Restoration of Rights Project – Arizona Profile
Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following an Arizona criminal conviction
Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction in Arizona
Kate Adamson et al.; From the Law, Criminal Justice, and Security Program, University of Arizona (2005)
Related blog posts:
- Reintegration Champion Awards for 2021 (1/27/2022) - Based on our annual report on 2021 criminal record reforms, the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda keeps getting stronger. A majority of the 151 new laws enacted last year authorize courts to clear criminal records, in some states for the very first time, and several states enacted “clean slate” automatic record clearing. Other new laws restore voting and other civil rights lost as a result of conviction, and still others limit how criminal record is considered by employers, occupational licensing agencies, and landlords. (The report includes specific citations to each of the new laws, and they are analyzed in the larger context of each state's reintegration scheme in our Restoration of Rights Project.) Again this year we have published a Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive legislatures in the past year. While more than a dozen states enacted noteworthy laws in 2021, two states stand out for the quantity and quality of their lawmaking: Arizona and Connecticut share our 2021 Reintegration Champion award for their passage of three or more major pieces of record reform legislation. Arizona – The state enacted eight new laws, including a broad new record clearing law, two laws improving its occupational licensing scheme, and a judicial “second chance” certificate. Arizona also repealed a law authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay and authorized its courts to redesignate some felonies as misdemeanors. Connecticut – Enacted a major automatic record clearing scheme, restored the right to vote and hold office upon release from prison, provided for record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization, and broadened expungement for victims of human trafficking. Another eight states and the District of Columbia earned Honorable Mention for their enactment of at least one major new law: Alabama – Enacted first state record-clearing authority applicable to misdemeanor convictions and pardoned felonies, and extended non-conviction sealing. California – Gave retroactive effect to automatic conviction sealing law enacted in 2019. (This new law may be the most consequential of any enacted last year in terms of its impact on criminal records in the state, and it was done without fanfare or publicity.) District of Columbia – Enacted a comprehensive scheme to limit consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing. Illinois – Added employment discrimination based on conviction to the state Human Rights Act, authorized voter education for prisoners. New Jersey – Enacted a landmark fair housing bill; made some improvements to its 1970’s-era occupational licensing law; and, provided for automatic record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization. (New Jersey was our Reintegration Champion for 2019, but evidently is not resting on its laurels.) New Mexico – Improved 1970’s-era public employment and licensing law; authorized expungement of marijuana convictions; and, enacted a substantial part of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, limiting and providing relief from collateral consequences. Ohio – Expanded eligibility for record-clearing; significantly improved occupational licensing law. Virginia – Authorized petition-based and automated record-clearing of non-convictions and convictions, including convictions for marijuana possession; restored vote upon release by executive order and took steps to amend constitution to this end. Washington – restored vote upon release from prison; amended occupational licensing standards for health professions; repealed driver’s license suspension based on outstanding financial obligations Low marks go to three states that enacted no record reform laws at all in 2021. While there are six other states in this category this year, the legislatures of Alaska, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin earn their place at the bottom of the heap for having been equally unproductive in 2020 and 2019, years in which almost every other state passed at least some law limiting access to and use of criminal records. The profile of each state's restoration of rights scheme from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project is linked above (except for the states that made no progress). The profiles contain citations and links to the relevant new laws so that interested individuals can check their specific terms.
- 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.
- New occupational licensing laws in 2021 (6/10/2021) - 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. Comprehensive licensing scheme enacted by the District of Columbia Act A23-0561, signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 15, 2021, imposed a detailed regulatory scheme on many occupational licenses issued by the District of Columbia, including health-related professions. The new law is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the country in the judgment of both CCRC and the Institute for Justice. The 2021 law provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the occupation for which the license is sought. (Under prior law a license could be denied if a conviction “bears directly upon the fitness” of the person to be licensed.) References to “good moral character” in prior law were struck. The new law also prohibits a board from inquiring into or considering an applicant’s criminal conviction until after the applicant is found to be otherwise qualified. After such inquiry, it may not consider a conviction that has been sealed, expunged, vacated, or pardoned, a juvenile adjudication, or non-conviction information, or one that whose elements are not found by “clear and convincing evidence” to be “directly related” to the occupation. In making this determination, a board must consider specific factors relating to the circumstances of the offense, the individual’s other record, evidence of rehabilitation, and “the District’s interest in promoting employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.” Before denying a license based on a conviction a board must notify the applicant about the reasons for denial and offer a hearing, describe the information that may be provided to demonstrate rehabilitation and fitness, give the applicant an opportunity to respond, and issue a final decision within 45 business days after it receives a response. The board must also provide information on legal resources along with a hearing notice. The 2021 law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals to determine their eligibility based on a criminal conviction, which must be completed within 90 days. (The law does not state whether an affirmative conclusion at this preliminary stage is binding on the board.) This law applies to licenses issued by D.C.'s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and Department Health, but not occupations regulated outside of these agencies, including attorneys, teachers, notaries, taxi drivers, funeral directors, boxers, commercial drivers, and insurance agents. The Mayor must submit a report to the Council by January 1, 2022, identifying the statutory and regulatory collateral consequences of criminal records and recommendations for their mitigation or elimination. And, by January 1 of each year, the Mayor must submit to the Council a report with data relating to each board regulating health-related and non-health-related occupations. Significant revisions of existing general licensing laws 1. Arizona As modified in 2021 by HB 2787 (the fourth licensing law in three years), standards for disqualification now provide that an agency may refuse licensure to a person based on their criminal record only if a conviction “specifically and directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation” (except for offenses involving moral turpitude defined to include serious and violent offenses) and “the person, based on the nature of the specific offense that the person was convicted of and the person’s current circumstances, including the passage of time since commission of the crime, “is more likely to reoffend by virtue of having” the license than not. The 2021 amendments also require that certain records may not be considered: non-conviction records, including record of participation in a diversion program; a conviction that was sealed, expunged or pardoned; a juvenile adjudication; and a non-violent misdemeanor. 2. Georgia Existing law allowed licensing boards to deny licensure where a person was on community supervision, without requiring the person’s crime to be “directly related” to the occupation for which licensure was sought. SB-114 added supervision status to list of dispositions for which direct relationship is required. The new law does not apply to those on supervision for a felony crime against a person, including battery or assault, or for a crime requiring sex offense registration. 3. New Jersey Until 2021, New Jersey’s 1970’s-era law governing licensure by dozens of state licensing boards (most health-related licenses, accountants, architects, engineers, cosmetology, and many others) provided that boards could deny or suspend licensure upon conviction "of a crime of involving moral turpitude or relating adversely" to the regulated occupation. P.L.2021, c.81 (S942), modified the standard for denial or suspension of licensure by these state licensing agencies to "a direct or substantial relationship to the activity regulated by the board or is of a nature such that certification, registration or licensure of the person would be inconsistent with the public's health, safety, or welfare . . . ." 4. New Mexico The 1974 Criminal Record Employment Act in force prior to the 2021 amendments prohibited licensing boards from considering non-conviction records. As amended in 2021 by SB2, NM’s licensing agencies are precluded from considering 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.” In addition, while "misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude" were omitted from the list of crimes that may never be considered, misdemeanors were also omitted from the provision allowing convictions to be considered if "directly related" to the license in question. The revisions leave open the possibility that a misdemeanor could be grounds for denying licensure as a teacher or child care provider only if they involved drug trafficking or child abuse. The 2021 amendments also omitted an alternative basis for disqualification based on insufficient rehabilitation. 5. Ohio Ohio’s existing law required licensing agencies to list crimes that mandate disqualification. As further amended in 2021 by HB 263, boards must list convictions that "may" be disqualifying, and other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license. Vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicant’s overall record that are linked to public safety and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense. In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing. These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019. 6. Tennessee The 2018 Fresh Start Act was amended in 2021 by SB768 to provide specific criteria governing a licensing board in determining the fitness of a person for licensure based on their criminal record, including the relationship of the crime to the ability performs the duties of the occupation, and evidence of the person’s rehabilitation. (The FSA already included a “direct relationship” standard.) The 2021 Act also deleted “a rebuttable presumption that the prior conviction relates to the fitness of the applicant or licensee” if the conviction was for a Class A, Class B, or certain Class C felonies, or if the felony conviction required registration as a sex offender or animal abuser. 7. Washington A 2021 law provides that each licensing agency shall allow potential applicants for a license to receive a "preliminary determination" as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying. See 2021, ch. 194 (HB1399). No fee may be charged. This determination must be made within two months, and if it is negative must be accompanied by a statement of reasons. Another provision of HB1399 states that a licensing agency "may disqualify an individual from obtaining a professional license, government certification, or state recognition if it determines the individual's conviction is related to the occupation or profession unless the individual has requested and received a [Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP)]." See Section 3 of 2021, ch. 194 (HB 1399). It is not clear whether this law was intended to lower the "direct relationship" standard in § 9.96A.020(2). Another 2021 law gave new protections to employees of long-term care facilities, setting forth time limits beyond which certain theft and assault convictions will not be disqualifying. See 2021 Ch. 219 (HB1411). The CROP law was also amended to give protection to these employees.
