Restoration of Rights Project – Maryland Profile

Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a Maryland criminal conviction

Final Report of the Collateral Consequences Workgroup

Report of workgroup charged by Governor Hogan and the 2016 Justice Reinvestment Act with investigating and making recommendations for reform of Maryland collateral consequences (2016)

The Collateral Consequences of Arrests and Convictions under D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Law

By the Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs (2014)

Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions in Maryland

Reentry of Ex-Offenders Clinic, University of Maryland School of Law (2007)

>> Select another state <<

Related blog posts:

Oklahoma and California win Reintegration Champion awards for 2022 laws (1/17/2023) - On January 10 we posted our annual report on new laws enacted in 2022 to restore rights and opportunities to people with a record of arrest or conviction. Like our earlier reports, it documents the steady progress of what we characterized two years ago as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and dignity to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system. This year’s criminal record reforms bring the total number of separate laws enacted in the past five years to more than 500. Posted below is our fourth annual legislative Report Card recognizing the most productive states in 2022. Reintegration Awards for 2022 While more than a handful of states enacted noteworthy laws in 2022, two states stand out for the quantity and quality of their legislation: California and Oklahoma share our 2022 Reintegration Champion award for their passage of at least two major pieces of record reform legislation. California – Enacted a whopping 11 new laws, including the broadest general record clearing law in the nation, a direction to courts to effectuate clearing of marijuana records, removal of restitution as a bar to clearing criminal records, easing access to judicial certificates of rehabilitation, and simplification of the process for certifying people with criminal records to work in community care. California’s governor also vetoed a bill that would have facilitated background screening by eliminating court-imposed restrictions on online access to personal identifying information. Oklahoma – Enacted a major automatic record clearing law and the most sweeping update to an occupational licensing scheme of any state in the country this year. Oklahoma also passed a significant law allowing young people who successfully complete the state’s youthful offender program to have their charges dismissed and expunged. Another eight states earned an Honorable Mention for their enactment of at least one significant new record reform law: Colorado – Expanded automatic sealing to include all offenses eligible for petition-based sealing, reduced the waiting period for low-level drug possession from three years to two, and enhanced procedural rights of those applying for occupational licenses. Connecticut – Made it easier for people with felony convictions to work in dozens of occupations under the state department of public health and authorized a binding preliminary determination. Delaware – Enacted the “Fair Chance Licensing Act,” establishing a binding preliminary application process, providing that many records may not be grounds for denial (convictions over 10 years old with no intervening convictions; pardoned, sealed, or expunged convictions; non-conviction records; and juvenile adjudications). Even “substantially related” crimes must be given an opportunity for a waiver via a board vote. Delaware also authorized automatic expungement of records of charges lacking a final disposition and prohibited higher education institutions from inquiring into an applicant's criminal history. Indiana – Eliminated the one-year waiting period for sealing non-conviction records, including uncharged arrests, and made this relief automatic. Louisiana – Strengthened and extended its occupational licensing law, by establishing a binding preliminary determination, providing for appeal, bringing many new boards under its general licensing limits, and adopting new factors to be considered in determining “direct relationship.” The state also provided unusually broad record relief for victims of human trafficking. Maryland – Legalized the personal use of up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis for adults 21 and older, authorized resentencing and expungement of marijuana conviction records and established a business assistance fund that prioritizes individuals with cannabis convictions. Maryland also enacted a law removing state authority over the delinquency of children aged 13 and under. Missouri – Missouri voters amended the state constitution to legalize personal use of marijuana, and at the same time authorized release from prison for those serving prison sentences for marijuana trafficking, provided for automatic expungement for numerous marijuana convictions upon completion of sentence, and extended preference in commercial licensure to sell legalized marijuana to those with convictions. In addition, Governor Mike Parson has become the most prolific pardoner in the state in more than 40 years, working efficiently to reduce a case backlog built up over many years. Rhode Island – Legalized adult possession of small amounts of marijuana, provided for automatic expungement of convictions for decriminalized marijuana offenses, and waived costs as a bar to expungement for anyone who has been incarcerated for a marijuana offense. Low marks go to two states that enacted no record reform laws at all in 2022. While there are many other states in this category this year, the legislatures of Alaska and Wisconsin earn their place at the bottom of the heap for having been equally unproductive in 2021, 2020 and 2019, years in which almost every other state passed at least some law limiting access to and use of criminal records. Wisconsin’s one saving grace is the extensive record of pardoning by Governor Tony Evers in the past 30 months, during which he has pardoned more than 600 individuals, 325 in 2022 alone. Looking ahead to 2023, we expect to see a continuing expansion of eligibility for record clearing, and reduction of access barriers like lengthy waiting periods, outstanding court debt and application-related costs. We also predict efforts to improve records management to accommodate automation of record clearance. We look for extension of state fair employment laws, and further facilitation of occupational licensing, both areas where bipartisan reforms have benefitted from helpful model laws. We are slightly less optimistic about additional progress toward dismantling the structure of felony disenfranchisement, which has become mired in faction looking toward the presidential race in 2024. Hopefully, 2023 will see some record reform action in Congress and federal agencies, including measures to extend access to government-guaranteed loans and contracting opportunities to small businesses owned or managed by people with a criminal history. We have come a long way just in the past five years, but there is still a long way to go.
