(Photo by it used to be me)

The D.C. Council’s Committee on the Judiciary unanimously voted to advance a bill that would prohibit landlords from asking about prior convictions before extending a housing offer. It closely mirrors so-called “ban the box” legislation that prevents employers from inquiring about criminal history on job applications and follows other proposals to ensure that those with a record have a fair shot at reentering society.

“Folks who have records are generally not given the same consideration in employment or housing,” said Ward 5 Councilmember and head of the judiciary committee Kenyan McDuffie. “This is a very important step that is designed to address that—not to give them any more consideration than anyone else, but to level the playing field.”

Around 60,000 Washingtonians have conviction records, and about 8,000 more people are released each year, according to a 2014 report by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee.

Under the Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act of 2016, which McDuffie co-introduced in April with At-large Councilmember Anita Bonds, landlords would be prohibited from asking about an applicant’s prior convictions until after they’ve extended a conditional offer.

Afterward, property owners can only take into account certain types of convictions, and only if they have occurred in the past seven years. The housing offer can then be revoked if the landlord determines “on balance, that the withdrawal achieves a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” The crimes that can be considered include murder, assault, arson, sex abuse, robbery, and fraud.

If the offer is withdrawn, the applicant can request written notification of the reason without charge. Those who believe the law has been violated can file a complaint with the Office of Human Rights. Fines for failing to comply range from $1,000-$5,000, depending on how many rental units the landlord owns.

The legislation carves out exemptions for when federal or local law requires the consideration of a housing applicant’s criminal background, or cases where the owner also resides in the unit.

A spokesman for McDuffie said the office expects to be able to move the bill through the Council before the close of the current two-year legislative session.

Still, some objection was raised at the committee meeting by Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, who speculated that the process laid out in the bill is too complicated and the fines for failing to comply may be too steep. “I agree with the intent and with the major thrust of this, but I worry that you’re going to force rental agents to rent without further consideration because it is just too onerous.”

McDuffie countered that the law is structured similarly to 2014’s “ban the box” bill and that the process for complying and adjudicating possible violations is clear.

During OHR’s first full year of enforcing that employment law, the agency docketed 365 cases—one of the highest complaint rates in the country. A case study from the National Law Employment Project attributed that to “the exceptional outreach of OHR and the fine structure.”

While more than 100 cities and counties and 13 states have “ban the box” laws on the books, initiatives for housing applications are less common. San Francisco; Los Angeles; Dane County, Wisconsin; and Champaign, Illinois are among the handful of jurisdictions around the country with similar ordinances to the one the D.C. Council is considering.

The judiciary committee also recently advanced a bill to prohibit employers from asking about or seeking out a job applicant’s credit history.