- 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.
- Wisconsin joins crowd of states regulating occupational licensure (4/30/2018) - On April 16, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law Act 278, making his state the sixth in the past two months to establish new rules on consideration of criminal record in the context of occupational and professional licensure. Effective August 1, 2018, licensing boards in Wisconsin will be prohibited in most cases from denying or revoking a license based on arrests or pending charges, and required to justify in writing any adverse action based on conviction. Boards will also be required to give applicants a preliminary determination as to whether a particular conviction will be disqualifying. Indiana, Arizona, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Tennessee have all recently enacted laws regulating how licensing boards treat arrests and convictions, in some cases with strikingly similar features, as described in recent posts here and here. The conviction-related provisions of the model occupational licensing law proposed by the Institute for Justice are reflected in almost all of these new laws, though many of them go even farther to discourage unwarranted discrimination affecting as much as 25% of the U.S. workforce. Act 278 puts new teeth into the provisions of Wisconsin’s Fair Employment Act that relate to occupational and professional licensing through a new subsection titled "Discrimination in Licensing." See Wisc. Stat. § 111.335 (4). A licensing agency will be required, before denying or terminating a license based on a prior conviction, to state its reasons in writing, including "a statement of how the circumstances of the offense relate to the particular licensed activity." An agency must also provide individuals with an opportunity to show evidence of rehabilitation and fitness to engage in the licensed activity. Moreover, "[i]f the individual shows competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to perform the licensed activity . . . . the licensing agency may not refuse to license the individual or bar or terminate the individual from licensing based on that conviction." In addition to any evidence of rehabilitation adduced by the applicant, agencies are directed to take into account the nature and seriousness of the offense, any "mitigating circumstances or social conditions surrounding the commission of the offense," the age of the individual at the time the offense was committed and the time elapsed since, and letters of reference by persons who have been in contact with the individual since. Negligent hiring protections are included for any firm that hired a licensee approved pursuant to an agency determination of rehabilitation. See Wis. Stat. § 452.139. Act 278 tightens provisions of current law that permit denial of licensure based on a pending criminal charge, or based on a juvenile adjudication, if the offense conduct is "substantially related" to the licensed activity, by adding a proviso that the substantial relationship standard will be met in this context only if the charge or adjudication involved a “crime against life and bodily security” or a crime “against children.” Like most of the other recently enacted occupational licensing laws, Act 278 requires agencies to make it possible for individuals to obtain a preliminary determination as to whether they would be disqualified from obtaining a license due to a prior conviction, a determination that is binding on the agency in connection with a formal application. A fee may be charged to cover the cost of processing. This provision comes straight from the model occupational licensing law proposed by the Institute for Justice, discussed in our post of April 18. Finally, each licensing agency must also publish on its Internet site a document indicating the offenses or kinds of offenses that may result in denial or termination of a license. The provisions of Wisconsin's Fair Employment Act are further elaborated in the Wisconsin profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.
