition to a deal for a Chicago-based company to buy Pepco, and they’re calling on Mayor Muriel Bowser to do the same.

“She needs to come out and say something,” said Judi Jones, a commissioner from Ward 4, said Tuesday at a rally on the steps of the Wilson Building.

“I don’t want to take a step backward,” At-Large D.C. Councilman David Grosso said at the rally in announcing his opposition to the merger.

“I don’t see Exelon as a full partner in the District of Columbia to continue the high standards we have for improving the environment and protecting the environment.”

Grosso and other opponents also fear that having Exelon, a company that generates power, as a parent company to Pepco, which is a distributor, will lead to higher rates.

D.C. Council members Mary Cheh, Charles Allen and Elissa Silverman are already on record saying they believe the merger would best serve the interests of power-company shareholders, but would eventually lead to higher utility rates, a degraded environment and lost local jobs.

The county executives from Prince George’s and Montgomery counties both want the Pepco-Exelon merger to go through. Rushern L. Baker III and Isiah Leggett say in a joint letter published in The Washington Post that the merger would increase power company accountability and the reliability of power supplied to the region.

A decision on the merger from Maryland’s Public Service Commission is expected Friday. A decision from the District’s Public Service Commission is expected this summer.

“The Pepco-Exelon is still under review by the mayor’s legal team. As the last jurisdiction to review the merger, the Bowser administration is committed to negotiating a resolution that best serves the interests of District residents and rate payers,” Bowser’s office said in a statement.

Pepco released the following statement about the proposed merger:

“Since announcing our proposed merger over a year ago, we’ve listened carefully to feedback in the District of Columbia. A diverse set of individuals and organizations — including District residents, business owners, organized labor, faith groups and local nonprofits — have voiced their support for the merger because they understand that it will provide substantial benefits to Pepco customers and communities, and to the District. A number of parties made constructive proposals, and in response, we substantially enhanced our proposed package to deliver even more value to the District and its citizens. Unfortunately, a few parties have taken a “just say no” position on the merger which, in our view, ignores the immediate and long-term benefits to customers and to the District that will not be available if the merger does not go forward.

“We believe that the merger is in the public interest and that the evidence supports this. The Public Service Commission will review the full record and rule in the interests of Pepco customers in the District. Pepco Holdings and Exelon have proposed a $34 million fund to be used for direct customer benefits in the District, and another $51 million in projected merger savings over 10 years will flow back to District customers through rates lower than they would be without the merger. We’ve enhanced our reliability performance commitments to reduce the frequency of outages by 36 percent and the length of outages by 40 percent in the District and have proposed stiffer financial penalties if we fall short of these goals. We’ve committed to keeping Pepco leadership, jobs and control local and to providing $16 million in charitable giving in the District over 10 years. We are committed to working to bring all of these benefits to the District when the merger closes.”

D.C. residents can comment to the Public Service Commission through May 25.

Comment

Comment

Anti-Choice Groups Vow to Defy New Provisions of D.C. Law That Don’t Exist

by Emily Crockett, RH Reality Check, May 8, 2015

A group of anti-choice organizations released a joint statement this week that, to many observers, seemed like a vow to commit civil disobedience and violate the District of Columbia’s new Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA).

It’s not clear, however, if these groups’ planned “resistance” would actually break the law, or whether their objections to the law have any grounding in reality.

“The statement from Alliance Defending Freedom and other groups shows that they still have not taken time to read or understand my legislation,” D.C. Councilmember David Grosso, who sponsored the reproductive health bill, told RH Reality Check via email.

The statement, signed by representatives of Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life, Concerned Women for America, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, pledged to “vigorously resist” alleged violations to their First Amendment rights under the new law.

The pledge comes on the heels of action by congressional Republicans to try, unsuccessfully for now, to block the new law. A resolution of disapproval of RHNDA failed to pass both the House and the Senate before a 30-day deadline, but Congress could still try to block it using the budget appropriations process.

“It is appalling that these organizations have sought congressional interference in our local legislative process and now claim an intention to disobey the law based on their own ignorance about what the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act does and does not do,” Grosso said.

The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website released the statement along with a report claiming that the groups are “putting themselves at risk of violating the law.”

It would in fact violate the law if the groups wanted to fire women for having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, or fire men whose wives use birth control. The RHNDA amends D.C.’s Human Rights Act to protect employees from discrimination based on their, or their dependents’, personal reproductive health care choices for which some religious conservative employers have been known to fire women.

