Author Archives: CCRC Staff

Forum on governmental barriers to small business financing for people with a criminal history

We are delighted to announce a program where a panel of experts will discuss the barriers faced by small business owners and managers with a criminal history in obtaining government-sponsored loans.

This virtual program will take place on November 18 from 12:00-1:15pm (EST), and is sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy as part of its Georgetown on the Hill series. Register for the event here.

The program–which we helped organize along with Georgetown’s PIVOT Program–will focus on the broad criminal history restrictions in rules and policies of the U.S. Small Business Administration. These policies came to the public’s attention in the early days of the pandemic, when thousands of small businesses were denied PPP and other relief authorized by the CARES Act. While many of these restrictions were eventually rolled back in response to widespread criticism, similar restrictions in the SBA’s general lending programs remain, restrictions that influence state and private lending as well. The program on November 18 will explore the origins, scope, and justification for these restrictions.

Panelists include a former high-ranking SBA official, a small business owner who successfully challenged the PPP restrictions in court, a scholar who has argued that the SBA restrictions contravene civil rights law, and the CCRC’s Deputy Director David Schlussel, who contributed to the bipartisan campaign in the spring of 2020 that led the SBA to abandon many of its exclusionary policies.

We hope that everyone interested in collateral consequences, notably those related to access to business capital, will register for the program. The Georgetown announcement describing the program is reproduced below.

Read more

CCRC files congressional testimony on fair chance lending

The Collateral Consequences Resources Center submitted a statement for the record ahead of tomorrow’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Diversity & Inclusion of the House Committee on Financial Services: “Access Denied: Eliminating Barriers and Increasing Economic Opportunity for Justice-Involved Individuals.” The CCRC statement recommends that Congress conduct oversight on criminal history restrictions in federally sponsored small business lending policies, and facilitate access to these resources for small businesses owned by justice-impacted individuals.

CCRC’s statement describes some of its research about the the U.S. Small Business Association’s (SBA) criminal history policies and identifies the following concerns:

  • The SBA’s extensive criminal history restrictions are not provided by statute.
  • Many of the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are also not included in its published regulations.
  • The SBA’s criminal history restrictions are overbroad and lack specific justification.
  • The SBA’s criminal history restrictions have racially disparate impacts.

You can read the statement here.

“The Future of the President’s Pardon Power”

A blue textured circle overlaps a red circle with white and red text overlay that reads The Future of the President's Pardon Power, 2021 Clemency Panel Series

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is pleased to announce a series of online panels on successive Tuesdays in September, starting on September 14, that will explore in depth the use of the pardon power by President Donald Trump, and how it both reflects recent trends in pardoning and is likely to influence pardoning in the future.

The first panel, on September 14, will discuss Trump’s abandonment of the bureaucratic tradition in pardoning and what this reveals both about his concept of office and about the nature of the constitutional power.  The second panel, on September 21, will consider whether Trump’s pardons may prompt much-needed reforms in sentencing law and practice.  The third panel, on September 28, will consider possible changes in how the pardon power is administered resulting from its idiosyncratic use by President Trump, and whether the Justice Department should remain responsible for advising the president in pardon matters.

Read more

Arizona enacts its very first sealing law – and it’s impressive!

In July 2021, in an unheralded action in the final days of its legislative session, Arizona enacted a law that authorized its courts for the first time to seal conviction records. See SB1294, enacting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-911. The same law authorized sealing of uncharged arrests and dismissed and acquitted charges, also for the first time. Prior to this enactment, Arizona was one of a handful of states whose legislature had made no provision for limiting public access to conviction records, and was literally the only state in the country whose courts and records repository had no authority to seal non-conviction records. Now the state will have one of the broadest sealing laws in the country when it becomes effective on January 1, 2023.

(In the November 2020 election, Arizona voters approved a proposition to legalize marijuana, which included a provision for expungement of certain marijuana-related records.  But until now no general sealing authority had been enacted by the Arizona legislature.)

As described below, the law makes all but the most serious offenses eligible for sealing after completion of sentence (including payment of court debt) and a graduated waiting period.  It also appears that 1) multiple eligible convictions may be sealed, in a single proceeding or sequentially; 2) the prior conviction of a felony (even if ineligible) does not disqualify an eligible offense from relief but simply extends the applicable waiting period; 3) a conviction during the waiting period restarts the waiting period; and 4) there is no limit on the number of occasions on which sealing may be sought.

Read more

North Carolina court restores the vote to 56,000

Update: This decision was stayed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2021. As a result, the decision will not go into effect either until the appeal is resolved or further order of the court.

