Had it not been for Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember Trayon White’s federal bribery trial last month, this reporter would’ve compiled a council report marking the council’s return from summer recess. But alas, duty calls, especially as it relates to affairs directly affecting home base.
Since that trial, which ended in a deadlocked jury, at least two of White’s council colleagues have spoken unfavorably about the council member, with one lambasting his acceptance of money from an FBI informant and the other calling for a retrial.
Through it all, White remains focused on the task at hand.
“The jury has spoken. I’m here to do a job,” White told The Informer during an appreciation event he hosted at Sycamore & Oak on St. Elizabeths East Campus in Southeast. “I ran for election twice since [the arrest]. I’m going to focus on work, man…I’m a popular figure, so I’m going to have naysayers, but you see around this room. The support is real. It’s been real. We’re going to be solid.”
Just days after that celebratory affair, White sat at a table with his council colleagues during a breakfast meeting in the John A. Wilson Building that featured Jason Stanek, executive director of PJM Interconnection. For more than an hour, White and other council members listened as Stanek, in a role that puts east coast electrical grids under his purview, touched on utility rate increases that are incongruent with energy generation, the impact of data centers, engagement with utility companies, and changes to electric grids across the D.C. metropolitan region.
Hours after the council’s Oct. 6 breakfast meeting, White, on the first reading, voted in support of legislation that D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) shepherded to automatically enroll SNAP recipients in income-qualified utility affordability programs.
As this report will explain, Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White also stood in solidarity with D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At large) in the latter’s unsuccessful attempt to slash parking fines, as outlined in Ward 1 D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau’s legislation.
Last week, while out and about with supporters at Sycamore & Oak, White, fresh from a job fair at the READY Center, told The Informer that affordability is a top concern.
“There are residents who can’t afford to live here anymore so we’ve got to figure out how to keep residents here,” he said. “We’re dealing with the utility crisis as well. It’s not just one isolated thing. We have a number of things we have to continue to tackle in the ward.”
Eric’s ID Law Passes in the District
Before the council got to business during its Oct. 6 legislative meeting, the legislative body approved the movement of Eric’s ID Amendment Act of 2026 to the non-consent agenda— thus opening the floor for reflection on what D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) called an impactful bill.
“Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of joining Eric and Linda [Carpenter-Grantham] to discuss the bill, disability, advocacy, and the legislative process to a group of students at Anacostia High School,” said Lewis George, who, along with D.C. Councilmember Wendell Felder (D-Ward 7), tuned into the legislative meeting virtually.
In March, Lewis George and D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) introduced Eric’s ID Amendment Act. They did so just weeks after hearing Eric Carpenter-Grantham, an activist and Gen-Zer with autism, speak at a Dr. King holiday event about his efforts to get he and others like him properly identified in preparation for law enforcement interactions.
Lewis George and Parker’s bill went before the Committee on Transportation and Environment, chaired by Allen, with commentary from the Committee on Facilities, which Lewis George oversees. The council unanimously approved the legislation during readings on Sept. 22 and Oct. 6.
The later reading took place not long after Lewis George, Parker, Allen, and Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White sang Carpenter-Grantham’s praises. In her remarks, Lewis George continued going down memory lane, reflecting on how Carpenter-Grantham motivated other young people.
“As Eric spoke about his journey from having a first-in-the-nation idea to that idea being legislated and implemented around the country, the students’ faces could not hide [neither] their excitement for the bill nor their inspiration in realizing their own ideas to help people who could one day become law,” the Ward 4 council member said.
Eric’s ID Amendment Act allows individuals with nonapparent disabilities to opt in for the printing of a butterfly on their D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles-issued identification. Other provisions of the legislation include: the definition of a nonapparent disability or health condition as one that’s not visible, including developmental disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and immunodeficiency conditions.
The bill also mandates the coordination between D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the Office of Disability Rights on public outreach efforts, while prohibiting DDOT from disclosing information about an individual’s nonapparent disability, except in certain circumstances.
The D.C. Council passed this bill more than a year after the Maryland state legislature passed a similar law, thanks to Carpenter-Grantham’s advocacy. Similar bills are currently in the queue in New York, Delaware and Georgia.
