Author Archives: CCRC Staff

North Carolina enacts Second Chance Act

CCRC Board member John Rubin of the University of North Carolina faculty has provided us with a detailed account of NC’s brand new Second Chance Act, and we are pleased to post it below.  We are particularly pleased to see North Carolina join the 13 other states that have enacted automatic record relief for dismissals and acquittals, and remove its prior felony bar to eligibility.  It appears that only a handful of states still retain this unfortunate provision, including Rhode Island, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.  We look forward to studying the new law in detail, and will shortly incorporate its provisions into the NC profile and 50-state charts from the Restoration of Rights Project.

We are also pleased to introduce our new 50-state chart on “Process for expunging or sealing non-convictions,” which indicates that there are now a total of 20 states that deliver relief for dismissals and acquittals that is either automatic or expedited at time of disposition.  At least half of these laws have been enacted in the past two years.  But there are still 24 states and D.C. that require people to file petitions, satisfy complex eligibility requirements, and jump through a variety of procedural hoops to limit public access to these records, and one state (Arizona) and the federal system offer no relief at all.  There is no excuse for allowing these records to remain publicly available and the source of discrimination, when the government was unwilling or unable to prosecute their charges to conviction.  We will continue to work for reforms based on the Model Law on Non-Conviction Records, and are happy to offer advice and assistance to any jurisdiction that decides to take on these issues.

A Second Chance in North Carolina Through Expanded Record Clearance
John Rubin
© UNC School of Government

North Carolina continues to make gradual strides in helping people clear their criminal records and enhance their opportunities going forward. Last week the Governor signed the Second Chance Act, S.L. 2020-35 (S 562), which passed the General Assembly unanimously. The Second Chance Act expands expunction opportunities and streamlines the process for people trying to clear their records. The product of negotiation and compromise, it reflects the interests of prosecutors, law enforcement, and court administrators as well. The act illustrates many of the record clearance issues being considered around the country, including automatic expunction of nonconviction records (to begin in North Carolina at the end of 2021), removal of barriers to expunctions of nonconviction records (most notably, no longer will prior convictions, whether for a felony or misdemeanor, be a bar), somewhat greater opportunities to expunge older convictions if “nonviolent,” and greater access by prosecutors and law enforcement to expunged case information. This summary does not try to explore the many nooks and crannies in the legislation. It is a first pass at describing the changes. Read more

Report card on licensing laws finds progress, but still a way to go

The Institute for Justice, a leader in advocacy for reforming occupational licensing laws, has just issued a major new report grading the states on the opportunities they give to people with a criminal record.  The press release and links are below.  We are not at all surprised that Indiana got the best grade—or that so many states “tied for dead last.” Coincidentally, the legislatures in Iowa, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have in recent days sent broad new occupational licensing reform measures to their governors’ desks, so at least three states seem poised to climb out of IJ’s basement.    

Stay tuned for an update of our own survey of employment and licensing laws nationwide, which will be part of the revised Forgiving and Forgetting report that we expect to issue in a few weeks.  In the meantime, many congratulations to IJ for its pioneering law reform work on behalf of people with a record.

IJ press release:

Barred from Working: People with Criminal Records Are Unfairly Denied Licenses to Work

New Nationwide Report Offers the Most Comprehensive Look at the Occupational Licensing Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders

Arlington, Va.—Even as states debate opening the economy back up, millions of Americans with criminal records are still locked out of the job market. Today, nearly one in five workers needs a license to work, while one in three Americans has a criminal record of some kind.

Providing the most in-depth and up-to-date look at this intersection between occupational licensing and the criminal-justice system, a new report from the Institute for Justice (IJ), Barred from Working, analyzes and grades the legal protections offered to ex-offenders who apply for licenses to work.

Many state laws fail to make the grade: just nine states received a B- or better. Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation, earning the report’s only A grade. Meanwhile, six states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont—all tied for dead last due to their utter lack of protections for former felons seeking licenses.

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Legislative Analyst Nick Sibilla, who authored the report. “Undoubtedly, some license restrictions make sense: No one wants child molesters working in daycare centers or school bus drivers with DUIs. But as this report shows, many licensing barriers have little basis in common sense or public safety and unfairly deny a fresh start to countless Americans.”