But if this is the anti-choice groups’ intent, it’s not at all clear from their statement. Instead, the groups appear to be using common misconceptions about what the bill actually does to support their arguments that the bill violates the religious freedom of employers.

“They claim they will not obey the D.C. Human Rights Act, yet their uninformed stance actually means they will be taking actions completely within the law,” Grosso said.

The anti-choice groups’ statement claims that RHNDA is “aimed squarely” at the organizations’ freedoms to “draw our workforces from among those who share our foundational commitment to the sanctity of human life” and to “purchase and provide employee health plans that comport with our pro-life beliefs.”

“Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family,” the statement concludes. “We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights.”

If all these groups want to do is hire people who share their views, or decline to provide comprehensive insurance that covers contraception and abortion, it doesn’t appear that RHNDA prohibits them from doing that.

The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, as much as it rankled reproductive rights supporters and many D.C. Council members, is still the law of the land. Council members and aides have repeatedly said that nothing in the bill deals with insurance, and the bill now contains language clarifying that point.

That clarifying language is temporary, which the anti-choice groups objected to. But D.C. Council members plan to make that clarification permanent, even though some have argued that it would be redundant to do so.

As for the groups’ concerns about being able to hire people who share a “commitment” to their values, the law’s supporters say that groups can hire who they want, and that the purpose of the law is to prohibit firing an employee for their health-care choices.

“This is about ensuring that workers can make their own health decisions without their bosses’ intrusion, whether that is to initiate or terminate a pregnancy, whether that is taking birth control or in-vitro fertility treatments,” Grosso said.

Religious groups might argue that an employee’s abortion or use of birth control demonstrates a lack of “commitment” to their values, but that’s where the new law draws the line.

It’s possible, for instance, for a person to strongly identify as “pro-life” and Catholic but still use birth control funded by private insurance, or to have a daughter who does. Nothing seems to prohibit a group from refusing to hire someone who says they are pro-choice.

“If Concerned Women of America and the other groups are asking individual job applicants whether they use birth control, have had an abortion in the past, or have used assistive reproductive technologies, then they will be clearly violating the law, and doing so in a really despicable manner,” Grosso said.

He added that those employers are “well within their rights to evaluate a job applicant’s ability to execute the functions of the advertised position and seek employees who agree with the organizational mission.”

Comment

Comment

LGBT ‘cultural competency’ bill introduced in D.C. Council

by Lou Chibbaro, April 14, 2015, Washington Blade

D.C. Council members David Grosso (I-At-Large) and Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would require continuing education programs for licensed healthcare professionals to include LGBT related “cultural competency” training.

The LGBTQ Cultural Competency Continuing Education Amendment Act of 2015 would amend an existing health care licensing law to require healthcare professionals, including doctors and mental health practitioners, to receive two credits of instruction on LGBT subjects.

The bill says the two credits of instruction would pertain to “cultural competency or specialized clinical training focusing on patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression (LGBTQ).”

All nine of Grosso and Alexander’s Council colleagues signed on as co-sponsors of the bill at the Council’s regularly scheduled legislative meeting on Tuesday.

“Over 66,000 LGBTQ citizens reside in D.C., and they deserve access to medical professionals who are sensitive to and knowledgeable about the unique health needs of the LGBTQ community,” Grosso said in a statement.

Alexander, who chairs the Council’s Health Committee, said she plans to hold a hearing on the legislation as soon as possible and move the measure to a vote by the full Council following a markup on the bill. She said the legislation is especially needed for the trans community, which she said historically has experienced discrimination in seeking medical and mental health related services.

“LGBT people face substantial systemic discrimination in healthcare due to a lack of understanding of the unique needs and challenges faced by the community,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which is coordinating a lobbying effort to help pass the bill.

The Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, Whitman-Walker Health, National Children’s Hospital, and the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community are working with HRC as part of a coalition pushing for the bill, according to a statement by HRC.

“Cultural competency is critical to reducing healthcare disparities for LGBT people and improving access to high quality healthcare, especially for transgender people,” Warbelow said.

Comment

Comment

Council Blocks Controversial Jail Contract

by Will Sommer, April 14, 2015, Washington City Paper

Endorsements from two mayors and a heavy lobbying campaign weren't enough to convince the D.C. Council to let controversial correctional health provider Corizon take over at the D.C. Jail. After months of wrangling with the Tennessee-based company, a slim majority of the Council voted to disapprove the jail health contract backed by Muriel Bowser.

The dispute came down between six opponents of the contract, which looks bad because of Corizon's record for attracting lawsuits over its allegedly deficient inmate care, and proponents who either want the Council out of contract approval or because they actually think it's a good deal.

After a motion to change an approval resolution from backer Vincent Orange was amended by six councilmembers to become a disapproval (a majority on the temporarily eleven-member Council), the contract's fate was clear. Charles Allen, Mary Cheh, David Grosso, Phil Mendelson, Brianne Nadeau, and Elissa Silverman voted to disapprove, while Yvette Alexander, Anita Bonds, Jack Evans, Kenyan McDuffie, and Vincent Orange voted against efforts to shut down the contract. With the contract blocked, current jail health provider Unity will keep running jail health services for now.

The dais fight put opponents of the deal in an awkward spot, since many of them are the same good-government-minded councilmembers who generally oppose Council interference in contracting. Before introducing his resolution, Orange read off a list of councilmembers who want the Council to lose its contracting powers who are now opposed to the Corizon contract.

“Sometimes one strong, principled stance must outweigh another strong, principled stance," Grosso, the Council's most outspoken opponent of both the contract and the Council's contract approval power, said.

Orange argued that the deal had already been approved by the Office of Contracting and Procurement in two mayoral administrations, as well as the chairmen of relevant Council committees.

“We all know that the Bowser admin and the [Vince] Gray administration were like oil and water, but they both came to the conclusion that this was the appropriate avenue," Orange said.

In an emailed statement, Bowser spokesman Michael Czin pointed to Corizon's success in the Office of Contracting and Procurement's bidding process. "The Council’s action will extend overpayment for care, which does not fully meet the health needs of a vulnerable population, until a new contract can be awarded," Czin said.

(The argument that OCP approval should be enough for the contract is strange for Bowser, since, just yesterday, she told the Council that she was so unhappy with Gray's contracting boss that she paid $40,000 to push him out of her new administration).

In a statement, Corizon CEO Dr. Woodrow A. Myers, Jr. said he was "disappointed, not solely for our company, but also for the District."

Comment

Comment

Video: Announcement of New Policy Ending Routine Shackling of Youth in Court

On April 3, 2015, Councilmember Grosso joined Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce a new D.C. Superior Court policy what would end the indiscriminate shackling of youth being tried in Family Court. Grosso has worked on this issue since he learned about it in the course of passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014" which ended the shackling of pregnant inmates and detainees in D.C. adult correctional and juvenile detention facilities.

You can watch the announcement thanks to OCT/DCC:

Comment

Comment

Victory: D.C. Family Court to Stop Routine Shackling of Youth

Today, Councilmember Grosso joined Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Kenyan McDuffie and Attorney General Karl Racine to announce today a policy change at the D.C. Superior Court pertaining to youth shackling. The routine and indiscriminate shackling of youth appearing in the Family Court division is coming to an end with the issuance by Chief Judge Lee Satterfield of an administrative order. The Chief Judge's order instructs judges and court personnel to remove the shackles from juveniles after they arrive in a court room for a hearing, unless there is a clear need for the youth to remain in restraints due to danger of harm to the youth or others, or danger of flight. This order is the result of close collaboration between the Chief Judge, Councilmembers, Attorney General, Public Defender Service, and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

Grosso became involved in this issue after successfully passing his "Limitations on the Use of Restraints Amendment Act of 2014", which prohibited the use of shackles on pregnant women and girls in D.C. jail or detention centers. He visited the courts, met with the U.S. Marshals and the Chief Judge, and saw the practice of shackling youth with his own eyes. Grosso and his staff will keep a close eye on implementation of the new administrative order to ensure that youth are not being needlessly shackled. Councilmember Grosso is prepared to introduce legislation if necessary to safeguard the human rights and due process of youth in the courts if the new policy does not live up to its expectations.  You can view the order below.

Comment

Comment

Grosso letter to CFO on property tax assessments and agency response

Councilmember Grosso often sends letters to agencies with additional questions after their performance oversight hearings. On March 4, 2015, Grosso sent a letter with questions about residential and commercial property tax assessments to the Chief Financial Officer, and received a response on March 26, 2015. We thank the CFO for the quick response, and both letters are below--first the Councilmember's followed by the CFO's response.

Comment

Comment

D.C. suggestions for Indiana non-discrimination law reform

As Indiana considers ways to fix its religious discrimination bill, the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia provides excellent language that Indiana could use to ensure that LGBTQ individuals are not the targets of religious discrimination. It is important to note that Part E, relating to educational institutions, had a religious exemption passed by Congress. The Council recently removed that religious exemption, which is currently under Congressional review.

§2-1402.01 Subchapter II, Prohibited Acts of Discrimination. Part A. General:

(a)   Every individual shall have an equal opportunity  to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to, in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service and in housing and commercial space accommodations.

§2-1402.11 Part B. Employment:

(a)   It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearances, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation by any individual:…

§2-1402.21 Part C. Housing and Commercial Space:

(a)   It shall be unlawful discriminator practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or business of any individual:…

§2-1402.31 Part D. Public Accommodations:

(a)   It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:…

§2-1402.41 Part E. Education Institutions:

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice…for an educational institution:

(1)    To deny, restrict, or to abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any of its facilities, services, programs, or benefits of any program or activity to any person otherwise qualified, wholly or partially, for a discriminatory reason, based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, or disability of any individual;…

Comment

Comment

D.C. Jail health services contract should not be awarded to for-profit company

For the past two years, I have introduced and supported legislation to advance and promote the human rights of every District of Columbia resident.  I understand that improvements to our various sectors cannot be achieved in a vacuum.  Real change demands government accountability, transparency and openness. 

To this end, I have been a fierce advocate for ethics reform, particularly as it relates to the Council’s role in voting on contracts over $1 million.  I believe that this authority can be viewed as a vehicle for corruption, enabling lawmakers to exert undue influence over the contract procurement process, and I have voted “present” on all contracts to promote and encourage a commitment to good government.  I have also engaged in oversight monitoring the performance of government contractors and the integrity of procurement processes through other avenues. However, there are times when circumstances arise that are too egregious to ignore, warranting immediate action.

After significant research, including a visit to the D.C. jail, meetings with advocates and a meeting with the CEO of Corizon, I determined that awarding the D.C. Jail contract for healthcare services to Corizon, would violate the human rights of D.C. residents who are incarcerated.  The World Health Organization’s Constitution enshrines the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.  This right includes access to timely and quality healthcare.  Unfortunately, Corizon has repeatedly failed to meet this standard. 

The company, a Tennessee-based for profit, has a well-documented history of failing to provide necessary medical care, allowing extreme delays in medical services to persist, and operating substandard facilities.  Over the past five years there have been over 1,000 lawsuits filed against Corizon for neglect and abuse.  Additionally, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Minnesota have all ended their contracts with Corizon for poorly delivered healthcare services.  Just recently, the New York City Council publicly challenged Corizon and questioned whether it was time to end the healthcare services contract, which Corizon holds at Rikers Island.

The examples of Corizon’s deplorable services are innumerable and while it may be argued that prison healthcare is in general need of reform, the District of Columbia cannot disregard the ample evidence of gross systemic deficiencies.  Awarding this contract would be an absolute failure of government to protect the health and well-being of District of Columbia inmates.  Even if the Council did not vote on contracts, I would work diligently to stop this one from going forward. The gravity of the circumstances have required me to take a strong stand.

Comment

Comment

Sex work, human rights and law enforcement

By Darby Hickey, Legislative Assistant*

After decades of the ‘war on drugs’ and an obsession with ‘broken windows’ or ‘quality of life’ policing, our country seems to finally be reaching consensus against our over-reliance on incarceration. The devastating effects of mass imprisonment and biased policing are evident around the U.S. and certainly in the District of Columbia. Recent efforts to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, reform the practice of asset forfeiture, and overhaul our approach to juvenile justice have all resulted from this shift in perspective. Our city has begun to look at criminal justice through a lens of human rights, and the country is doing so as well. We are reworking our policies to recognize and address the underlying factors of why people engage in certain activities. We are grappling with the reality that some criminal penalties are worse for our communities than the behaviors that the penalties target. In light of all of this, it is worth reconsidering our policies and practices regarding sex workers and others involved in commercial sex.

On February 15, the Washington Post reported on a new round of arrests of people involved in commercial sex, resulting from online stings conducted by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The MPD official quoted in the article stated, “We could probably do this every weekend and get the same numbers.” This echoed statements made by Assistant Chief Newsham in 2012 that MPD “can’t arrest our way out of” prostitution. In a recent exchange of letters between Councilmember Grosso and MPD Chief Cathy Lanier, the Chief wrote that while “there are very complex individual and socio-economic factors related to sex work, [MPD’s] options related to this are limited [i.e. arrests].”