Marijuana legalization and record clearing in 2022 (12/20/2022) - CCRC is pleased to announce a new report on recent cannabis-specific record sealing and expungement reforms in the past 18 months. The report, extending CCRC's fruitful collaboration with the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University, is available here. An accompanying infographic (reproduced at the end of this postr) summarizes the report’s findings, and includes a color-coded US map showing which states have enacted cannabis-specific record-clearing provisions. To supplement the map, the report includes an appendix classifying and describing marijuana-specific record clearing statutes in all 50 states, based on CCRC's 50-state comparison chart on "Marijuana Legalization, Decriminalization, Expungement and Clemency." To put our new report in context, CCRC and DEPC reported 18 months ago on an “unprecedented period for policymaking at the intersection of marijuana legalization and criminal record reform in the first months of 2021,” with four states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) legalizing marijuana possession and at the same time providing criminal record relief for past convictions along with a variety of social equity provisions. Our report shows this trend continuing into 2022. Since our 2021 report, four additional states (Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, and Rhode Island) have adopted similar record-clearing provisions in connection with adult-use cannabis legalization, authorizing sealing and expungement provisions that in most cases extend well beyond convictions for legalized conduct. All four states made at least some relief automatic, removing the burden of a criminal record from many individuals while raising the bar on standards for marijuana record relief nationwide. Like the four states discussed in our earlier report, these four also address racial disparities in marijuana criminalization by directing tax revenue and business opportunities for legal marijuana to individuals and communities disproportionately affected by criminal law enforcement. During this same timeframe, three additional states (California, Colorado, and Massachusetts) enhanced their existing marijuana-specific record sealing statutes. The report summarizes the cannabis-specific record clearing provisions enacted since publication of our earlier report in the spring of 2021 in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri and Rhode Island. Missouri's record-clearing provisions, adopted through a ballot initiative and effective immediately, are particularly impressive: individuals currently incarcerated for possession of up to three pounds of marijuana may petition for release and expungement (with certain offenses excepted), most individuals currently under supervision are automatically released from their sentence and their record expunged, and individuals convicted of all marijuana-related misdemeanors and most felonies have their records automatically expunged upon completion of sentence. See Section III(C) of the Missouri profile from the Restoration of Rights Project for additional information about this extraordinary ballot initiative. As in the 2021 report, we include laws authorizing marijuana-specific automatic record clearing provisions that are not scheduled to be implemented until some future date, with an appropriate notation. We focus exclusively on authorities that specifically expunge or seal marijuana convictions, and do not take into consideration more general record clearing laws that may also apply to marijuana convictions (frequently more broadly). Additional information about state record relief laws, including those that apply specifically to marijuana records, can be found in the state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project. In addition to the 50-state overview of marijuana-specific record clearing provisions, the appendix also includes a summary of the marijuana-specific pardon initiatives undertaken by several states in recent years. Read the report Explore the infographic (click to enlarge)
Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing (2/23/2022) - Our new report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years. Typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases. Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states). The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states). Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”[1] In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”[2] The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.[3] Data on recidivism dating from the 1990s reinforced policy arguments that waiting periods should be long enough to reduce the risk of reoffending after record clearance. But new research on recidivism suggests that shorter waiting periods need not raise public safety concerns. Researchers at the RAND Corporation have raised questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison, proposing that the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction, and that a person’s likelihood of being convicted again declines rapidly as more time passes.[4] This new research would seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of concerns that shortening waiting periods necessarily raises public safety concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, it suggests that it may be possible to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent policy goals of facilitating and recognizing rehabilitation through shorter waiting periods. The full report is available here. --- [1] James Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record 131 (Harvard Univ. Press 2015). [2] Id. See also Brian M. Murray, Retributive Expungement, 169 U. Pa. L. Rev. 665, 695 (2021); J.J. Prescott & Sonja B. Starr, Expungement of Criminal Convictions: An Empirical Study, 133 Harvard L. Rev. 2460, 2479 (2020); Jeffrey Selbin et al., Unmarked? Criminal Record Clearing and Employment Outcomes, 108 J. Crim. L. Criminology 1, 52 (2018). [3] States that have reduced their eligibility waiting periods since 2016 are Arkansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri (twice), Nevada, New Jersey (twice), North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma (twice), Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont (twice), Washington. States that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 are Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia. Additional information about waiting periods in these states can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project. [4] Shawn Bushway et al., Providing Another Chance: Resetting Recidivism Risk in Criminal Background Checks, RAND Corp. (2022), https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA1360-1.
Dozens of new expungement laws already enacted in 2021 (7/7/2021) - This year is turning out to be another remarkable year for new record relief enactments. In just the first six months of 2021, 25 states enacted no fewer than 51 laws authorizing sealing or expungement of criminal records, with another 5 states enrolling 11 bills that await a governor's signature. Three of these states authorized sealing of convictions for the first time, seven states passed laws (or enrolled bills) providing authority for automatic sealing, and a number of additional states substantially expanded the reach of their existing expungement laws. This post hits the highlights of what may well be the most extraordinary six-month period in the extraordinary modern period of criminal record reform that begin in 2013. The only closely comparable period is the first six months of 2018, when 11 states enacted major reforms limiting consideration of criminal records in occupational licensing. Further details of the laws mentioned below can be found in the relevant state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project. (An earlier post noted new occupational licensing laws in 2021, and subsequent ones will describe significant extensions of the right to vote so far this year, and summarize the more than 100 record reforms enacted to date.) New Laws Three states enacted particularly significant new record relief schemes. Alabama and Virginia both authorized petition-based expungement of adult conviction records for the first time, with Virginia making relief for some misdemeanors and non-convictions automatic. Continuing the trend toward automatic expungement, Connecticut enacted a major "clean slate" bill authorizing automatic "erasure" of most misdemeanors and many felonies. All three of these important new laws are described in greater detail later in this post. In other legislative developments, Maryland authorized automatic expungement of non-conviction records after a three-year waiting period, and established a work group to study partial expungement of charges not resulting in conviction. Vermont took another step toward automation following last year's automatic marijuana expungement law, by authorizing automatic expungement of motor vehicle-related violations. At the same time, Vermont authorized a broad legislative study of its expungement laws, including the prospects for automation, to be completed by the beginning of the next legislative session. (This study follows on the heels of an inconclusive report from an executive working group charged with a similar study task in 2018.) South Dakota reduced the waiting period of its automatic sealing law (applicable to non-conviction records and some misdemeanors) from ten years to five. Tennessee expanded eligibility for petition-based expungement from misdemeanors and Class E felonies to include Class D and C felonies. It also made the filing fee discretionary with the court clerk, and required courts to both notify defendants of the availability of expungement and give reasons in writing if they deny this relief. Washington rewrote its laws applicable to victims of sex trafficking and related sexual abuses, authorizing vacatur for both B and C felonies and misdemeanors, and providing that a petition may be filed either by the victim or by the prosecutor. Four additional states made more modest improvements in their existing petition-based expungement schemes: Arkansas repealed an exclusion for anyone sentenced to prison; Nevada limited the power of the prosecutor to object to expungement, and facilitated expungement of pardoned convictions; North Dakota