“The fact that D.C. had passed their bill today is truly a blessing,” Carpenter-Grantham, 21, told The Informer. “Now that the District of Columbia is about to have the butterfly on their driver’s license and ID too, this is a victory for the disability community and letting them use their voices to feel safe outside and to the world.”
As Carpenter-Grantham, and his mother Linda Carpenter-Grantham, explained, this crusade started in 2023 when the younger Carpenter-Grantham, still reeling from the murder of George Floyd, expressed his desire to ensure that people with nonapparent disabilities had documentation to show during police stops.
What followed was the Carpenter-Granthams’ engagement with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-Maryland State’s Attorney Aisha Braveboy, daytime television hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd, and a slew of other notable figures. In November, the celebration continues as Montgomery College, where Carpenter-Grantham is currently enrolled, commemorates the inclusion of a butterfly on the IDs of students with nonapparent disabilities.
For Linda Carpenter-Grantham, the momentum of support across the country after her and her son’s appearance on “The View” and what was formerly known as “Sherri” solidifies how much her son has spoken to the hearts and minds of the masses.
“A lot of…organizations got involved, like Jack and Jill of America, the NAACP, the Communication Workers of America, National Children’s Center, and so many others,” Carpenter-Grantham said. “We got a lot of support from the community. Families started writing letters to Eric and I once they saw us on TV, saying that they wanted to get involved and support this law.”
Ticketing Legislation Sparks Discussion About Economic Hardship
On its second reading, the council approved the Strategic Parking Enforcement Act of 2026, with Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White and At-large D.C. Councilmember White voting in opposition. D.C. Councilmembers Lewis George, Parker, Felder, and Christina Henderson (I-At large) voted “present.”
This legislation, introduced by Nadeau, extends parking ticketing power in certain jurisdictions to university police and other enforcement entities while establishing a reimbursable detail program through which private businesses, universities, and Business Improvement Districts cover overtime costs for parking enforcement.
“I want to reiterate that my bill is a way of beefing up traffic enforcement, especially in areas that need it most,” Nadeau said on the dais, in response to At-large D.C. Councilmember White’s concerns about the financial burden of parking tickets on residents.
“The bill doesn’t change the cost of a parking ticket. It doesn’t add to the list of parking choices that would result in a ticket,” Nadeau continued. “And when we talk about the price of a parking ticket, which, by the way, is sometimes less than the cost of parking in a nearby parking garage, it’s not people’s money we want. It’s safe and legal parking we want. We want everyone to play by the same rules.”
For a few minutes, Nadeau faced a challenge in At-large D.C. Councilmember White’s introduction of an amendment to trigger a 50% decrease in parking fines. In speaking about what was estimated to carry a fiscal impact of more than $20 million, and trigger a third council reading of Nadeau’s bill if approved, White said he didn’t want residents to shoulder the burden of more parking tickets.
“A parking ticket can make the difference between covering bills and falling behind, but it is not just those earning minimum wage who are feeling this squeeze and stress right now,” At-large D.C. Councilmember White said. “We also need to start to confront the role that these fines play in our budget. In Fiscal Year [20]25, DPW reported issuing more than 1 million parking citations and collecting $59.5 million in parking ticket revenue. We cannot balance the District’s budget based on parking tickets, nor can we control every price that residents pay, but we can control parking fines.”
At-large D.C. Councilmember White’s amendment revived a conversation about affordability that started in September, during the first reading of Nadeau’s legislation. D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D) pointed out that autonomous traffic enforcement sparked more complaints from residents than parking tickets.
Not long before that, Parker expressed his concern that, if passed, At-large D.C. Councilmember White’s amendment would hurt Nadeau’s overall efforts to boost traffic enforcement in high-traffic areas.
“It will likely mean that Councilmember Nadeau’s underlying bill perhaps would never be funded,” Parker said. “For those that have concerns about that bill, maybe that’s a good thing. I think it’s important to just be realistic and straight up with people that I just don’t see how we can afford this while we’re cratering in our budget.”