Read more

SBA rolls back many criminal history barriers just before deadline

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  We have written much in recent weeks about how these barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major stimulus relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

On June 12, the SBA eased some of the restrictions for PPP, just as two lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging the restrictions.  Today, SBA further relaxed its criminal history barriers for PPP assistance, this time in a far more significant fashion, and in a manner that makes the business owners who are suing the SBA now eligible to apply.  However, the new regulation and application form come less a week before the June 30 deadline to apply for relief.

The new policies include two important changes to eligibility.  First, being on parole or probation is no longer disqualifying, unless the parole or probation “commenced” within the last year for any felony, or with the last 5 years “for any felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance.”  Second, pending misdemeanor charges are no longer disqualifying; only pending felony charges are. (The new rule and application form are linked below.)

Read more

IRS blocks stimulus tax relief to people in prison; court orders relief

*Update (10/19/20): Per federal court orders, incarcerated individuals may now apply for stimulus payments.  The current deadline to apply is November 4, 2020.  More information is available at this link.

In response to the public health and economic challenges of COVID-19, Congress in March 2020 enacted the CARES Act.  We have written at length about the Small Business Administration’s unfortunate and unauthorized disqualification of small business owners from Paycheck Protection and disaster relief because of their criminal record.  It turns out that the SBA is not the only federal agency discriminating against people with a record in carrying out the CARES Act.  The IRS has also gotten into the act, in what may be an even more lawless fashion.

The CARES Act authorizes stimulus payments in the form of a tax rebate of $1200 per adult and $500 per child for households with incomes below a certain level.  See P.L. 116-136, sec. 2201.  Specific categories of individuals are excluded from receiving these payments (e.g., any “nonresident alien individual” or an estate or trust), but nothing in the CARES Act excludes people who happen to be in prison or jail or any other detention facility.  Likewise, no federal regulation excludes incarcerated individuals from receiving CARES Act tax rebate payments.

That didn’t stop the IRS from taking matters into its own hands, just as it didn’t stop the SBA.

Read more

CCRC in the Post: Protesting should not result in a lifelong record

CCRC’s Margaret Love and David Schlussel published an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday: “Protesting should not result in a lifelong criminal record.”  The piece begins:

Sparked by the killing of George Floyd on May 25, protesters across the country have been demonstrating against police violence and racism. As of June 4, the Associated Press tallied more than 10,000 arrests during and after protests, and the number has surely increased.

Most of those arrested will almost certainly be released without charges or have their charges dropped. Others will face charges and may be convicted. Regardless of the outcome, the mere fact of an arrest will leave a person with a criminal record in most states, creating long-term barriers to employment and housing, and in other areas of daily life. Protesters should not wind up with a lifelong criminal record.

States should provide for automatic expungement of records that do not result in a conviction, particularly where the government does not even bring charges. States should also expand the availability of relief for convictions.

. . . .

Our research indicates that automatic or expedited expungement of many non-conviction records is available in 15 states, thanks to recent reforms. Thirty-three additional states expunge or seal certain non-conviction records, but only after a person completes a court or administrative process, often with restrictive eligibility requirements and burdensome procedures, including waiting periods and even contested hearings.

Ironically, in most of these states it is harder to seal the record of an uncharged arrest, which does not find its way into a court document, than to seal charges that are dismissed or acquitted.

The District of Columbia, a center of the protest movement, has one of the most restrictive record-sealing laws in the country, and certainly the most complicated. Two states, Arizona and Wisconsin, do not expunge non-conviction records at all, and there is no statutory authority to expunge federal arrest records. Most states allow some convictions to be sealed, but eligibility criteria and procedural requirements tend to be restrictive.

Fortunately, legislative trends favor automatic expungement of non-conviction and minor conviction records in a growing number of states. In the wake of the current protests, lawmakers should accelerate this process.

. . . .

Read the full op-ed here or in today’s print edition.

SBA eases some criminal history barriers and faces litigation

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  We have written much in recent weeks about how these barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

Following the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill to roll back most of these barriers, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed on June 10 to revise the PPP restrictions.  On Friday, June 12, SBA issued new regulations and application forms to ease some of the barriers in the PPP.  The changes are more limited than the proposed Senate bill, and continue to reflect an SBA overreach in its approach to loan applicants with criminal records, at a time when we are nearing the June 30 closing date to apply for this much-needed assistance.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits have been filed against the SBA in federal court in Maryland, asserting that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are beyond the agency’s authority, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the text of the CARES Act.  The first lawsuit, filed on June 10, is brought by The New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of a corner store in Hagerstown, Maryland, which was denied PPP assistance based on its owner’s 2004 felony conviction, for which he is on parole.  The second lawsuit, filed on June 16 by the ACLU, Public Interest Law Center, and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, also asserts that the restrictions fall hardest on minority businesses due to the impact of over-criminalization on communities of color.  The suit is on behalf of the owner of an electrical contracting business on parole for a 2012 drug conviction, a graphic designer with pending misdemeanor charges, and a nonprofit that provides job and entrepreneurial training for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals.  None of the business owner plaintiffs in these two lawsuits would be eligible under the SBA’s new policies, which we analyze below.  (Further information on the lawsuits is also below.)

