This year, New Mexico enacted three significant laws restoring rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record, continuing a recent trend of major reforms in this area. The three measures involve adopting most of the provisions of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, authorizing automatic expungement for a broad range of marijuana offenses as part of legalization, and expanding existing law regulating public employment and licensure to prohibit consideration of many types of convictions. A fourth new law significantly limits burdens imposed by court debt. These developments follow 2019 reforms introducing expungement into the state’s legal system for the very first time—through a comprehensive system of petition-based relief for most types of criminal records—and adopting a private sector ban-the-box law.
For these 2019 reforms, New Mexico earned an “honorable mention” for a productive legislative season in our reintegration report card for that year. This year’s noteworthy follow-up measures, summarized below, make New Mexico a contender for CCRC’s “reintegration champion” award in 2021.
This is the title of an important symposium piece by Eisha Jain published by the Stanford Law Review, in which she urges that “racial reckoning in policing” include consideration of the negative credentialing effect of arrest records. Using the sociological framework of “marking,” Jain shows how unjustified arrests “both magnify and conceal race-based discrimination.” She argues that “Reckoning with race in the criminal justice system requires recognizing that the problem is not just the police: It is with a legal regime that entrenches racial subordination through criminal records.”
The good news is that many of the criminal record reforms of the last several years provide for automatic or expedited expungement or sealing of non-conviction records. (See our 50-state chart on “Process for expunging or sealing non-convictions” and our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records recommending automatic expungement.) But the bad news is that even the laws streamlining the sealing of non-conviction records in two dozen states frequently fail to extend to records of uncharged arrests, which can linger in police files and repositories long after court records have been sealed. In the hands of police agencies, they may lead to further policing abuses. Disseminated through background checks and the internet they limit employment, housing, and other opportunities. When considering how to neutralize the effect of non-conviction records, jurisdictions must concern themselves with this neglected source of racial inequity.
Here is the abstract of Professor Jain’s article:
This Essay argues that racial reckoning in policing should include a racial reckoning in the use of criminal records. Arrests alone—regardless of whether they result in convictions—create criminal records. Yet because the literature on criminal records most often focuses on prisoner reentry and on the consequences of criminal conviction, it is easy to overlook the connections between policing decisions and collateral consequences. This Essay employs the sociological framework of marking to show how criminal records entrench racial inequality stemming from policing. The marking framework recognizes that the government creates a negative credential every time it creates a record of arrest as well as conviction. Such records, in turn, trigger cascading consequences for employment, housing, immigration, and a host of other areas. The credentialing process matters because it enables and conceals race-based discrimination, and because a focus on the formal sentence often renders this discrimination invisible. This Essay considers how adopting a credentialing framework offers a way to surface, and ultimately to address, how race-based policing leaves lasting marks on over-policed communities.
In the first five months of 2021, seven states and the District of Columbia enacted nine separate laws improving opportunities for people with a criminal record to obtain occupational licenses. This continues a four-year trend begun in 2017 that has seen 33 states and the District of Columbia enact 54 separate laws regulating consideration of criminal record in the licensing process.
Our report on new legislation in 2020 noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.” Laws enacted during this four-year period have “transformed the licensing policy landscape across the Nation and opened opportunities in regulated professions for many thousands of people.” The only period of law reform that rivals the present one came during the early 1970s, when many of the laws now being revised and extended were first enacted. The effectiveness of advocacy efforts by the Institute for Justice and National Employment Law Project in influencing this trend cannot be overstated.
So far during 2021, the U.S. jurisdiction to have enacted the most ambitious and comprehensive licensing scheme is the District of Columbia, and its new law (described in detail below) is one of the most progressive in the nation. New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington had not previously legislated in this area for many years, and all three extended and improved laws first enacted in the 1970s. Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee extended recently enacted laws, with Arizona legislating for the fourth time in this area in as many years!
The nine new laws are described below, and have been added to the state profiles and 50-state charts of the Restoration of Rights Project.
This is the title of a fascinating new working paper by Andrew Novak, Assistant Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, about a little-studied issue: collateral consequences of tribal convictions and how they are mitigated or avoided. This is an important topic not currently addressed in our national resources on restoration of rights and record relief. Here is the abstract:
This paper surveys American Indian tribal justice systems to assess whether collateral consequences attach to convictions and whether a pardon or expungement process exists to remove tribal convictions. Tribal criminal jurisdiction is often limited to lesser crimes and only those occurring on a reservation by members of the tribe; with exceptions, other cases are transferred to U.S. state or federal court. The framework of the tribal pardon power varies widely across jurisdictions: it may be exercised by a tribal executive, a tribal legislature or council, a specially appointed pardons board or committee, a vote of the tribal membership, or some combination of the above. Some jurisdictions instead have a traditional peacemaking, forgiveness, or reconciliation ritual process in lieu of a true pardon or expungement process.