changed the condition of its waiting period from "no arrest" to "no conviction," and authorized sealing of DUI convictions; and Utah provided that restitution ordered by the parole board would no longer bar eligibility for expungement. Eight additional states extended their juvenile record expungement laws, and four states broadened authorities for diversion leading to expungement. New Mexico added to its significant 2019 expungement scheme by enacting most of the provisions of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (UCCCA), giving its courts authority to relieve mandatory collateral consequences as early as sentencing (New York, Vermont, and New Jersey are the only other states with such authority). This same law not only offered this relief to those with convictions from other jurisdictions, it also gave effect to relief granted by other jurisdictions, the only state other than Vermont that has done this (also through its enactment of the UCCCA). Enrolled bills As of the end of June, four states had enrolled major record relief laws awaiting the governor's signature, two of which provided for automatic record sealing. The Delaware legislature passed Clean Slate legislation, automating sealing for most of the offenses that had been authorized for petition-based mandatory and discretionary sealing in 2019. The bill is to be effective in 2021, but sealing is to begin in August 2024. The Oregon legislature made substantial changes to eligibility criteria under its petition-based expungement law, described here, reducing waiting periods and modifying disqualifying priors. Colorado expanded eligibility for petition-based sealing and made sealing of non-conviction records automatic. The Michigan legislature send to the governor two bills providing for expungement of first DUI convictions, a category omitted from their 2020 package of record relief legislation. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, on the final day of its session the Arizona legislature for the first time ever passed a record-sealing bill and it is quite broad, applicable to most misdemeanors and felonies. Earlier in the session, the governor signed a bill authorizing courts to issue a "Certificate of Second Chance" when setting aside a conviction, which lifts mandatory bars to licensure and offers employers and landlords protection from liability. Marijuana expungement The first half of 2021 was also an unprecedented period for policymaking at the intersection of marijuana legalization and criminal record reform. Between February and April, four states enacted legislation legalizing recreational marijuana. In conjunction with legalization, these states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) also enacted innovative criminal policy reforms—including the automatic expungement of an exceptionally broad array of past marijuana convictions—along with a variety of social equity provisions. These laws are described in our report on Marijuana Legalization and Expungement in Early 2021. Since that report was published, Connecticut authorized petition-based marijuana expungement for a range of misdemeanors and felonies as well as limited automatic relief for some misdemeanors. Colorado also expanded petition-based marijuana expungement eligibility. The particularly significant relief schemes enacted in Alabama, Virginia and Connecticut are described in greater detail below. We will provide further details on the Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware laws when they are signed into law, as appears likely. Alabama: Until 2021, Alabama courts had no statutory authority to expunge or seal adult conviction records, with the exception of a narrowly drawn exception for victims of human trafficking. With enactment of Act No. 2021-286 (SB117), the so-called REDEEMER Act, Alabama courts were authorized to expunge non-violent misdemeanors and violations, and pardoned felonies. Eligible misdemeanors and violations may apply three years after conviction if “all probation or parole requirements have been completed, including payment of all fines, costs, restitution, and other court-ordered amounts, and are evidenced by the applicable court or agency.” Pardoned felonies are eligible 180 days after the pardon was granted. Convictions for violent and sexual offenses and “serious traffic offenses” are not eligible. Nor are the dozens of crimes of “moral turpitude” that are grounds for felony disenfranchisement, unless the crime was reclassified as a misdemeanor. There is also an administrative filing fee of $500, which may be waived under with a finding of indigency. Expunged records must remain available to law enforcement and prosecutors, utilities, the agency engaged in protecting children and vulnerable adults, and “any entities or services providing information to banking, insurance, and other financial institutions as required for various requirements as provided in state and federal law.” The REDEEMER Act also expanded the laws governing expungement of non-conviction records to cover violent felony charges that were dismissed with prejudice, nol prossed or indictment quashed (after limitation period has run or prosecutor confirms charges will not be refiled), and reduced the waiting period for expungement after diversion of misdemeanor charges to one year. A five-year waiting period was retained for felony charges dismissed without prejudice Virginia Until 2021, Virginia law made no provision for expunging or sealing conviction records, except those that have been vacated pursuant to a writ of actual innocence, or those which were the subject of an absolute pardon (for innocence). With enactment of HB 2113 and SB 1406, Virginia gained one of the more progressive record relief systems in the country, with a mixture of automatic and petition-based sealing, both for convictions generally and marijuana offenses specifically. The general record relief legislation (HB 2113) includes five key provisions: Establishes a system of automatic sealing for misdemeanor non-convictions, nine types of misdemeanor convictions, and deferred dismissals for underage alcohol and marijuana possession. Allows for sealing of felony acquittals and dismissals at disposition with the consent of the prosecuting attorney. Provides for sealing a broad range of misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions and deferred dismissals through a petition-based court process. Notably, court debt will not be a barrier to record clearance under the legislation. Introduces a system of court-appointed counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney for the petition-based sealing process. Requires private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records and creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so. The provisions of HB 2113 are scheduled to go into effect in 2025 (or earlier). A separate bill providing for marijuana legalization and expungement (SB 1406) authorized the automatic expungement of records related to certain misdemeanor marijuana offenses along with petition-based expungement of all other misdemeanor and many felony marijuana offenses. With the exception of the sealing of certain police records, these provisions are also scheduled to go into effect by 2025. Connecticut Public Act 21-42, Connecticut's "Clean Slate" law, establishes a process to automatically erase records of most misdemeanor convictions and certain felony convictions entered after January 1, 2000, after a specified period following the person’s most recent conviction for any crime (with an exception for certain drug possession crimes). Class C, D, or E felonies are covered, as are unclassified felonies with up to 10-year prison terms. The bill excludes family violence crimes and offenses requiring sex offender registration. Under the bill, misdemeanors are eligible for erasure seven years after the person’s most recent conviction for any crime; class D or E felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms of five years or less are eligible after 10 years; and class C felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms greater than five years but no more than 10 years are eligible after 15 years. For offenses before January 1, 2000, the records are erased when the person files a petition on a form prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. Various provisions that now apply to erasure of non-conviction records also apply to erasure under this bill: no fee is charged, and partial expungement is available. That is, if the case contained multiple charges and only some are entitled to erasure, electronic records released to the public must be erased to the extent they reference charges entitled to erasure. The law requires all purchasers of court records, including background screening providers, to update their records on a regular basis. It extends these provisions to records of other agencies (State Police, DMV, Department of Correction). The bill prohibits various forms of discrimination based on someone’s erased criminal history record information, such as in employment, public accommodations, the sale or rental of housing, the granting of credit, and several other areas. In several cases, it classifies discrimination based on these erased records as a “discriminatory practice” under the state human rights laws. The automatic erasure provisions of the law take effect on January 1, 2023. This year is turning out to be another extraordinary year for new record relief enactments. In just the first six months of 2021, 22 states enacted no fewer than 47 separate laws authorizing sealing or expungement of criminal records, with another 5 states having enrolled 11 bills from awaiting the governor's signature. Three states authorized sealing for adult convictions for the first time, seven states passed laws (or enrolled bills) providing authority for automatic sealing of convictions, and several additional states substantially expanded the reach of their existing expungement laws. This post hits the highlights of what may well be the most extraordinary single 6-month period in this extraordinary modern period of criminal record reform. (The only one that comes close is the first six months of 2018, when 10 states enacted major reforms to their occupational licensing schemes.) (An earlier post noted new occupational licensing laws in 2021, and a subsequent one will describe significant extensions of the right to vote so