Read more

How to expand expungement: base it in retribution instead of rehabilitation

A thoughtful new article by Brian Murray recommends a new way of conceptualizing expungement that should make it easier for reformers to justify facilitating access to this record relief.  In “Retributive Expungement,” forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Murray argues that expungement should be seen as a way to end warranted punishment rather than to recognize and incentivize rehabilitation.  The argument goes that if the legal and social disadvantages of a criminal record function as part and parcel of the criminal sentence imposed by the court, as opposed to a loosely related system of civil penalties that are activated by other laws and other actors, then the court has an obligation at some point to discharge it.  While this argument is not new, Murray places it squarely in a modern retributivist framework.

In an earlier era, the drafters of the 1962 Model Penal Code embraced this idea of tying up the loose ends of criminal punishments through court-ordered dispensation, although they chose a more transparent form of remedy in judicial vacatur or set-aside.  Before that, this function of ending punishment was performed by executive pardon.  In modern times, as ubiquitous background checking has made a criminal record a lasting Mark of Cain, most agree that the record should be made unavailable for private and most public purposes at some point, unless disclosure is ordered by the court for some purpose authorized by law.  Facilitating access to this record relief should be easier with the theoretical frame proposed by Murray.

Here is the abstract and a link:

Expungement relief was introduced in the mid-twentieth century to reward and incentivize rehabilitation for arrestees and ex-offenders and to protect their privacy. Recently, many states have broadened their expungement remedies, and those remedies remain useful given the negative effects of public criminal records on reentry. But recent scholarship has suggested an “uptake gap,” meaning many who are eligible never obtain relief. Despite broadening eligibility, petitioners face substantial obstacles to filing, pre-hearing hurdles, waiting periods, and difficult standards of review without the assistance of counsel. And even when expungement is granted, the recipients are basically left on their own to guarantee the efficacy of the remedy. Some of these attributes of expungement were originally conceived as features, designed to ensure only the most rehabilitated received relief, allowing the state to continue to pursue public safety objectives with public criminal records. But the cold reality of expungement procedure leaves many petitioners facing insurmountable obstacles that amplify the effects of the punishment originally imposed.

In exploring this reality, this Article illustrates that expungement procedure is stuck in a rehabilitative and privacy-centric paradigm. While this framework inspired the creation of expungement remedies and recent reforms, it also has justified onerous procedural obstacles and the placing of the burden of persuasion on the petitioner rather than the state. Outside of automated expungement, which is still relatively rare and restricted to only certain types of petitions, most expungement regimes in substance or through procedure invert what should be the state’s burden to justify retention of criminal records that enable extra punishment by state and private actors. An alternative theoretical basis for expungement is necessary to convince policymakers and decision-makers of the need for broader substantive and procedural reform.

This Article suggests a different paradigm: retributive based expungement. It proposes that incorporating retributive constraints that already underlie the criminal system can benefit petitioners. Plenty of arrestees do not deserve stigma and ex-offenders have done their time, meaning punitive stigma from public criminal records can amount to unwarranted punishment. A retributive-minded expungement procedure would all but guarantee expungement in the case of arrests, where the desert basis is questionable, and would place the burden of proof on the state for convictions once desert has been satisfied. As such, this approach can supplement the case for broader eligibility, automated expungement, and favorable pre-hearing procedures that limit the uptake gap. It also has legal and political viability given that many states already maintain retributivist constraints on sentencing and given that huge swaths of the public perceive desert as a crucial component of any criminal justice issue. In fact, some states are already moving in this direction and can serve as a model for the rest of the country. In short, retributivist constraints can trim procedural overgrowth to supplement substantive reforms that already recognize the disproportionate effects of a public criminal record.

Senate bill would deliver relief to small biz owners with a record

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  These barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

A major development in Congress signals the likely elimination of most of these restrictions, which would make crucial economic assistance newly available to many small business owners with a record.  On June 4, Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Ben Cardin (D-MD), James Lankford (R-OK), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act.