Many Indian tribes impose collateral consequences for convictions both in tribal court and in state or federal court. Most commonly, these consequences restrict tribal membership and rights, including the right to vote in tribal elections or hold tribal office, but they may extend to housing, gaming licenses, tribal employment, and other areas. Many tribal jurisdictions do not have a pardon or expungement process, despite having collateral consequences attach to convictions. Several tribal courts have considered whether their tribal constitutions create an implied pardon power where one is not specifically provided for in tribal law. As a normative matter, this paper takes the position that tribal jurisdictions should have a pardon or expungement process (or its equivalent in indigenous law) where collateral consequences attach to conviction.
The draft of this working paper is available here.
The Collateral Consequences Resource Center, with support from the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, produced a report and an accompanying infographic that summarize the groundbreaking criminal reforms enacted this year as part of marijuana legalization and situate them in the national context.
People with arrest and conviction records continue to demand that employers and policymakers remove unfair barriers to work. Their demands have spurred much-needed legislative change, including “fair chance licensing” laws that reform restrictions on working in occupations requiring a government license or certification. Such changes are crucial to achieving racial equity. Decades of biased policing and charging have left Black and Latinx communities with disproportionately high rates of records, thus compounding the economic disinvestment and other disadvantages resulting from structural racism.
In support of fair chance licensing advocacy efforts, the National Employment Law Project (NELP) recently developed a set of short fact sheets evaluating the legal barriers that face people with records who desire to work in growing occupations in eight states–Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee. Given the confusing tangle of statutory and regulatory restrictions in most states, focusing on growing professions in high-demand industries may prove to be an important strategy for state advocates who seek to maximize job opportunities for people with records.
In 2017, Prison Fellowship declared April Second Chance Month for the first time. The designation has since gained support from Congress, the White House, state and local bodies, and nongovernmental organizations, as an opportunity to raise awareness about the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction along with the importance of providing second-chance opportunities for people with a record to reintegrate into society.
CCRC’s flagship resource, the Restoration of Rights Project provides 50-state resources detailing current law and practice for four types of second-chance remedies: (1) restoration of civil and firearms rights; (2) pardoning; (3) expungement, sealing, and other record relief; and (4) limits on consideration of criminal records in employment and occupational licensing. Our annual reports on new legislation document the astonishing pace of state reform action on these issue since 2013. We are proud to see these resources utilized by impacted individuals, attorneys, advocates, journalists, scholars, lawmakers, courts, and others to understand second-chance remedies, pursue relief, and bring about reforms.
President Biden’s Proclamation on Second Chance Month declares that the criminal justice system must offer “meaningful opportunities for redemption and rehabilitation”:
Every person leaving incarceration should have housing, the opportunity at a decent job, and health care. A person’s conviction history should not unfairly exclude them from employment, occupational licenses, access to credit, public benefits, or the right to vote. Certain criminal records should be expunged and sealed so people can overcome their past.
The President took an important step toward this goal when he directed federal agencies to facilitate voting for those in federal custody or under federal supervision.
During the wave of criminal record reform that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record, thereby supporting opportunities to earn a living, access public benefits, education, and housing, regain voting rights, and otherwise reintegrate into society. Many states have entirely remade their record relief systems—authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, set-aside, certificates of relief, and/or diversion—and limited the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment and licensing. State reforms continue to accelerate in 2021.
Congress has belatedly become interested in the reintegration agenda, limiting background checks in federal employment and contracting in 2019, and removing some barriers to public benefits in 2020. However, many federal barriers remain, and individuals with federal records have no access to the kind of relief mechanisms now available in most states. Recent controversies over presidential pardoning offer an incentive to wean the federal justice system from its dependence upon presidential action for the sort of routine relief these mechanisms promise.
In honor of Second Chance Month, we recommend that the Biden Administration work with Congress to pursue an ambitious and bipartisan legislative approach to criminal record reforms in the following four areas:
Record relief: Authorize federal courts to expunge certain records, grant certificates of relief, and increase use to deferred adjudication; give effect to state relief in federal law; prohibit dissemination of certain records by background screeners and the FBI; and, provide relief from firearms dispossession.
Federal public benefits: End record-related restrictions in financial assistance to small businesses, SNAP and TANF benefits, and student aid.
Employment & licensing: Establish enforceable standards for consideration of criminal record in federal employment and contracting, and limit record-based restrictions in federally-regulated occupations.
Voting rights: Allow voting in federal elections regardless of a person’s criminal record unless currently incarcerated for a felony conviction.
Our full federal agenda details specific measures by which Congress can accomplish these goals.
Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law.
Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged.
This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape.
Summary
Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas:
The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe.
The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm.
The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record.