far this year.) New Laws Three states enacted significant new record relief schemes. Alabama and Virginia both authorized petition-based expungement of adult conviction records for the first time, with Virginia making some misdemeanors and non-convictions automatic. Continuing the trend toward automatic expungement, Connecticut enacted a major "clean slate" bill authorizing automatic "erasure" of most misdemeanors and many felonies. All three of these important new laws are described in greater detail later in this post. In other legislative developments, Maryland authorized automatic expungement of non-conviction records after a three-year waiting period, and established a work group to study partial expungement of charges not resulting in conviction. Vermont took another step toward automation following last year's marijuana expungement law, by authorizing automatic expungement of motor vehicle-related violations. At the same time, Vermont also authorized a broad legislative study of its expungement laws, including the prospects for automation, to be completed by the beginning of the next session. (This study follows on the heels of an inconclusive report from an executive working group charged with a similar study task in 2018.) Tennessee expanded eligibility for petition-based expungement from misdemeanors and Class E felonies to Class D and C felonies, made the filing fee was made discretionary with the court, and required courts to notify defendants of the availability of expungement and give reasons in writing for denying this relief. Four additional states made more modest improvements in their existing petition-based expungement scheme: Arkansas repealed an exclusion for anyone sentenced to prison; Nevada limited the power of the prosecutor to object to expungement, and facilitated expungement of pardoned convictions; North Dakota changed the condition of its waiting period from "no arrest" to "no conviction," and authorized sealing of DUI convictions; and Utah provided that restitution ordered by the parole board would no longer bar eligibility for expungement. Seven additional states extended their juvenile record expungement laws, and four states broadened authorities for diversion leading to expungement. Enrolled bills As of the end of June, four states had enrolled major record relief laws awaiting the governor's signature, two of which provided for automatic record sealing. The Delaware legislature passed its Clean Slate Act, automating sealing for most of the offenses that had been authorized for petition-based mandatory and discretionary sealing in 2019. The bill was to be effective in 2021, but sealing was to begin in August 2024. The Colorado legislature sent to the governor a bill expanding eligibility for petition-based sealing and making sealing of non-conviction records automatic. The Oregon legislature made substantial changes to eligibility criteria under its petition-based expungement law, described here, reducing waiting periods and modifying disqualifying priors. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the Arizona legislature for the first time passed a broad record-sealing bill applicable to most misdemeanors and felonies; it also authorized its courts to issue a "Certificate of Second Chance" when setting aside a conviction, which lifts mandatory bars to licensure and offers employers and landlords protection from liability. The Michigan legislature send to the governor two bills providing for expungement of first DUI convictions, a category omitted from their 2019 clean slate law. Marijuana expungement The first half of 2021 was also an unprecedented period for policymaking at the intersection of marijuana legalization and criminal record reform. Between February and April, four states enacted legislation legalizing recreational marijuana. In conjunction with legalization, these states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) also enacted innovative criminal policy reforms—including the automatic expungement of an exceptionally broad array of past marijuana convictions—along with a variety of social equity provisions. These laws are described in our report on Marijuana Legalization and Expungement in Early 2021. Connecticut also automated marijuana expungement but at a more modest level. Colorado and Montana both enacted petition-based marijuana expungement laws The important record relief schemes enacted in Alabama, Virginia and Connecticut are described in greater detail below. We will provide further details on the Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware laws when they are signed into law, as appears likely. Alabama: Until 2021, Alabama courts had no statutory authority to expunge or seal adult conviction records, with the exception of a narrowly drawn exception for victims of human trafficking. With enactment of Act No. 2021-286 (SB117), the so-called REDEEMER Act, Alabama courts were authorized to expunge non-violent misdemeanors and violations, and pardoned felonies. Eligible misdemeanors and violations may apply three years after conviction if “all probation or parole requirements have been completed, including payment of all fines, costs, restitution, and other court-ordered amounts, and are evidenced by the applicable court or agency.” Pardoned felonies are eligible 180 days after the pardon was granted. Convictions for violent and sexual offenses and “serious traffic offenses” are not eligible. Nor are the dozens of crimes of “moral turpitude” that are grounds for felony disenfranchisement, unless the crime was reclassified as a misdemeanor. There is also an administrative filing fee of $500, which may be waived under with a finding of indigency. Expunged records must remain available to law enforcement and prosecutors, utilities, the agency engaged in protecting children and vulnerable adults, and “any entities or services providing information to banking, insurance, and other financial institutions as required for various requirements as provided in state and federal law.” The REDEEMER Act also expanded the laws governing expungement of non-conviction records to cover violent felony charges that were dismissed with prejudice, nol prossed or indictment quashed (after limitation period has run or prosecutor confirms charges will not be refiled), and reduced the waiting period for expungement after diversion of misdemeanor charges to one year. A five-year waiting period was retained for felony charges dismissed without prejudice. Virginia Until 2021, Virginia law made no provision for expunging or sealing adult conviction records, except those that have been vacated pursuant to a writ of actual innocence, or those which were the subject of an absolute pardon (for innocence). With enactment of HB 2113 and SB 1406, Virginia gained one of the more progressive record relief systems in the country, with a mixture of automatic and petition-based sealing, both for convictions generally and marijuana offenses specifically. The general record relief legislation (HB 2113) includes five key provisions: Establishes a system of automatic sealing for misdemeanor non-convictions, nine types of misdemeanor convictions, and deferred dismissals for underage alcohol and marijuana possession. Allows for sealing of felony acquittals and dismissals at disposition with the consent of the prosecuting attorney. Provides for sealing a broad range of misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions and deferred dismissals through a petition-based court process. Notably, court debt will not be a barrier to record clearance under the legislation. Introduces a system of court-appointed counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney for the petition-based sealing process. Requires private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records and creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so. The provisions of HB 2113 are scheduled to go into effect in 2025 (or earlier). A separate bill providing for marijuana legalization and expungement (SB 1406) authorized the automatic expungement of records related to certain misdemeanor marijuana offenses along with petition-based expungement of all other misdemeanor and many felony marijuana offenses. With one exception, these provisions are also scheduled to go into effect by 2025. Connecticut Public Act 21-42, Connecticut's "Clean Slate" law, establishes a process to automatically erase records of most misdemeanor convictions and certain felony convictions entered after January 1, 2000, after a specified period following the person’s most recent conviction for any crime (with an exception for certain drug possession crimes). Class C, D, or E felonies are covered, as are unclassified felonies with up to 10-year prison terms. The bill excludes family violence crimes and offenses requiring sex offender registration. Under the bill, misdemeanors are eligible for erasure seven years after the person’s most recent conviction for any crime; class D or E felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms of five years or less are eligible after 10 years; and class C felonies or unclassified felonies with prison terms greater than five years but no more than 10 years are eligible after 15 years. For offenses before January 1, 2000, the records are erased when the person files a petition on a form prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. Various provisions that now apply to erasure of non-conviction records also apply to erasure under this bill: no fee is charged, and partial expungement is available. That is, if the case contained multiple charges and only some are entitled to erasure, electronic records released to the public must be erased to the extent they reference charges entitled to erasure. The law requires all purchasers of court records, including background screening providers, to update their records on a regular basis. It extends these provisions to records of other agencies (State Police, DMV, Department of Correction). The bill prohibits various forms of discrimination based on someone’s erased criminal history record information, such as in employment, public accommodations, the sale or rental of housing, the granting of credit, and several other areas. In several cases, it classifies discrimination based on these erased records as a “discriminatory practice” under the state human rights laws. The automatic erasure provisions of the law take effect on January 1, 2023.