The council unanimously approved Nadeau’s amendment in the nature of a substitute (ANS) that, among other things: require campus police organizations’ consent to participate in the arrangement; eliminate new authorization for special police to conduct parking enforcement; mandate campus police training; and clarify that campus police ticketing authority only extends to vehicles already subject to enforcement action by Department of Public Works (DPW) personnel.
With the sun soon set on Nadeau’s tenure on the council, some council members, like D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman (I-At large), gave a clarion call for fidelity to the law. Despite efforts during the council breakfast, and on the dais, to convey the importance of council oversight, Silverman was the lone vote on an amendment she introduced to mandate a council hearing about Nadeau’s legislation one year after implementation.
Even with data collection, as outlined in Nadeau’s ANS, and Mendelson’s pledge to host a hearing next year, Silverman implored her council colleagues to not leave anything up to chance, especially with a transition in mayoral leadership.
“By requiring the council to hold a hearing, we can take the data collected…and really look at this program’s effectiveness,” Silverman said on the dais. “Did this actually do what we thought it would do? Make parking better? We can ask if there’s a disparate enforcement by race, by ward, by income. All the questions we just contemplated. We can look at how it’s being paid for, specifically who is paying for it, what percentage of the program they are paying for, and what impact this has on parking enforcement in other areas of the city without this program.”
A Look Back at the Long-Sought-After Ballot Initiative Process Revamp
On its second reading, the council approved the Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act of 2025, legislation that D.C. Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At large) introduced to clarify how D.C. Board of Elections (DCBOE) accepts a proposed initiative or referendum.
Parker and Silverman voted in opposition, while Lewis George voted “present.”
“My original concern with this entire process is that it is…an attempt to undermine our initiative process. We should be clear-eyed about that,” Parker said on the dais. “The reason why we’re making it harder, longer, more difficult to pass initiatives, I would argue, is because people don’t appreciate the initiatives that the people of the District of Columbia have passed.”
Elements of Bonds’ bill include: a requirement that the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer issues a fiscal impact statement before DCBOE deems a proposed ballot initiative proper subject matter; the inclusion of one subject per proposed initiative; and the extension of a timeline for the D.C. attorney general’s submission of an advisory opinion and a proposer or member’s objection.
During the council’s Oct. 6 breakfast meeting, Bonds and Parker deliberated on amendments they were scheduled to present. Both amendments, as explained by the council members, were similar, other than Parker’s insistence on clarifying that, once a ballot initiative meets the standards imposed by the legislation, DCBOE has to cast a vote.
Throughout much of the discussion on the dais, Bonds sought to assure Parker, and other council members, that it’s understood, as outlined in her legislation, that DCBOE has to cast a vote on a ballot initiative that meets the threshold outlined.
“Our intent by putting the language saying that ‘if no grounds for refusal exists’ is to make it very clear then they must move forward to accept the initiative measure,” Bonds told Parker. “We were focused on the affirmative trying to make it clear to the public that if you submit an initiative, it goes through the process as defined by the board, then you must vote on it up or down.”
Earlier this year, D.C. bar owner John Guggenmos sued DCBOE, alleging that the agency didn’t follow proper procedure as it relates to a ballot measure advanced by the New York-based nonprofit One Fair Wage to raise the minimum wage to $25 per hour. Though a judge ruled against Guggenmos, petitioners say they didn’t have much time to gather signatures in time for the initiative’s inclusion on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.
In years past, the D.C. Democrats and restaurateurs decried the passage of Initiative 83 and Initiative 82, respectively, with the local Democratic Party filing a lawsuit to stop Initiative 83’s implementation. From the onset of the Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act’s introduction, council members raised the issue of ballot initiatives incurring a cost, despite the law mandating that those deemed proper subject matter not do so.
While speaking about that last point, Silverman said that Bonds’ legislation doesn’t address fiscal impact. At least not in a way that the at-large independent council member said she would like to see done.
“The solution to the big problem is to move from a direct to an indirect initiative process,” Silverman said. “It doesn’t take away the voters’ voice…and it works very similarly to a direct initiative… But the difference is that with an indirect process, if the group meets the signature threshold, the measure would first go…to us to address it and if the legislature doesn’t address it then it does proceed on to a popular vote.”
