Category: Types of Consequences

Surge in reforms to ease driving penalties

This past year saw an unprecedented surge in states enacting so-called “free to drive” laws, as we documented in our recent report on criminal record reforms in 2020. Nine states enacted 16 bills that end the suspension of driver’s licenses either due to unpaid fines and fees, or due to legal violations unrelated to dangerous driving. Such suspensions make it difficult or impossible for people to get to work, take children to school, shop for groceries, or obtain healthcare.

The Free to Drive campaign, a coalition of over 140 organizations, reports that currently, 37 states and D.C. still suspend, revoke or refuse to renew driver’s licenses for unpaid traffic, toll, misdemeanor and felony fines and fees. This coalition played an instrumental role in many of the 2020 reforms, which are described below.

Read more

Two significant new occupational licensing laws enacted in 2021

After 11 states enacted 19 laws limiting consideration of criminal records by occupational licensing agencies last year, the first significant record reforms of 2021 are occupational licensing laws enacted by Ohio and the District of Columbia.  D.C.’s new law is particularly comprehensive, and applies both to health-related and other licensed professions in the District.

The new District of Columbia law, Act A23-0561, is described in detail in the DC profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.  It provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the licensed occupation, as determined by a detailed set of standards; prohibits inquiry about a record until an applicant has been found otherwise qualified and then prohibits consideration of certain records (including non-conviction and sealed convictions); and provides procedural protections in the event of denial. The new law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals with a record to determine their eligibility, and requires the Mayor to report annually to the Council on each board’s record.  The Institute for Justice has described the “landmark” new D.C. law as “the best in the nation, second only to Indiana.”

The new Ohio law, HB 263, is more complex and less protective than DC’s, requiring licensing boards to publish lists of two types of convictions: those that “shall” be disqualifying (overcome only by a court-ordered certificate) and those that “may” be found disqualify based on their “direct relationship” to the licensed occupation. Other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license, and vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicants overall record that are linked to public safety, and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense.  In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing.  These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019.

Michigan‘s governor also signed a series of bills regulating occupational licensure on the last day of 2020, which include some of the features of the schemes described above but retain the unfortunate disqualification standard of “good moral character.” While Michigan’s licensing law could use improvement, it contributed to the state’s earning the title of Reintegration Champion of 2020.

Our report on new legislation in 2020, documenting that 11 states enacted 19 licensing reform laws, noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.”  We reprint the discussion of 2020 licensing reform from our report here:

Read more

Momentum grows to restore voting rights to people with a felony

Our new report on 2020 legislative reforms shows continued progress in state efforts to expand voting rights for people with a felony conviction. Despite a courtroom setback at the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal appeals court ruled that Florida’s landmark 2018 felony re-enfranchisement initiative does not restore the vote to people who owe court debt, two additional states and D.C. took major actions to restore voting rights to people convicted of a felony. Already in 2021, an impressive 19 states are considering bills to ease or eliminate prohibitions on voting based on a past conviction.

In 2020, California restored the vote to people on parole, via a ballot initiative amending the state constitution. Iowa‘s governor issued an executive order restoring voting rights to people convicted of most felonies after completion of incarceration and supervision. And the District of Columbia repealed felony disenfranchisement altogether so that even people in prison may vote. Since 2016, 19 states have taken steps to restore the right to vote for people with a felony and expand awareness about eligibility. 

In 2021, at least 19 state legislatures are considering bills that would expand the franchise to those with a conviction:

  • 5 states are considering measures to amend their constitutions or statutes to eliminate felony disenfranchisement entirely (Nebraska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Virginia). They would join Maine, Vermont, and D.C., as jurisdictions that have fully abandoned felony disenfranchisement. Connecticut also has a proposed bill that to eliminate disenfranchisement for certain felony offenses and restore the vote after incarceration for the others.
  • 10 states are considering bills to re-enfranchise individuals not presently incarcerated for a felony conviction: Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, and Virginia (Alabama’s bill would do so 5 years after release). The Washington measure is sponsored by newly elected Rep. Tarra Simmons, believed to be the first Washington state lawmaker formerly convicted of felony.
  • The only 4 states remaining without a statutory mechanism for re-enfranchisement (Kentucky, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia) are considering measures to restore the vote upon completion of incarceration and supervision, or earlier, for a disqualifying offense (in the case of Mississippi, after incarceration and parole only; in the case of Iowa, 5 years after completion of incarceration and supervision; Virginia has proposals to eliminate disenfranchisement completely or restore the vote upon release). These four states currently make re-enfranchisement wholly dependent upon discretionary gubernatorial action (or in Mississippi, discretionary legislative action).
  • In addition, Tennessee has a pending bill that would remove requirements that a person has paid all restitution and court costs, and be current on child support, before voting rights may be restored. Maryland and Missouri are considering bills to facilitate voting in jails for eligible individuals, and Maryland has another bill to require individuals released from correctional facilities and/or on community supervision to be informed that they are eligible to vote. Nebraska also has a pending bill to remove the two-year waiting period after completion of a felony sentence for voting rights restoration.

Our full report on 2020 criminal record reforms is available here. For an overview of loss and restoration of voting rights, see our Sept. 2020 national survey and our 50-state comparison chart. In addition, our Nov. 2020 report documents which states treat unpaid court debt as a barrier to regaining the vote.

Legislative Report Card: “The Reintegration Agenda During Pandemic”

CCRC’s new report documents legislative efforts in 2020 to reduce the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. In total, 32 states, D.C., and the federal government enacted 106 bills, approved 5 ballot initiatives, and issued 4 executive orders to restore rights and opportunities to people with a record.

Our Legislative Report Card recognizes the most (and least) productive state legislatures last year. Hands down, Michigan was the Reintegration Champion of 2020 with 26 new record reform laws, while Utah was runner-up, and seven other states were commended for their work.

Read more

How Utah Got Automatic Expungement

Editor’s note: We are pleased to publish this fascinating account of how one state transformed its record relief system in little more than a year from a standing start, written by a person who had a central role in the transformation.     

In March of 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 431, Utah’s Clean Slate law.  At the time, this made Utah the third state in the nation to pass a law automating the criminal record expungement process.  That law went into effect on May 1, 2020, but due to COVID-19, implementation efforts were delayed.  Several months later, implementation is back on track, and it is now anticipated that Utah’s state agencies will begin clearing court and repository records of non-convictions and qualifying misdemeanor convictions by the end of March. Preliminary estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of people across the state will have their records expunged automatically.

What follows is a story about how Utah, one of the reddest states in the nation, came to adopt such a generous and efficient record relief system. As someone who was involved in that process from the beginning, I hope it will be helpful to others seeking to push their own states in that direction.

The Case for Clean Slate

Perhaps the most tragic thing about the number of people struggling with the collateral consequences of a criminal record is that, in many states, so many are eligible to clear their records but so few ever make it through the process.  The petition-based systems that exist in most states are costly, confusing, and cumbersome.  Utah is no exception.

While Utah’s eligibility criteria for expungement are quite generous (allowing for multiple felony and misdemeanor records to be expunged), the expungement process is expensive and time-consuming.  In most cases, individuals must hire an attorney to understand the complex eligibility criteria and procedural requirements. Then they must apply for and obtain from the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI), a “certificate of eligibility,” which expires after 90 days and involves additional cost. Then they must travel to several municipal courthouses across the state to file their paperwork in person, and potentially go back to court later for a full hearing before a judge if either the prosecutor or the victim objects. From start to finish, the process can take more than a year to complete.  As a result, only around 2,000 expungement petitions are filed statewide each year, which represents a small percentage of those who are eligible.

The Path to Clean Slate

Utah’s Clean Slate story starts with jobs.  In 2018, Utah’s unemployment rate was under 3%, one of the lowest rates in the nation.  I remember sitting in the back of courtroom, listening to a judge ask a defendant whether he worked.  The individual said no, and the judge said, “Well why not?  In this economy, if you can breathe, you can find a job.”  But that wasn’t quite true.  While jobs were plentiful, one thing was still keeping people out of the work force: criminal records.

In December 2017, I was working as the Criminal Justice Advisory Council Director for Salt Lake County.  I received a phone call from the Department of Workforce Services, with a request to put on a criminal record expungement workshop for job seekers.  The Department explained that while Utah’s economy was one of the best in the nation, criminal records continued to be a huge barrier to employment.

In my former life, I was a public defender, and had some experience with criminal record expungement work, since Utah has offered expungement on a fairly broad basis for several decades. I told the Department that I did not think that a workshop telling people how to navigate Utah’s complicated petition-based expungement process was going to be very effective, nor did I think that the target audience was likely to have the resources necessary to navigate it. But I was excited about the interest and wanted to do something.  Instead, I asked whether the Department would be interested in trying to do something different: putting on an “Expungement Day” event.  Unlike other expungement clinics, the goal of “Expungement Day,” would be to bring the lawyers, courts, criminal repository, and community partners into one room, and work together to try to streamline the criminal record expungement process into a single day, allowing anyone who showed up to leave with a clean record.

Read more

“The Reintegration Agenda During Pandemic: Criminal Record Reforms in 2020”

In each of the past five years, CCRC has issued an end-of-year report on legislative efforts to reduce the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life.[i] These reports document the progress of what has become a full-fledged law reform movement to restore individuals’ rights and status following their navigation of the criminal law system.

Our 2020 report, linked here, shows a continuation of this legislative trend. While fewer states enacted fewer laws in 2020 than in the preceding two years, evidently because of the disruptions caused by the pandemic, the fact that there was still considerable progress is testament to a genuine and enduring public commitment to a reintegration agenda.

In 2020, 32 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government enacted 106 legislative bills, approved 5 ballot initiatives, and issued 4 executive orders to restore rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record.

Read more

Are Trump’s Pardons a Blessing in Disguise?

The title of this post is the title of my piece in Lawfare arguing that, in response to President Trump’s reckless pardoning,  Congress should reroute many of pardon’s routine functions into the federal courts. The piece is reprinted below:

Are Trump’s Pardons a Blessing in Disguise?

As President Trump’s irregular and self-serving pardons roll out, incoming President Biden has been urged to repair or replace the process for advising the president on the use of this extraordinary constitutional power.

It makes sense that critics have directed their ire and reform energies toward the mechanics of the pardon process, particularly since President Trump is on the record as disdaining it. But improvements in the process will not solve the problem laid bare by this president’s reckless pardoning. We should instead be asking more basic questions about what if any role the pardon power should play in the ordinary operation of the federal justice system. That system has asked far too much of pardon in recent years, and increased demand has played a major role in the power’s abuse. Congress needs to reroute many of pardon’s routine functions into the federal courts.

Read more

Sex offense registries in Europe and around the world

We are pleased to publish new research by Stephen Schulhofer about the treatment of sex offense registration in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU. The research, presented here with an introduction by Alessandro Corda, comes from material prepared for inclusion in an upcoming draft of the Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses (full citation and disclaimer below).

Introduction: An Important Look at Foreign Policy and Practices Regarding Sex-Offense Collateral Consequences

By Alessandro Corda, Lecturer in Law, Queen’s University Belfast School of Law

The American Law Institute’s ongoing project aimed at reforming the Model Penal Code provisions on sexual assault and related offenses includes within its reach not only substantive criminal law provisions, but also collateral consequences applicable specifically to persons convicted of a sexual offense, in particular sex offense registries.

Sex offense registration and notification laws are a quintessential example of a collateral consequence of conviction that flourished during the so-called “tough-on-crime era.” The first sex offense registries in the United States were enacted in the late 1940s as a way “to inform the police of the whereabouts of habitual sex offenders.” The idea soon lost favor to so-called sexual psychopath laws. By the 1970s, however, such laws had likewise lost approval, “either being repealed or widely ignored as ineffective and unjust policies” (Hoppe, 2016, p. 577; see also Rice Leave, 2009). Everything changed in the 1990s, following high profile cases of abduction and sexual torture of children in the context of a climate of raising punitiveness.

The first state sex offense registration law was passed in Washington State in 1990 and applied to people convicted of certain sexual offenses. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act as part of the controversial Clinton Crime Bill, requiring states to implement sex offense registries. In 1996, the so-called Megan’s Law amended the 1994 Act to require each state to provide notification and information to communities about convicted sex offenders living in the area for public safety purposes.[*] Prior to that, individuals convicted of a sexual offense only had to register with local law enforcement agencies, with public notification procedures available under certain circumstances. The subsequent Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), also known as the Adam Walsh Act, rewrote the law in its entirety to mandate the creation of a nationwide online registration and notification system and provided a set of minimum standards to be followed across the United States (Jones & Newburn, 2013, pp. 444-46; Logan, 2009, pp. 429 ff.). Since 2006, a number of federal bills have added to SORNA’s provisions to address issues such as online safety and international travel by registered individuals.

Read more

Updated: “Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey”

We are pleased to publish an update of our 50-state report on how unpaid court debt blocks restoration of voting rights lost as a result of a felony conviction:

Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey

This report examines the extent to which state reenfranchisement laws consider payment of legal financial obligations (LFOs), including fines, fees, and restitution, in determining whether and when to restore voting rights to people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. (Our national survey discusses and ranks each state’s general approach to loss and restoration of voting rights based on conviction.)

We first published this research in July 2020 during litigation over Florida’s 2018 voting rights ballot initiative, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. However, the initiative was interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which drastically limited its anticipated reach. A federal district court found this system unconstitutional, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed that conclusion in a 6-4 decision.

During the appeal, an amicus brief by the State of Texas, joined by seven other states, asserted that “States across the country have similar rules [to Florida] for felon voting” and that the district court’s holding “called into question the widespread practice” of permanently disenfranchising people who are not able to “pay their debts to society.”  As we demonstrated in our original report and amicus brief, the assertions in the Texas brief were not well-founded: few states have laws like Florida’s that indefinitely deny reenfranchisement based on any unpaid debt related to a disqualifying conviction.

This updated report documents whether and to what extent unpaid LFOs restrict voting rights in each state, and reflects developments in California, where voters early this month passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those on parole; and in Iowa, where the governor in August issued an executive order to restore voting rights after completion of incarceration and supervision, regardless of payment of LFOs.

Read more

Business community endorses broad second-chance agenda

The Business Roundtable, which represents the CEOs of major U.S. companies, yesterday issued corporate and public policy recommendations to advance racial equity and justice in the wake of 2020’s triple crises disproportionately impacting communities of color: pandemic, recession, and protests in response to police violence.  The policy recommendations have six themes: employment, finance, education, health, housing, and the justice system.  The justice system policy report was developed with the assistance of CCRC’s Margaret Love and David Schlussel, who provided general advice in connection with the Roundtable’s consideration of second-chance policies.

The second-chance recommendations are extremely encouraging, signaling the business community’s embrace of a broad agenda for alleviating barriers to economic and social opportunities for people with a criminal record.

The Roundtable endorsed specific pending federal legislation dealing with automatic expungement, judicial certificates of relief, fines and fees reforms, and prison education and training programs.  The Roundtable also expressed support for expanding federal and state deferred adjudication (judicial diversion) policies, limiting the dissemination of dated conviction records in background checks, “banning the box” in hiring in all states, and relaxing state and federal hiring and occupational licensing bans.

As part of its action agenda, the Roundtable has committed to partnering on the creation of a business coalition to advance second-chance hiring by employers. Coalition members will exchange best practices, learn from subject matter experts, and develop and deploy tools to improve second-chance hiring, as part of a workforce diversity strategy.

Our recent national report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” which surveys the current state of the law on many of the issues addressed by the Roundtable recommendations–including employment, licensing, expungement, judicial certificates, deferred adjudication, and other forms of record relief–is available here.

The Roundtable’s full set of justice system recommendations are listed below.

Read more

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 30