Illinois set to become fifth state to cover criminal record discrimination in its fair employment law (2/13/2021) - NOTE: Governor Pritzker signed S1480 into law on March 23. In our recent report on criminal record reforms enacted in 2020, we noted that there were only four states that had fully incorporated criminal record into their fair employment law as a prohibited basis of discrimination. These states (New York, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California) provide that employers can only disqualify a person based on their record if it meets a specific standard, such as being related to the work in question or posing an unreasonable risk to public safety. Illinois will become the fifth state to take this important step as soon as Governor Pritzker signs S1480. Illinois has been working up to this, having amended its Human Rights Act in 2019 to prohibit employment discrimination based on “an arrest not leading to a conviction, a juvenile record, or criminal history record information ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded.” With S1480, Illinois has now taken the final step of incorporating criminal record fully into the law's structure, which includes authorization to file a lawsuit in the event administrative enforcement is unsatisfactory. A preliminary analysis of the new Illinois law indicates that it now offers more protection for more people with a criminal record in the employment context than any state in the Nation other than California. The provisions of the Illinois bill, enrolled and sent to the governor for signature on February 12, are described below. We then compare them with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. This post notes the handful of additional states that have fortified their record-related employment protections in recent years, then summarizes relevant reforms that were enacted in 2020. The new Illinois law makes it unlawful for any employer, employment agency, or labor union to use a conviction record “as a basis to refuse to hire” or to take other employment related adverse action, unless “there is a substantial relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held” or “the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-103.1(A). “Substantial relationship” is defined to mean “a consideration of whether the employment position offers the opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur.” In making a determination under subsection (A), the employer must consider a variety of factors including the length of time since conviction, the extent of the record, the nature and severity of the conviction itself and its relationship to the safety and security of others, the age of the employee at the time of the offense, and evidence of “rehabilitation efforts.” 5/2-103.1(B). If the employer reaches a preliminary determination of disqualification or other adverse action, the employer must give written notice and an opportunity for respond, and in the event of a final determination an explanation of the reasons.” 5/2-103.1(C). The new Illinois law compares well with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. Although the Illinois “substantial relationship” standard is not as protective as New York’s “direct relationship” standard, Illinois law elaborates the standard with the same public safety emphasis and offers more procedural protections in the form of reasons and an opportunity for reconsideration. Also, unlike New York, it prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records and sealed or expunged convictions. Hawaii has a weaker “rational relationship” standard and also excludes a large number of employments, although it bars inquiry into criminal record until after a conditional offer has been made and thereafter prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records, as well as any conviction more than seven years in the past for felonies and five years for misdemeanors (as reduced in 2020). California also bars inquiry until after a conditional offer has been made, prohibits consideration of non-conviction records and records that have been the subject of judicial relief, provides considerable procedural protections, and has the strongest standard for testing the relevance of a conviction (“direct and adverse relationship”). Wisconsin’s law is the weakest of the five: it applies a “substantial relationship” standard but does not elaborate it, and it offers no procedural protections to applicants or existing employees other than administrative enforcement of this substantive standard. The District of Columbia has also enacted robust fair chance employment protections that apply to both public and many private employers, but its law stops short of authorizing individuals dissatisfied with action by the Office of Human Rights to go to court. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Other states are still catching up, with many stalled at the "ban the box" stage. Our report on new legislation in 2020 documented comparatively modest but still noteworthy advances toward fair chance employment in 6 states last year. We reprint the discussion of 2020 reforms from our report below: In 2020, 6 states expanded access to employment for people with a record through 7 bills and one executive order. Two states (New Hampshire and Virginia) enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to public employment, while North Carolina’s governor issued a broad executive order that not only prohibited public employers from making application-stage inquiries, but also established standards for considering criminal record thereafter. Maryland’s legislature overrode a governor’s veto to apply application-stage limits on inquiry to private employers with more than 15 employees. Hawaii amended its venerable fair employment law to reduce the periods after which a conviction may not be considered by any employers. Overall, however, these 2020 laws had limited effect on the fair employment landscape. At the end of 2020, there were still only four states (California, Hawaii, New York, and Wisconsin) that included discrimination based on criminal record as part of their general fair employment scheme, and all but California’s law were enacted many years ago. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have, like Illinois, more recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Most of the fair employment laws recently enacted involve fairly modest limits on application stage inquiry. The National Employment Law Project keeps a running tab of new “ban-the-box” laws, and reported in September 2020 that 36 states and more than 150 municipal and county ordinances now require public employers to consider applicants’ qualifications before their criminal histories, with 14 extending these limits to private employers. However, as noted in our Many Roads report, few of these laws include the kind of robust post-inquiry standards that make the 2020 North Carolina Executive Order described below stand out. The new employment laws and orders in 2020 are described briefly below: Hawaii shortened the lookback period in which a person may be disqualified based on conviction under its fair employment law, to seven years for felonies and five years for misdemeanors, excluding periods of incarceration (SB 2193). Hawaii includes discrimination based on conviction record in its more general fair employment practices law, and under preexisting law it is an unlawful employment practice to inquire into arrest and conviction records before the employee receives a conditional offer of employment, and an employer could withdraw an offer only if a conviction within the previous 10 years (exclusive of any period of incarceration) “bears a rational relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position.” Under this new law, 10-year period is reduced to 7 years for felonies and 5 years for misdemeanors. Maryland enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to private employers with more than 15 employees, overriding Governor Hogan’s veto. The law prohibits inquiry into an applicant’s criminal record until the first interview; and authorizes civil penalties. Certain employment is excepted. The law specifically does not preclude local jurisdictions from imposed stricter standards (HB 994). Md. Code Lab. & Empl. § 3-1403. North Carolina’s governor issued an executive order (EO 158), which directs all state agencies to remove questions about criminal record from employment application forms, and to defer inquiries until “the completion of the initial job interview.” The order further prohibits agencies from considering the following: (i) expunged or pardoned convictions, (ii) charges or convictions that do not relate to the underlying employment matter, (iii) arrests not resulting in a conviction, or (iv) charges resulting in dismissal or not guilty. State employment decisions “shall not be based on the criminal history of an individual unless that criminal history is demonstrably job-related and consistent with business necessity associated with the position, or if state or federal law prohibits hiring an individual convicted of certain crimes for a particular position.” New Hampshire prohibited an application-stage inquiry into criminal record in public employment prior to the initial interview, “unless the public employer is required to screen applications for specific criminal convictions because it is prohibited from hiring those with such convictions under state or federal law” (HB 253). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:37-c(II). Utah removed an absolute barrier based on certain convictions for employment with vulnerable populations, if the applicant will be serving only adults whose only impairment is a mental health diagnosis. In addition, certain convictions cannot be disqualifying after 10 conviction-free years for felonies, and three years for misdemeanors (HB 436). Virginia prohibited inquiry into criminal record by public employers prior to interview. Excepts law enforcement employment and certain other sensitive employments (HB 757). Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-2812.1, 15.2-1505.3. Virginia added crimes to the list for which an exception is available for employment with a substance abuse or mental health program at community services boards and private providers of behavioral health services licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. This law also allows the Department to hire individuals convicted of various crimes at a state facility if the Department determines the individual has been rehabilitated successfully and is not a risk to those receiving services (HB 1540). Virginia also decriminalizes marijuana possession, restricted public access to records relating to past arrests, charges, or convictions for this offense, prohibited employers and educational institutions from inquiring about them, and prohibited state and local officials from requiring an applicant for a license, permit, registration, or governmental service to disclose information about them (SB 2 / HB 972). Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-250.1; 19.2-389.3.
New 2019 laws restore voting rights in 11 states (1/22/2020) - This is the first in a series of comments describing some of the 153 laws passed in 2019 restoring rights or delivering record relief in various ways. The full report on 2019 laws is available here. Restoration of Civil Rights Voting In 2019, eleven states took steps to restore the right to vote and to expand awareness of voting eligibility. Our experience is that many people convicted of a felony believe they are disqualified from voting when they are not: almost every state restores voting rights automatically to most convicted individuals at some point, if they are even disenfranchised to begin with. The most significant new re-enfranchisement laws were enacted in Colorado, Nevada and New Jersey, where convicted individuals are now eligible to vote except when actually incarcerated. Colorado restored the vote to persons on parole supervision, while Nevada revised its complex system for restoring civil rights so that all people with felony convictions may now vote except while in prison. In one of the final legislative acts of 2019, New Jersey’s governor signed a law limiting disenfranchisement to a period of actual incarceration, even in cases where a court has ordered loss of the vote for election law violations, immediately restoring the vote to 80,000 people. These three states joined the two states (New York and Louisiana) that in 2018 took steps to limit disenfranchisement to a period of incarceration: New York’s governor issued the first of a series of executive orders under his pardon power restoring the vote to individuals on parole, and Louisiana passed a law allowing people to register if they have been out of prison for at least five years. Now, only three of the 19 states that disenfranchise only those sentenced to prison still extend ineligibility through completion of parole: California, Connecticut, and Idaho. Bills under consideration in 2019 in both California and Connecticut would allow people to vote once they leave prison, though in California this will require a constitutional amendment. Kentucky saw perhaps the most dramatic extension of the franchise in 2019, when its incoming governor Andy Beshear issued an executive order restoring the vote and eligibility for office to an estimated 140,000 individuals convicted of non-violent felonies who had completed their sentences. Before the order, individuals were required to petition the governor individually to obtain restoration of their voting rights. (Governor Beshear’s father had issued a similar order in 2015 at the end of his own term as governor, but it was revoked by his successor.) Iowa is now the only state that does not restore the vote automatically to most convicted individuals at some point. Other states took less dramatic but nonetheless significant steps in 2019 to expand the franchise. Arizona repealed its law making automatic restoration of the vote to those with no more than one felony conviction depend on payment of fines and fees (those who owe restitution must still apply to the court, like recidivists, to regain their voting rights). (See below for Arizona's revision of its firearms restoration laws.) Arkansas corrected an unintended gap in its election law that made it hard for juveniles prosecuted as adults to regain the right to vote. Oklahoma revised its laws to clarify that voting rights are lost upon conviction of a felony and are restored upon completion of sentence. Four states (Colorado, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Washington) enacted laws directing corrections officials to inform people leaving custody of their eligibility to register, addressing the pervasive public misunderstanding that the right to vote is permanently lost by conviction. Illinois' two new laws on this subject also facilitate voting by mail for eligible persons detained in county jails, and provide for peer-led programs to teach civics to prisoners who are soon to be released. Florida is the only state that took steps during the year to restrict rather than enlarge the franchise, in the wake of that state’s restoration of the franchise in 2018, by ballot initiative, to more than a million state residents who had completed their court-imposed sentences. That ballot initiative automatically restored the right to vote for people convicted of felonies, other than murder or sexual offenses, upon “completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” In 2019, the Florida legislature passed a law interpreting “completion of sentence” to include payment of fines, fees, and court costs. The 2019 legislation defines “completion of all terms of sentence” to include all legal financial obligations (LFOs). The Florida Supreme Court recently agreed in an advisory opinion that Amendment 4's reference to “completion of all terms of sentence” does include all legal financial obligation imposed in conjunction with a sentence. Nonetheless, individuals and supporters of Amendment 4 have brought several federal court challenges to the legislation as violating the U.S. constitution, arguing that by disqualifying persons with outstanding LFOs, even if a person has no ability to pay and even if the court has converted an LFO to a civil lien, the law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also argue that the law burdens the fundamental right to vote, is an unconstitutional poll tax, infringes on free speech and association, and was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. In October, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Florida cannot deny the plaintiffs their "right to vote so long as the state’s only reason for denying the vote is failure to pay an amount the plaintiff is genuinely unable to pay." However, that ruling only applies to 17 plaintiffs in the case, and the judge deferred addressing a number of other issues until after trial later this year, giving the legislature an opportunity to address inability to pay. The coalition