Restoration of Rights Project – Kentucky Profile

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

Collateral Consequences of Felony Convictions Established in the Kentucky Administrative Regulations

Sara M. Caudill and Ashley England-Huff, 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 453 (2008)

Kentucky’s Statutory Collateral Consequences from Felony Convictions: A Practitioner’s Guide

Troy B. Daniels, Dawn L. Danley-Nichols, Kate R. Morgan and Bryce C. Roades, 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 413 (2008)

>> Select another state <<

Related blog posts:

Momentum grows to restore voting rights to people with a felony (2/3/2021) - Our new report on 2020 legislative reforms shows continued progress in state efforts to expand voting rights for people with a felony conviction. Despite a courtroom setback at the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal appeals court ruled that Florida's landmark 2018 felony re-enfranchisement initiative does not restore the vote to people who owe court debt, two additional states and D.C. took major actions to restore voting rights to people convicted of a felony. Already in 2021, an impressive 19 states are considering bills to ease or eliminate prohibitions on voting based on a past conviction. In 2020, California restored the vote to people on parole, via a ballot initiative amending the state constitution. Iowa's governor issued an executive order restoring voting rights to people convicted of most felonies after completion of incarceration and supervision. And the District of Columbia repealed felony disenfranchisement altogether so that even people in prison may vote. Since 2016, 19 states have taken steps to restore the right to vote for people with a felony and expand awareness about eligibility. In 2021, at least 19 state legislatures are considering bills that would expand the franchise to those with a conviction: 5 states are considering measures to amend their constitutions or statutes to eliminate felony disenfranchisement entirely (Nebraska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Virginia). They would join Maine, Vermont, and D.C., as jurisdictions that have fully abandoned felony disenfranchisement. Connecticut also has a proposed bill that to eliminate disenfranchisement for certain felony offenses and restore the vote after incarceration for the others. 10 states are considering bills to re-enfranchise individuals not presently incarcerated for a felony conviction: Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, and Virginia (Alabama's bill would do so 5 years after release). The Washington measure is sponsored by newly elected Rep. Tarra Simmons, believed to be the first Washington state lawmaker formerly convicted of felony. The only 4 states remaining without a statutory mechanism for re-enfranchisement (Kentucky, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia) are considering measures to restore the vote upon completion of incarceration and supervision, or earlier, for a disqualifying offense (in the case of Mississippi, after incarceration and parole only; in the case of Iowa, 5 years after completion of incarceration and supervision; Virginia has proposals to eliminate disenfranchisement completely or restore the vote upon release). These four states currently make re-enfranchisement wholly dependent upon discretionary gubernatorial action (or in Mississippi, discretionary legislative action). In addition, Tennessee has a pending bill that would remove requirements that a person has paid all restitution and court costs, and be current on child support, before voting rights may be restored. Maryland and Missouri are considering bills to facilitate voting in jails for eligible individuals, and Maryland has another bill to require individuals released from correctional facilities and/or on community supervision to be informed that they are eligible to vote. Nebraska also has a pending bill to remove the two-year waiting period after completion of a felony sentence for voting rights restoration. Our full report on 2020 criminal record reforms is available here. For an overview of loss and restoration of voting rights, see our Sept. 2020 national survey and our 50-state comparison chart. In addition, our Nov. 2020 report documents which states treat unpaid court debt as a barrier to regaining the vote.
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.
Bumper crop of new expungement laws expected in 2019 (4/9/2019) - Earlier this year we reported that, in 2018, legislatures enacted an unprecedented number of new laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities for people with a criminal record. (Last year 32 states, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands enacted 61 new laws to facilitate reentry and reintegration.) The first quarter of 2019 has already produced a baker's dozen of new restoration laws, some quite significant, indicating that this year is likely to be every bit as productive as last. The 13 new laws enhance access to record-clearing relief, occupational licensing and employment, and executive clemency. Also notable, if only for the sheer number of people who will benefit when the law goes into effect on July 1, is the Virginia legislature's accession to Governor Ralph Northam's request that it "eliminate[] the unfair practice of revoking a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay court fines and fees," which will immediately reinstate driving privileges to more than 627,000 Virginians. This year to date, state lawmakers have focused most of their attention on improving access to record-clearing: 8 of the 13 new laws expand eligibility for expungement and sealing and streamline applicable procedures. The two most significant new laws were enacted in Western states. Utah's HB 431—signed by Governor Gary Herbert on March 28, 2019—provides for automated sealing relief for certain non-conviction, infraction, and misdemeanor conviction records. When it takes effect on May 1, 2020, it will be the nation's second "clean slate" law in operation (Pennsylvania's first-in-the-Nation 2018 clean slate law will be implemented over a 12-month period beginning in June 2019). Utah also clarified that employers may not ask about—and an applicant for employment need not disclose—expunged convictions (except under narrow exceptions for public employment). New Mexico's Criminal Records Expungement Act (CREA) for the first time authorizes courts in that state, upon application, to limit public access to adult records, including both felonies and misdemeanors, as well as non-conviction records. HB 370, signed by the governor on April 3 and effective January 1, 2020, provides graduated eligibility waiting periods depending upon the seriousness of the offense, and applies to all but a handful of crimes. Other highlights from the new record-closing laws include expanded sealing eligibility for adults in Kentucky and West Virginia, and for juveniles in Nebraska and Wyoming. Occupational licensing reforms were enacted in Ohio and Utah that regulate how licensing boards may consider criminal records, continuing a recent push for reform in this area. Both states will now allow individuals to request at any time a preliminary determination whether their record would disqualify them from holding a license. Ohio will also require licensing boards to publish on the internet a list of all criminal offenses for which a conviction would disqualify a person. In addition, New Mexico extended its "ban-the-box" law to private employment, requiring employers to delay consideration of an applicant's criminal history in the hiring process. Finally, South Dakota streamlined its clemency process by allowing two members of the pardon and parole board to make clemency recommendations to the governor (rather than a majority of the nine-member board). The 13 new laws enacted to date in 2019 are described in further detail below, and have been added to the state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project. We will be tracking restoration bills throughout the year, and will report periodically in this space - particularly when a significant new law is enacted. RECORD-CLEARING RELIEF Utah - Clean slate; effect of expungement On March 28, 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 431, a highly significant "clean slate" law that will automate expungement or deletion of a variety of criminal records when it takes effect on May 1, 2020. Acquittals and dismissals with prejudice are eligible. Certain infractions, misdemeanor convictions, and pleas in abeyance are eligible under a complex set of criteria. Automated relief will apply both to cases adjudicated on or after May 1, 2020, and to cases adjudicated before that date, with separate procedures for each category. 