Read more

CCRC statement on recent events

CCRC stands with those opposing police violence against black people and other forms of racism throughout society.  Black lives matter.

Our organization promotes public discussion of how criminal records are used to hold people back in civil society.  Discrimination based on a record hits the black community harder than any other, thanks to the long history of officials using the criminal law as a weapon to keep black people marginalized and subjugated.

Most recently, we have documented the Small Business Administration’s decisions to exclude many people from COVID-19 relief due to arrest or conviction, which disproportionately harms minority business owners during an already precarious moment.  We have also covered felony disenfranchisement litigation in Florida, where a federal judge held unconstitutional the denial of voting rights to people who have served their time but still owe restitution and fines they cannot afford to pay.

In this time of national turmoil, many protesters have been and will continued to be arrested. Most will be released without charges, some will be charged, and some will be convicted.  But every single one of them will end up with a criminal record.

Very few states make it easy to avoid the stigma that even a bare arrest record produces, even when it is not accompanied or followed by any charges.  Our flagship resource, the Restoration of Rights Project, documents that even those protesters who are released without charges will need to petition a court or agency to seal or expunge the record of their arrest in order to avoid a lifelong record that can create barriers in housing, employment, and education.  In some states, courts or agencies have discretion to deny relief even where the government found no basis to prosecute.

Our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records (2019) recommends that states automatically expunge arrest records that do not result in charges or conviction, as well as charges that do not result in conviction, and that they do it promptly.  While 15 states do provide for automatic or expedited relief following a non-conviction disposition in court, 35 do not.  And, only a handful of states automatically expunge arrests where no charges are filed.  The filing of expungement petitions, costly and cumbersome in normal times, will be especially difficult due to limited access to courts during COVID-19.

It is especially wrong to saddle people who have never even been charged with a lifelong record.  This should be one of the first changes in the criminal law to work for in coming months, and it should be an easy one to accomplish.

For people who are convicted, 38 states have laws that allow at least some misdemeanors to be expunged or sealed; 31 of these states also make certain felonies eligible.  Waiting periods, filing fees, and other requirements apply.  In recent years, 7 states have enacted automatic relief for certain misdemeanors, dispensing with the petition requirement for those who qualify.  But there is no authority to expunge or seal federal records, including records of uncharged arrests; and, the laws on record sealing in the District of Columbia are some of the most restrictive in the country.

In two forthcoming posts, we will survey the laws pertaining to non-conviction and conviction record relief across the country.  At least with respect to non-conviction records, a menu of recommended reforms is already readily available in our Model Law.

Florida felony disenfranchisement law held unconstitutional

This evening the district court issued its opinion in Jones v. DeSantis finding, as expected, that Florida’s system for restoring voting rights to those convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. The opinion is at this link, and its summary by the court is below. Additional details of the decision and the court’s order are reported in this article from the New York Times, and we will report further on the case, including next steps, in a few days.

The State of Florida has adopted a system under which nearly a million otherwise-eligible citizens will be allowed to vote only if they pay an amount of money. Most of the citizens lack the financial resources to make the required payment. Many do not know, and some will not be able to find out, how much they must pay. For most, the required payment will consist only of charges the State imposed to fund government operations—taxes in substance though not in name.

The State is on pace to complete its initial screening of the citizens by 2026, or perhaps later, and only then will have an initial opinion about which citizens must pay, and how much they must pay, to be allowed to vote. In the meantime, year after year, federal and state elections will pass. The uncertainty will cause some citizens who are eligible to vote, even on the State’s own view of the law, not to vote, lest they risk criminal prosecution.

This pay-to-vote system would be universally decried as unconstitutional but for one thing: each citizen at issue was convicted, at some point in the past, of a felony offense. A state may disenfranchise felons and impose conditions on their reenfranchisement. But the conditions must pass constitutional scrutiny. Whatever might be said of a rationally constructed system, this one falls short in substantial respects.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already ruled, in affirming a preliminary injunction in this very case, that the State cannot condition voting on payment of an amount a person is genuinely unable to pay. See Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020). Now, after a full trial on the merits, the plaintiffs’ evidence has grown stronger. This order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay or on payment of taxes, even those labeled fees or costs. This order puts in place administrative procedures that comport with the Constitution and are less burdensome, on both the State and the citizens, than those the State is currently using to administer the unconstitutional pay-to-vote system.

 

1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 35