behind Amendment 4 is also raising money to help people pay off their debts. One of the knotty problems associated with efforts to re-enfranchise Florida residents is the uneven state of court records in the state, such that inconsistent and missing records can make it difficult for individuals to show that they have in fact fully satisfied financial penalties associated with criminal cases. In the broader national picture, at the conclusion of 2019 almost half the states allow people with a felony conviction to vote if they are living in the free community. A total of 18 states and the District of Columbia now allow people to vote unless in prison, Louisiana allows voting five years after release, and Maine and Vermont do not disenfranchise anyone based on conviction. Of the remaining states, a majority restore the vote automatically upon completion of sentence, which may or may not also require payment of court debt. However, a significant minority of states require at least some individuals (recidivists, persons convicted of specific offenses, or those who owe court debt) to file individual petitions with the governor or a court to regain the right to vote. The coming year should see additional developments in Florida regarding restoration for those with unpaid fines, fees, or restitution. This is turn could have ramifications for the half dozen additional states that impose similar financial barriers to the franchise. 2. Jury eligibility and public office Three other measures to restore civil rights for jury service and public office are worth mentioning. California passed a statute restoring eligibility for trial jury service upon completion of sentence (previously a pardon was necessary). Maryland also lowered its conviction-related bar to jury eligibility. Previously, people were ineligible to serve on a jury if they had received a sentence of more than six months of imprisonment, and were not pardoned, or had a pending charge for an offense punishable by more than six months imprisonment; under the new law, these six-month periods are extended to one year. Finally, New Hampshire revised its law disqualifying people with a conviction from holding public office, making the restriction applicable only during actual incarceration, so that it is now coincident with the period of felony disenfranchisement (this limit on disenfranchisement to only during actual incarceration has been in place in the Granite State since 1965). 3. Firearms restoration Arizona revised its law on firearms restoration to authorize the sentencing court to restore rights to most people with felony offenses two years after completion of sentence. (Note that the automatic restoration of civil rights for offenses does not include restoration of firearms rights.) People convicted of “serious” offenses must wait 10 years, and those convicted of “dangerous” offenses are ineligible for restoration. SB 2080.
Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act (6/29/2018) - We've noted in recent posts the numerous states that, just in the past three or four months, have enacted broad occupational licensing reforms affecting people with a criminal record. Many of these new laws have been influenced by a model developed by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm that has been litigating and lobbying to reduce barriers to work for more than two decades. In turn, states like Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have built upon IJ's model to enact even more progressive schemes intended to ensure that people with the requisite professional qualifications will not be unfairly excluded based on a record of arrest or conviction. Now IJ has incorporated many of these progressive refinements into its original model licensing law, the Occupational Licensing Review Act (OLRA), and broken out the provisions relating to criminal records into a free-standing model act specifically directed at managing collateral consequences in the occupational licensing context, the new Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act (CCOLA). The CCOLA has the same key features as the original OLRA: It provides individuals with an opportunity to seek a preliminary determination from the licensing agency as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying; It allows the individual to seek this determination at any time, including before investing in the required training necessary to otherwise qualify for the license, requires a written decision within 90 days, and limits what the agency may charge for this determination to $100; It limits the types of records that an agency may consider in a licensing decision to convictions of serious or violent crimes; It shifts the burden of proof to the agency to establish that a petitioner’s conviction is substantially related to the state’s interest in protecting public safety; It requires agencies to provide written reasons justifying denial of a license based on conviction in terms of public safety; and It requires each agency to publish a report annually on the number of applicants with a criminal record seeking a license, the number of approvals and denials, and the type of offenses for each type of action. In addition to these features, IJ has recently further clarified the types of criminal conduct that may be considered in licensing decisions, and specifically prohibited the use of vague criteria like "good moral character" as a basis for exclusion. As revised, IJ's model laws now provide that licensing agencies may not consider non-conviction records, juvenile adjudications, non-violent misdemeanors, and most felonies and violent misdemeanors that occurred more than three years prior to seeking licensure. See CCOLA, 100.02, Subd. 7. Agencies may consider violent felonies and sexual offenses at any time, although even these records must still be tested against the "public safety" standard: The board may deny the petition only if it establishes by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. The individual was convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, not excluded by subdivision 7, which is directly, substantially and adversely related to the state's interest in protecting public safety; and 2. The granting of state recognition will put the individual in a position where the individual is more likely than not to reoffend and cause harm. See CCOLA, 100.02, Subd 10(c). IJ's website points out that "[m]ore than 25 percent of workers need a government-issued license to work," so lowering barriers to licensure for people with a criminal record has important implications for efficiency and public safety. In introducing its stand-alone CCOLA model, IJ’s website states the following: An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent those with a criminal record from re-offending. But many occupational licensing laws block or burden ex-offenders from entering regulated fields. Numerous licensing laws have morality clauses that (1) bar automatically and permanently ex-offenders from working without any individualized review or (2) require the ex-offender to prove a negative—that the ex-offender’s past crimes will not cause him to harm customers in the future. Such provisions ironically may decrease public safety. States with prohibitions and high burdens on entry have higher criminal recidivism. Conversely, states that have no such bars and low burdens have seen declines in recidivism, according to Professor Stephen Slivinski’s landmark study Turning Shackles into Bootstraps. IJ’s website surveys some of the key provisions of many of the recently enacted state licensing reforms. It also very happily links to the relevant 50-state chart from the Restoration of Rights Project, which we very much appreciate! With an enrolled bill sitting on its governor's desk for action, New Hampshire is poised to become the 10th state to enact comprehensive licensing reform in 2018. In addition to Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin, Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Wyoming have all just this year enacted new laws incorporating many of the features of IJ's model law. Illinois anticipated these states by six months when it significantly amended its licensing scheme to reflect IJ's approach in August 2017. We were pleased to be able to work with Lee McGrath of IJ’s office in Minneapolis in developing many of the amended features of the CCOLA, which have also been folded into IJ's broader model occupational licensing act. We look forward to continuing to work with Lee and his colleagues in months to come.