- 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<<
- Second chance for some youthful sex offenders (4/13/2016) - On April 6, Arizona became the latest state to offer early relief from sex offender registration obligations to young people convicted of consensual sex offenses and sentenced to probation. The law, HB 2539, allows individuals convicted before reaching age 22 of sexual conduct with a minor between the ages of 15 and 17 (so-called "Romeo and Juliet" offenders), to petition the court for relief from registration after completing probation. If a petitioner meets all applicable criteria, the court must grant the petition unless it finds that a "denial is in the best interests of justice or tends to ensure the safety of the public." Similar laws authorizing early termination from registration for those convicted of youthful consensual offenses are in effect in ten other states, including Florida, Oregon, and Michigan. Laws requiring young people to register have come under increased scrutiny thanks to recent media coverage of their harsh effects and flimsy justifications -- notably an article by Sarah Stillman published last month in the New Yorker ("The List"). Much of the attention to registry of juveniles has been driven by mobilization around the issue by advocacy groups like Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) and the Center on Youth Registration Reform (CYRR). In 2013, Human Rights Watch issued a ground-breaking report on the issue, Raised on the Registry. Public registration of juveniles and young people convicted of sex offenses is widespread. According to one recent article, An estimated one-fourth of the people on the public sex offender registries were convicted as juveniles. Fifteen states post the names and photos of offenders who are minors on the online registries. Thirteen of the 20 states that lock up people in indefinite civil commitment—preventive, dubiously therapeutic detention for crimes not yet committed—include people who committed their offenses as juveniles. “The single age with the greatest number of offenders from the perspective of law enforcement was age 14,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sex offender registries were created largely based on dubious assumptions about the recidivism rate of those convicted of sexual offenses. But, as far as young people are concerned, that risk is generally unfounded, particularly given the nature of the offenses they are likely to commit. The article continues: As Raised on the Registry powerfully showed, with little or no intervention these young people are virtually guaranteed not to “reoffend,” mainly because so many of them are penalized for engaging in sex play—things that, even if not always entirely consensual, are common among children and usually without long-lasting harm. Nicole Pittman, the author of the Human Rights Watch Report and Director of CYRR, told NPR in 2015, We are criminalizing normative child sexual behavior in a large fashion ..... We have kids that are on the registry for streaking at a football game, peeing at a park .... Rome-and-Juliet-type offenses where you have a 17-year-old dating a 14-year-old. That person goes on the registry. For these young people, registration is a sentence to economic insecurity and public stigma that may last decades, if not a lifetime. According to a 2014 piece from The Huffington Post, Finding housing and employment are among the biggest challenges for juvenile offenders on the general sex offenders registry, which makes information like recent photos, home address and place of work publicly available. Many ex-offenders report being harassed, excommunicated or otherwise targeted once neighbors find them on the registry. It can have tragic results in some cases. “Suicide [among children placed on sex offender registries] is a possibility ... even predictable,” David S. Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders told HRW. Many of the state laws requiring young people to register came about because of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) – also known as the Adam Walsh Act – a 2006 bill that requires lifetime registration of juveniles convicted as adults, as well as juveniles adjudicated of certain serious offenses in family court. Many states have refused to implement these and other provisions of the Adam Walsh Act and have forgone federal funding as a result. Arizona is among them, though it still requires registration of juveniles convicted in adult court and gives family courts discretion to require juvenile registration. Under Arizona law, juveniles required to register as a result of family court adjudications must remain on the registry until age 25. Juveniles convicted in adult court remain on the registry for life, except that those sentenced to probation have an opportunity for removal during annual probation review hearings until they turn 22, or upon completion of probation. HB 2539 extends a similar opportunity for relief to young Arizonans convicted between the ages of 18 and 21 of sexual relations with a minor over the age of 14. HB 2539 is by no means a game-changer since it will likely only benefit a small percentage of the youthful offenders that are required to register. But hopefully its passage, and developments in the courts like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2014 ruling striking down that state's lifetime registration requirements for juveniles, are a sign that legislatures and courts are ready to give some careful reconsideration to registry laws that ruin young lives while providing little public benefit. The CCRC maintains a chart that summarizes and compares the availability of relief from sex offender registration obligations in all 50 states, the federal system, and U.S. territories. You can find it at this link.