Missing from the Washington Post article, like most discussions about sex work, is any consideration of the economics of commercial sex. It was also disappointing that the Post failed to interview any sex workers or advocates for this community, who likely would have noted that it is an income-generating activity. People engage in sex trade not out of some deviant mind-set, but as a means of survival--a way to pay rent, put food on the table, buy clothes for kids, and meet other needs. Arresting a sex worker doesn’t address any of these problems and, in fact, it usually exacerbates them.

Many people in D.C. and around the world have argued that a better approach to the complexities of commercial sex would be to focus directly on the individuals involved, and treat them as fully deserving of basic human rights. A human rights response to commercial sex would reframe the discussion—issues of violence against sex workers, police misconduct, public health, and stigma become the focus and sex workers and their activities stop being ‘the problem’.

A key part of a human rights approach is listening to the individuals involved in commercial sex. As Councilmember Grosso emphasized during the public hearing last year on the Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act, “We must listen and respond to these diverse experiences with compassion and respect, not with arrest or judgment. Youth trading sex for money are already asking for access to low threshold, voluntary services for housing, healthcare, education, legal assistance and more.” The same goes for adult sex workers.

Yet some police officials state that arresting individuals trading sex for money is the best way to link them to such services. For example, in the MPD response to oversight questions from the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chief writes, "arrest is often the tool by which MPD can take the juveniles into custody... so that the juvenile can be connected with a service organization."

This misses the reality that an arrest itself can be traumatizing. In fact, police crack downs, whether on the streets or online, usually make it harder for outreach groups to contact people engaged in commercial sex who may need help. And it ignores the deep-seated mistrust of police and other authorities that exists in these communities. For example, research in Chicago revealed that young people involved in sex trade named police and healthcare officials as the main sources of violence and abuse in their lives.

We should not be arresting a sex worker or a minor engaging in sex trade in order to force them into services or to cooperate in a criminal investigation—a phenomenon noted in a City Paper article just last month. This goes against all we have learned about victim-centered approaches to violence and abuse. That is why Councilmember Grosso argued that the “Sex Trafficking of Minors Prevention Amendment Act” should prohibit police from arresting young people involved in sex trade.

A human rights-based practice would ensure that MPD is adopting proactive community policing. Police should be seeking to build relationships and trust, responding positively and with sensitivity to service calls, not seeking to get an arrest or conviction at all costs but addressing the needs of the survivor.

One place to start would be for MPD to not treat sex workers (or those assumed to be such) as “criminals” when they are victims of violence and are seeking redress. This problem was found to be pervasive in D.C. in a 2008 community-based research project. Respondents reported being told they “got what they deserved” for being sex workers when they were raped, stabbed, or otherwise attacked. This finding is supported by research in other jurisdictions across the country from New York to Los Angeles to New Orleans. A recent report by WAMU highlighted that this remains an issue today.  

Another aspect of a human rights approach to people involved in sex trade has already been partially implemented in D.C.—the policy of MPD that condoms are not to be used as evidence of engaging in prostitution. The community-based research referenced earlier and a subsequent study by Human Rights Watch found that while officially MPD and prosecutors rarely included condoms as evidence, they were used as pretext for arrests or confiscated or destroyed. There was also a widespread perception among residents that possessing more than three condoms would result in a prostitution charge. In 2009, MPD clarified that this was not the case, issued a policy statement to officers, and distributed informational materials throughout the community.

Unfortunately, this important step by MPD had two exceptions—in cases involving human trafficking or minors. Yet individuals in situations of coercion, including young people under the age of 18, are especially in need of access to condoms. Ensuring access to condoms helps reduce the harms they are facing, and the philosophy of harm reduction is based in a human rights framework.

As Councilmember Grosso has consistently stated, MPD needs to think outside the box on this and other issues and change policies and practices accordingly. A great start would be for MPD to shift from a stance that “people experiencing police misconduct should come forward” to one where leadership proactively seeks to identify patterns of mistreatment and abuse. Another step would be engaging with the community, rather than dismissing concerns about how police are interacting with residents. It is also the responsibility of the Council, the Mayor, and residents of the city to do a better job of understanding the human rights issues involved in commercial sex. We have come to recognize and reduce the harms of criminalization in many policy areas from drugs to schools to immigration. The time is now to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex.

*This post is part of an ongoing series of posts by Councilmember Grosso’s staff to support professional development. All posts are approved and endorsed by Councilmember Grosso.

Comment