The DC Council voted this week to override Mayor Muriel Bowser's veto of the Fare Evasion Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2018. The bill will eliminate criminal penalties associated with not paying the fare on Metrobus and Metrorail, making the offense a civil infraction. (Photo by Chris Kain)

jonetta rose barras: The DC Council’s flawed thinking

By jonetta rose barras On Jan 25, 2019 Last updated Jan 24, 2019

The flaws in the DC Council’s public policymaking were on full display earlier this week when a supermajority of the legislature chose to override Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto of the Fare Evasion Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2018. Bowser was right when she argued that the bill, as written, encourages lawlessness, eroding the basic values of many District residents while jeopardizing the safety of paying riders and Metro’s workers.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the council, led by Ward 6’s Charles Allen and Ward 8’s Trayon White, repudiated in a single piece of legislation those general values and principles, including the one that asserts stealing is wrong. The bill will eliminate any criminal penalties associated with not paying the fare on Metro, making the offense a civil infraction. Further, it will reduce all fines from as much as $300 to $50.

One criticism Bower made against the legislation is that it does not establish any protocol for enforcing the civil infractions. Only two of the 13 members — Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Ward 2’s Jack Evans — voted to sustain the mayor’s veto. They were also the only two to oppose the original legislation.

Some media commentators and political operatives have suggested the mayor’s inability to secure the four votes necessary to sustain her veto was an indication of her waning influence. It didn’t appear, however, that Bowser did much work to win the hearts and minds of council members — or other supporters of the bill — other than sending a letter that explained her action. There were District residents who shared her view whose support she could have solicited. There are other fights on the way, and if she is going to challenge the policies of council members that could exacerbate existing racial and class division in this city, she had better act like she knows how to fight for her beliefs and her agenda.

The word du jour for council members who fought against Bowser was “dangerous.” They characterized her thinking and comments using that term. The real danger is the fanciful and flawed reasoning of several members.

Statements made from the dais during Tuesday’s legislative meeting were far-fetched and convoluted: Allen offered a too-strained analogy between the work of his Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety and that of the DC medical examiner; he argued that the medical examiner comes after a crime has been committed, which is the same position he frequently finds himself. Not to be outdone, at-large Council member Robert White compared fare evasion to sentencing differences between users of crack cocaine and those caught with powdered cocaine. He, like others, suggested the new law was more about “racial equity,” a talking point of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC) and others who pushed questionable data in defense of the bill.

Council members made their assertions even as hard-working Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority workers sat in the council chambers. Many of them are confronted each day with fare evaders, some of whom have attacked drivers for doing their jobs. (And I thought the so-called progressive wing of the legislature were die-hard supporters of labor and the District’s working class.)

Trayon White noted that the WLC “found that between January 2016 and February 2018, Metro Transit Police stopped more than 30,000 individuals for suspected fare evasion and issued more than 20,000 citations; 91 percent of those were issued to African-Americans (72 percent men and approximately 27 percent women). Forty-six percent of all citations were issued to African-Americans under the age of 25.”

He said the “WLC further found that fare evasion enforcement is concentrated at certain Metro stations; 14 percent in [and] around Anacostia and 15 percent in [and] around Gallery Place; 95 percent of the people issued warnings at these two stops were African-Americans. “

Interestingly, he and other members who voted to override Bowser’s veto repeatedly suggested that they needed to understand why people are not paying the $2 fare and what could be done to stop it.

Allen admitted that the problem may be “our lack of creativity” in finding a different solution of the issue. After the council session, he released a prepared statement: “We’ve become lost in the complexity of the issue; we don’t see it for what it is: some people are too poor to pay $2. And that is striking. We live in a city where some of our neighbors are too poor to pay $2.”

At-large Council member Elissa Silverman asked why people aren’t paying the fare: “Are some riders not able to pay?” Do the people who are below 25 years of age believe “they don’t need to swipe their Metro card?”

Trayon White called for the council to be “proactive and redirect our focus on the real issue. Let us work together to determine the true cause of fare evasion.”

Say what?

That council members are asking a basic question like why after they have passed legislation and as they are insisting on overriding a mayoral veto is a signal that poor public policy is being made. It’s an indication that legislators have been rash or are following the demands of the most vocal constituents. They seem to fear that to do the right thing by setting a standard of values for the city might get them labeled as advocates of the “broken window” policing model or painted with the dreaded “R” word.

While I respect the members of the DC Council, and on occasion actually agree with them, the fact is that too often it’s knee-jerk world at the John A. Wilson Building.

If, as Allen suggested, residents are too poor to pay $2, then they certainly are too poor to pay a $50 fine set by the legislation, even if it is associated with only a civil citation. Perhaps the solution the council could have devised was to create a subsidy for the particular group of people unable to pay, if they can demonstrate they are either unemployed or are living below the federal poverty line. That could have reduced the number of people possibly subjected to criminal charges, which would have addressed that concern without eroding the overall values of the community.

However, that solution would not have fully satisfied their base of progressives and African-American who believe that black people are victims of classism, racism and police abuse. So, don’t expect the over-riders to go looking for answers — not even implementation of a subsidy. They have achieved their purpose. They are on to the next bad law to implement.

jonetta rose barras is a DC-based freelance writer and host of The Barras Report television show. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.