S. 2966: District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

114th Congress · introduced 2016-05-23 · Government Operations and Politics · Latest: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 645.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2016-05-23 · official record
Who proposed it: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 645. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

Plain summary

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.

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate with amendment(s)), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate with amendment(s))

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] · 3 cosponsors

Cost estimate: CBO cost estimate: S. 2966, District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act (2016-08-03)

Cosponsors on this site

Ron Johnson (R-WI), Cory A. Booker (D-NJ)

Sponsor's campaign money: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] reported raising $1.2 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (4)

Appropriation: Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
Bill: A proposed law. It becomes law only if it passes the legislature and is signed by the president or governor (or a veto is overridden).
Bond: A way to borrow money. A government sells bonds to raise money now and promises to pay it back with interest over time. Bonds repaid from taxes often need voter approval.
Capital gains: The profit from selling something you own, such as stock or real estate, for more than you paid. A capital gains tax is a tax on that profit.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to Senate with amendment(s))
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-114s2966.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/114/s>

Record fed-us-cong114-s2966 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong114 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong114