Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
This bill amends three sections of Title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code to replace outdated language referring to "substantially retarded" and "at least moderately mentally retarded" with the phrase "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities." The amendments appear to be textual updates to terminology in provisions governing jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court. The bill does not include new programs, funding, or explicit definitions beyond the substituted terms.
Liberal emphasizes dignity and civil-rights alignment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified housekeeping amendment that replaces outdated terminology in three provisions of the District of Columbia Code.
This bill amends three sections of Title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code to replace outdated language referring to "substantially retarded" and "at least moderately mentally retarded" with the phrase "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities." The amendments appear to be textual updates to terminology in provisions governing jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court.
The bill does not include new programs, funding, or explicit definitions beyond the substituted terms.
Very narrow, low‑cost language modernization with minimal policy controversy; procedural timing is main barrier.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified housekeeping amendment that replaces outdated terminology in three provisions of the District of Columbia Code. It provides the precise statutory text changes needed for enactment.
Liberal emphasizes dignity and civil-rights alignment.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes dignity and civil-rights alignment.
Likely strongly supportive because it removes offensive, demeaning language and treats people with disabilities with more respectful terminology.
Sees the change as aligning law with contemporary disability rights norms.
Would seek assurances that the change does not reduce protections or access to services.
Generally supportive of updating archaic language while wary of unintended legal or administrative consequences.
Views the bill as low-cost and sensible if it is limited to wording changes.
Would prefer clarifying definitions or transitional guidance to avoid litigation or confusion.
Moderately supportive if the bill is strictly a textual modernization with no substantive policy change.
Some conservatives may view it as unnecessary politically correct updating, but most will accept it if it does not alter legal thresholds or create new costs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, low‑cost language modernization with minimal policy controversy; procedural timing is main barrier.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes dignity and civil-rights alignment.
Very narrow, low‑cost language modernization with minimal policy controversy; procedural timing is main barrier.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified housekeeping amendment that replaces outdated terminology in three provisions of the District of Columbia Code. It provides the precise s…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.