A three-judge state court in North Carolina has ruled that state’s felony disenfranchisement law unconstitutional as applied to individuals under supervision in the community, immediately restoring the vote to some 56,000 individuals. The decision means that in 24 states and the District of Columbia individuals convicted of felonies and serving a sentence in the community may vote.  North Carolina is the first southern state to restore the vote to convicted individuals upon release from prison.

As the New York Times noted in describing the court’s action, the ruling was “not entirely unexpected,” since “the same court had temporarily blocked enforcement of part of the law before the November general election, stating that most people who had completed their prison sentences could not be barred from voting if [the] only reason for their continued supervision was that they owed fines or court fees.”  See Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-cv-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2020).

While last year’s preliminary decision rested on the ground that requiring payment of court debt represented an poll tax, the challenge to North Carolina’s reenfranchisement scheme relied more broadly on its origins in intentional post-Civil War discrimination against Black people.  As the Times article noted, the decision “followed a trial that bared the history of the state’s disenfranchisement of Black people in sometimes shocking detail.”

The law struck down on Monday, which was enacted in 1877, extended disenfranchisement to people convicted of felonies in response to the 15th Amendment, which enshrined Black voting rights in the Constitution. But in the decade before that, local judges had reacted to the Civil War’s freeing of Black people by convicting them en masse and delivering public whippings, bringing them under a law denying the vote to anyone convicted of a crime for which whipping was a penalty.

A handful of Black legislators in the General Assembly tried to rescind the 1877 law in the early 1970s, but secured only procedural changes, such as a limit on the discretion of judges to prolong probation or court supervision.

The court has not yet released its opinion, and state officials may decide to appeal.

Reintegration reform returns to pre-pandemic levels in first half of 2021

This year is proving to be a landmark one for legislation restoring rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record, extending the remarkable era of “reintegration reform” that began around 2013. Just in the past six months, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enacted an extraordinary 101 new laws to mitigate collateral consequences. Six more bills await a governor’s signature.  It appears that legislative momentum in support of facilitating reintegration has returned to the pre-pandemic pace of 2019.

Overall, the past 30 months have produced an astonishing total of 361 laws aimed at neutralizing the adverse effect of a criminal record, plus more than a dozen additional executive actions and ballot initiatives.

Read more

Access Barriers to Felony Expungement in Utah

Currently, 39 states authorize expungement or sealing of at least some felony convictions.[i]  Recent research shows that only a small percentage of eligible individuals actually complete the court petition process required to obtain such relief, which is frequently hard to understand and usually burdensome, costly, and time-consuming.[ii]

Ideally, the most efficient way to overcome these barriers would be to make sealing automatic, dispensing with the requirement of individual application entirely.  However, the move toward automatic sealing is still in its early stages, and we anticipate that in many states, at least in the near future, petition-based sealing will remain a primary method for clearing certain records, particularly felony convictions.  Accordingly, it is important to identify and minimize barriers to petition-based relief wherever possible.  That is the purpose of this project.

In February 2021, we published an analysis of strengths and weakness of the felony record clearance process in Illinois by Beth Johnson and her partners in the Rights and Restoration Law Group (RRLG).  We are now pleased to present the second study in this series, a review of Utah’s felony expungement scheme by Noella Sudbury.

Read more

New fair chance employment and housing laws in 2021

In the first half of 2021, two states enacted major laws significantly expanding protections against discrimination based on criminal record: Illinois in the area of employment and New Jersey in housing decisions. Several other states also enacted new laws regulating consideration of criminal records in employment and housing, which are summarized below.