This is the title of a provocative new article by Cara Suvall, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, and Director of the Youth Opportunity Clinic. The article, forthcoming in the Cardozo Law Review, catalogues and analyzes the costs and burdens that deter people from accessing certificates intended to enhance employment opportunities. Professor Suvall focuses particular attention on certificate programs in Tennessee, Georgia, and New York, which vary widely in eligibility criteria, administration, and legal effect. She highlights the learning, compliance, and psychological barriers that limit effectiveness of existing certificate programs, and describes proposals to lower those barriers.
Here is the abstract:
Policymakers around the country are grappling with how to provide a second chance to people with criminal records. These records create collateral consequences—invisible punishments that inhibit opportunity in all facets of a person’s life. Over the past seven years, states have repeatedly tried to legislate new paths for people trying to move on with their lives. State legislators passed more than 150 laws targeting collateral consequences in 2019 alone.
But what happens when these paths to second chances are littered with learning, compliance, and psychological costs? The people who most need these new opportunities may find that they are out of reach. A major problem, I argue, is the administrative burdens involved in accessing these remedies. Because of these hurdles, people with fewer resources—the population that would most benefit from the help—are the ones most likely to find these second chances out of reach. The Article closely examines one increasingly popular type of second-chance program: certificate laws that remove employment barriers.
Building on recent research identifying the low usage rates of petition-based second-chance programs, this Article catalogues and analyzes the costs and burdens placed on people attempting to access employment certificates. Of particular concern is not only these low usage rates themselves, but also the identity of those least likely to access these interventions. Second-chance programs like employment certificates that provide a way forward for people with greater resources while leaving behind those without may be more harmful than helpful when placed in the larger context of mass criminalization and social change, even if they help the small number of individuals who do access them. In contrast, a well-designed second-chance initiative that appropriately considers administrative burdens and the way that interventions like employment certificates fit in to the broader picture of social change could provide short-term benefits to people with criminal records while also bolstering larger-scale reforms to the criminal legal system.
Professor Colleen V. Chien of Santa Clara University has published a major empirical study in the Michigan Law Review that examines the gap between eligibility for and actual delivery of relief from contact with the criminal justice system, a construct she calls the “second chance gap.” (The term is defined with examples here.) Last week, Chien led a team of law students, researchers and data analysts from Santa Clara University in launching the Paper Prisons Initiative, a project that draws on her study’s methodology to estimate this gap for each state’s record relief laws.
During the current wave of criminal record reforms that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record through authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, and other forms of record relief. At the same time, it has become evident that bureaucratic and structural obstacles prevent many of these laws from achieving their full promise—particularly when they require a potential beneficiary to navigate a complex and burdensome judicial or administrative process.
Last June, Professors Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott published the first broad-based empirical study of a state law limiting public access to criminal records, revealing that just 6.5% of those eligible for relief in Michigan successfully completed the application process within five years. This conclusion has given additional impetus to the movement to make record-sealing automatic: six states now authorize “clean slate” relief for a range of conviction records, 16 states do so for non-conviction records, and clean slate campaigns are underway in several additional states.
In “America’s Paper Prisons: The Second Chance Gap,” Professor Chien provides a more general perspective on the gap between eligibility and delivery of second chance relief documented for Michigan by Starr and Prescott. In her article, Chien looks at three forms of relief from contact with the criminal justice system—record-clearing, restoration of voting rights, and shortening prison sentences. Based on her analysis, the paper concludes that in many cases only a small fraction of those eligible for relief (usually less than 10%) have received it. Most notably, she uses novel data collection and analysis to estimate that at least 20 to 30 million American adults have non-conviction records that appear to be clearable under existing law but that have not been cleared. In follow-up state-specific papers available on the Paper Prisons Initiative website, she and her team have estimated the second chance expungement gap in convictions relief for a number of states.
I.
The first part of “America’s Paper Prisons” explores the reasons for the “second chance gap”:
In the same way that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. criminal justice system, many second chance programs require defendants to “prove” that they deserve second chances before awarding them. As such, getting one’s second chance through petition-based processes may include enduring a bureaucratic process, amassing information through a variety of sources, and being evaluated by an adjudicative or administrative body. The high cost of doing so in many cases may be insurmountable.
Chien divides the barriers that contribute to the second chance gap into three categories: administrative barriers, like informational and transactional costs; structural barriers, like a requirement to pay court debt and participate in a formal court hearing; and substantive barriers, like perceptions that the costs of the process outweigh its benefits.[1]
II.
The second part of Chien’s paper estimates the second chance gap for an assortment of relief mechanisms, drawing on both original data collection and secondary sources. Chien uses two metrics: the “uptake gap,” which measures the share of individuals over time who are eligible and have not applied or not received relief; and the “current gap,” which looks at the share of individuals at the certain moment in time who are eligible but have not received relief. Her analysis shows, on a nearly uniform basis, that only a small percentage of eligible individuals obtain relief in petition-based programs.
The relief mechanisms she studies confer different benefits, are animated by differing policy objectives, and vary in eligibility criteria and administrative process. Still, a general pattern is clear across the following second chance gaps that Chien presents:
