H.R.1774 - To amend title 23, United States Code, to withhold certain apportionment funds from the District of Columbia unless the Mayor of the District of Columbia removes the phrase Black Lives Matter from the street symbolically designated as Black Lives Matter Plaza, redesignates such street as Liberty Plaza, and removes such phrase from each website, document, and other material under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1774 aims to amend Title 23 of the United States Code, potentially withholding federal funds from the District of Columbia. This would occur if the Mayor does not remove the phrase "Black Lives Matter" from Black Lives Matter Plaza and related digital and physical materials. The bill also requires the redesignation of the street as "Liberty Plaza".
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R.1774 would financially penalize the District of Columbia for maintaining the "Black Lives Matter Plaza." The District would need to comply with the redesignation to avoid losing 50% of certain federal transportation funds. This could lead to a reduction in available funds for infrastructure projects in the District.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially promotes a sense of national unity by removing a symbol that may be divisive.
- Could be seen as upholding the principle of free speech by preventing government endorsement of specific viewpoints (though this is debatable).
- May lead to a more neutral public space, fostering inclusivity for all citizens.
- Could redirect funds within the District of Columbia if the Mayor complies, potentially benefiting other areas.
- May satisfy constituents who believe the current designation is inappropriate.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could be viewed as a violation of the District of Columbia's autonomy and self-governance.
- May suppress freedom of expression and symbolic speech.
- Could alienate residents and visitors who support the Black Lives Matter movement.
- May create a chilling effect on future displays of public art and expression.
- Could lead to a loss of federal funding for the District of Columbia, impacting infrastructure projects.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. While Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and allocate federal funds, this bill could be argued as infringing upon the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression. Additionally, it raises questions about the extent to which Congress can exert control over the District of Columbia's affairs, potentially conflicting with principles of local governance. The bill does not appear to violate any other specific constitutional provisions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).