Fair chance employment

  • On March 23, 2021, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed into law HR1480, a major expansion of the Illinois Human Rights Act to add a new section prohibiting discrimination in employment based on criminal record. Unless otherwise authorized by law, it is a civil rights violation for any employer, employment agency or labor organization to use a conviction record as a basis to refuse to hire or to take any other adverse action unless: 1) there is a substantial relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held, or 2) the granting or continuation of the employment would involve a public safety risk. “Substantial relationship” means that the position offers the opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur and “whether the circumstances leading to the conduct for which the person was convicted will recur in the employment position.” In making a determination the employer must consider various factors, including the time since conviction and evidence of rehabilitation. If the employer makes a “preliminary decision” to take adverse action, the employer shall notify the employee in writing, and explain the person’s right to respond. The employer must consider information submitted by the employee before making a final decision, and if the final decision is based “solely or in part” on the person’s conviction record, the employer must notify the person of their reasoning, inform them of whatever avenues of appeal may exist, and of their right to file a charge with the Department of Human Rights.
  • Louisiana‘s HB707 prohibits consideration of non-conviction records in employment decisions and requires employers to make an individual assessment of whether an applicant’s criminal record has “a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that may justify denying the applicant the position,” considering certain specified factor relating to the criminal case and the applicant’s subsequent history. This law applies to any public or private employer.
  • Maryland enacted a ban-the-box rule applicable to private employers, after the legislature overrode Governor Hogan’s veto. Companies with 15 or more employees may not ask an applicant about their criminal history or conduct a background check at any time before the first in-person interview.
  • New Mexico enacted SB2, amending its 1974 law prohibiting certain discrimination in public employment and occupational licensure. (This law was written up in our earlier post on occupational licensure.) The new law bars consideration of convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged or pardoned; juvenile adjudications; or convictions for a crime that “is not recent enough and sufficiently job-related to be predictive of performance in the position sought, given the position’s duties and responsibilities.”

Fair chance housing

  • On June 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the Fair Chance in Housing Act, the most rigorous state legislation to date limiting consideration of criminal records in housing decisions. During a ceremony to commemorate Juneteenth, he described the new law as a step to “level what has been for too long an uneven playing field when it comes to access to housing,” explaining that it will bar landlords from asking about criminal history in most instances. The law prohibits consideration of any criminal record at the initial rental application stage, allows only certain records to be considered after a conditional offer is made, and imposes substantive and procedural standards for withdrawal of a conditional offer. Violations may be sanctioned with up to $10,000 in fines and other compliance measures, civil immunity is provided for landlords from claims based on decisions to rent to individuals with a record, and reporting requirements are included. The specific provisions of the new law were described in detail in a June 22 post by David Schlussel.
  • Illinois‘ SB1980 requires local housing authorities in Illinois to collect data on the number of applications for federally assisted housing by people with a criminal record, how many applications denied, and how many overturned after a records assessment hearing. The data must be reported to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information authority and to the legislature, and posted on the CJIA website. Per a 2020 law, the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits inquiries about, or discrimination in public and private employment and “real estate transactions” based on “arrest record,” defined as “an arrest not leading to a conviction, a juvenile record, or criminal history record information ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded.”
  • Louisiana‘s HB374 requires landlords in Louisiana to give notice to prospective tenants if they will consider criminal record information.

More details on these laws are available in the Restoration of Rights Project.

Restoration of voting and other civil rights in 2021

Voting rights

In the first half of 2021, three states enacted laws authorizing automatic restoration of the vote to anyone not actually incarcerated for a felony, and a fourth state did so through executive order, while beginning the process of amending its constitution to accomplish this result.

New York and Connecticut repealed provisions disenfranchising anyone on parole, while Washington restored the vote to anyone no longer confined for a felony. In March 2021, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam issued an executive order restoring the vote to 69,000 people who had been released from prison but had not yet completed their supervision, culminating a process of automatic expansion of the franchise by gubernatorial executive order that began in 2013. The Virginia legislature approved a proposal to amend the state constitution that, if approved a second time by the next legislature and by a referendum, will disenfranchise only people who are sentenced to a prison term for a felony and will restore their right to vote upon release from prison.

Three other states clarified the timing of restoration of voting rights or facilitated their exercise. Louisiana clarified its law to ensure that a return to jail for violating parole will not extend the 5-year period after which a person released on parole may vote. Maryland passed a law to ensure that individuals detained in Baltimore’s jail may vote, and Illinois passed a law to facilitate registration by those exiting prison.

At the federal level, President Biden issued an Executive Order titled “Promoting Access to Voting” whose Section 9 (“Ensuring Access to Voter Registration for Eligible Individuals in Federal Custody”) requires the Attorney General to take four important actions to ensure access, for people in federal custody or under federal supervision, to voter registration and educational materials on restoration of voting rights.

Jury eligibility

Connecticut limited ineligibility for jury service to a period of actual incarceration, and Louisiana replaced its lifetime bar with a five-year period after release from prison or probation.

Office-holding 

Illinois recognized its governor’s authority to restore eligibility for municipal office to a person with a federal conviction, by granting a certificate of restoration of rights.

Firearms

Kansas expanded the effect of expungement to restore firearms rights.

More details on these laws are available in the Restoration of Rights Project.

Dozens of new expungement laws already enacted in 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.) Read more

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 36