More states facilitating licensing for people with a criminal record (4/18/2018) - Last week we posted a description of a detailed new Indiana law regulating consideration of conviction in occupational and professional licensure throughout the state. It now appears that this may represent a trend, as eight additional states have either recently enacted or are poised to enact similarly progressive occupational licensing schemes. New general laws regulating licensure are in place in Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Similar bills have been enrolled and are on the governor's desk for signature in Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Arizona's new 2018 licensing law follows on another law passed in that state in 2017 that authorized provisional licenses for individuals with a criminal record. Massachusett's new licensing law is part of a more general criminal justice reform bill. Delaware and Connecticut have also recently loosened restrictions on licensing for cosmetology and related professions. The licensing reforms in these states - and in several other states where licensing bills are less far along toward enactment -- seem to have been influenced by a model law proposed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm. Key features of the Model Occupational Licensing Review Act as they affect individuals with criminal records are 1) to provide individuals with an opportunity to seek a preliminary determination from the licensing agency as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying; 2) to require licensing agencies to disqualify only if an applicant has been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, and if the agency determines that "the state has an important interest in protecting public safety that is superior to the individual's right to pursue a lawful occupation"; and 3) to require each agency to publish a report annually on the number of applicants with a criminal record seeking a license, the number of approvals and denials, and the type of offenses for each type of action. Disqualification is justified under this model law only if the conviction is "substantially related to the state's interest in protecting public safety," and the individual will be "more likely to reoffend by having the license than by not having the license." The federal government is also encouraging licensing reform: the U.S. Department of Labor is supporting a three-year project to assist states improve their general policies and practices related to occupational licensing, including those that affect persons with a criminal record. The project brings together 11 states to participate in the Occupational Licensing Learning Consortium. The 11 states are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin. We are monitoring this legislative trend and will revise the state profiles and other materials in the Restoration of Rights Project as new laws are enacted.
New research report: Four Years of Second Chance Reforms, 2013-2016 (2/8/2017) - Introduction Since 2013, almost every state has taken at least some steps to chip away at the negative effects of a criminal record on an individual’s ability to earn a living, access housing, education and public benefits, and otherwise fully participate in civil society. It has not been an easy task, in part because of the volume and complexity of state and federal laws imposing collateral consequences. To encourage employers and other decision-makers to give convicted individuals a fair chance, some states have enacted or modified judicial restoration mechanisms like expungement, sealing, and certificates of relief. Others have extended nondiscrimination laws, limited criminal record inquiries, and facilitated front-end opportunities to avoid conviction. In partnership with the NACDL Restoration of Rights Project, the CCRC maintains a comprehensive and current state-by-state guide to mechanisms for restoration of rights and status after conviction. As a part of keeping that resource up to date, we have inventoried measures enacted and policies adopted by states in the past four years to mitigate or avoid the disabling effects of a criminal record, and present it here as a snapshot of an encouraging national trend. Summary of findings Between 2013 and 2016, forty-two states and the District of Columbia adopted significant reforms of various types. The most common of these reforms are ban-the-box laws and policies that prohibit employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history during the initial stages of the application process. Twenty-one states banned the box in public employment, and eight (CT, DC, IL, MN, NJ, OR, RI, and VT) expanded their ban-the-box prohibitions to cover private employers as well. Expungement and sealing authorities were also expanded in a significant number of states. Arkansas, Indiana, and Minnesota enacted comprehensive new expungement/sealing schemes that grant many individuals an opportunity to have their records sealed from public view and/or rights restored for the first time. Additionally, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Missouri all expanded existing expungement/sealing laws to make certain felonies eligible. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota enacted entirely new authorities limiting public access to misdemeanor records. Another fifteen states expanded existing expungement or sealing opportunities, either to increase the number and type of eligible offenses and dispositions, or to broaden the protections afforded to, or rights restored by, an expunged or sealed record. Unfortunately, stiff filing fees in states like Louisiana and Kentucky will inevitably discourage people of limited means from taking advantage of these new authorities. Judicial and/or administrative “certificates of relief” were also made available in nine states for the first time. These certificates adhere to a “forgiving,” as opposed to “forgetting,” model of criminal record mitigation. The new certificates with the broadest application and effect are those in Ohio and Vermont, both of which are modeled after provisions in the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (UCCCA) that authorize courts to completely remove specified mandatory collateral consequences imposed by law, allowing individuals to be considered for employment or licensing opportunities on the merits. Colorado's new "order of collateral relief" provides relief from mandatory consequences specified in the order, with exceptions, but is only available for non-prison sentences. The new certificate authorities in most other states either protect employers and/or other private entities from negligent hiring or retention claims based solely upon their agent’s conviction, or prohibit employers or licensing bodies from denying applicants “based solely upon” their conviction. The effect or availability of pre-existing certificate authorities were expanded in another three states. Another notable trend was the expansion of the effect and availability of deferred adjudication and diversion mechanisms, which allow individuals to avoid conviction altogether following successful completion of probation or other conditions. Five states (AL, CA, DE, GA, NJ) enacted legislation explicitly authorizing expungement or sealing of deferred adjudication records for the first time, while Colorado and Illinois enacted entirely new deferred adjudication authority. These programs provide a great benefit to those who can take advantage of them, but, in many states, prosecutorial control of these programs can result in disparate treatment and costly relief. >>View the full report below or download here<<
New era for expungement reform? Too soon to tell. (8/3/2016) - A new article in the Harvard Law & Policy Review evaluates some of the recent legislative efforts to deliver relief from the burden of collateral consequences through new or expanded expungement laws. In "A New Era for Expungement Law Reform? Recent Developments at the State and Federal Levels," Brian Murray argues that many of the newer record-closing laws are far too modest in scope and effect to have much of an impact on the problem of reintegration, citing Louisiana and Maryland enactments as examples of relief that is both too little and too late. He admires Indiana's broad new expungement scheme, which limits use of records as well as access to them, regarding it (as do we) as an enlightened exception to a general legislative aversion to risk. He considers recent legislation in Minnesota to fall into a middle category -- and we could add Arkansas as another state to have recently augmented and clarified older record-closing laws. Our round-up of new expungement laws enacted just this year finds very little consistency from state to state, with Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and New Jersey all experimenting with different approaches. Murray appreciates the need for a multifaceted approach to the problem of criminal records, and recognizes the doctrinal and practical shortcomings of a reform agenda that depends primarily on concealment. His bottom line, with which we agree, is that "[s]kepticism regarding the benefits of expungement in the information age, coupled with the incremental nature of legislative reform, leads to the conclusion that expungement law must continue to develop as one piece in a larger puzzle."