77-40-116(1)(a) and (1)(b). A more detailed explanation of this new law can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Utah profile. On March 25, 2019, Governor Herbert signed HB 90 (effective May 14, 2019) that makes clear that an applicant with an expunged criminal record seeking employment from a private employer “may answer a question related to an expunged criminal record as though the action underlying the expunged criminal record never occurred.” § 34-52-301. The new law also clarifies that a public employer may not make an inquiry related to expunged criminal history—and an applicant may answer such a question “as though the action underlying the expunged criminal record never occurred,” except for preexisting exemptions for certain types of public employers, volunteer work, or when consideration of criminal history is required by law. § 34-52-201. More information can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Utah profile. New Mexico - First general authority to expunge adult records In 2019, New Mexico enacted a comprehensive law authorizing expungement (sealing) of most non-conviction records, and of conviction records for all but a limited number of crimes, including those involving serious violence and sexual assault. See HB 370, signed into law not yet codified. Effective January 1, 2020, the Criminal Record Expungement Act (CREA) authorizes courts to limit public access to most non-conviction records after a one-year waiting period, as long as no charges are pending against the individual. Courts are also authorized to limit public access to the record of most convictions after waiting periods ranging from two to ten years, depending upon the seriousness of the offense, with no intervening convictions. The court must find that “justice will be served by an order to expunge,” applying a multi-factor test. Under current law, New Mexico law contains no judicial authority to seal adult records, and an administrative authority to seal non-conviction records applies only to some misdemeanors. Upon taking effect, CREA will give New Mexico one of the broadest record-closing authorities in the Nation. More information about this important new law can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, New Mexico profile. West Virginia - Expanded eligibility for expungement to some felonies On March 25, 2019, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice signed into law SB 152, which will significantly expand the availability of expungement when it becomes effective on June 7, 2019. The law extends eligibility for expungement beyond the limited class of youthful misdemeanants that benefit under existing law, and also makes certain felonies eligible for expungement relief for the first time. (It repeals a 2017 law that authorized reduction of these felonies to misdemeanors, but withheld expungement.) Violent and sexual crimes are ineligible. Under the new law, persons convicted of eligible misdemeanors may petition for expungement one year after conviction, or completion of incarceration or supervision if later. The waiting period is extended to two years for persons convicted of more than one eligible misdemeanor, and to five years for eligible felonies. Persons who have completed substance abuse treatment or graduated from a state-approved job training program may seek relief after an abbreviated waiting period (90 days for a single misdemeanor; one year for multiple misdemeanors; three years for felonies). Employers required by state or federal law to conduct a background check may access expunged convictions. More information can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, West Virginia profile. Kentucky - Expanded expungement eligibility and procedural reforms On March 26, 2019, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed SB 57 (effective June 26, 2019), which makes several changes to Kentucky's expungement law, expanding non-conviction and felony eligibility. First, the new law will make charges dismissed without prejudice eligible for expungement after a 5-year waiting period (under current law, such charges cannot be expunged). § 431.076. Second, certificates of eligibility will no longer need to be sought prior to a petition to expunge a non-conviction record (but are still required for a conviction record). Third, the new law expands eligibility to vacate, dismiss, and expunge class D felony convictions. A 2016 law had made a specific list of class D felony offenses eligible (or multiple eligible felonies stemming from a single incident). Prior to that, Class D felonies were only eligible if adjudication was deferred. Under SB 57, any Class D felony or a "series" of such felonies will be eligible, except for violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 189A.010 (DUI), 508.032 (domestic assault), or 519.055 (impersonating a peace officer), abuse of public office, a sex offense, an offense committed against a child, or an offense that resulted in serious bodily injury or death. § 431.073. If a prosecutor objects to expunging a Class D felony from this expanded set of offenses, the applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence at a hearing that vacating the judgment and expunging the record is consistent with public welfare and safety, supported by the applicant's behavior since conviction, and warranted by the interests of justice. Id. More details about this law can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Kentucky profile. Nebraska - Automatic sealing of juvenile records expanded On March 27, 2019, Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts signed LB 354 (effective three months after the legislature adjourns in 2019), which makes a host of changes to facilitate the sealing of juvenile records. Most notably, this new law expands automatic juvenile sealing (which already covers non-conviction dispositions) to include satisfactory completion of juvenile probation, supervision, or other treatment or rehabilitation program or a county court probation or sentence. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,108.03. More details about this law can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Nebraska profile. Wyoming - Juvenile expungement procedures strengthened On February 15, 2019, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed HB 44, which makes several changes to strengthen Wyoming's juvenile expungement laws, effective effective July 1, 2019. These changes include the following. No filing fee may be charged for a petition to expunge juvenile records. A state or municipality may petition to expunge juvenile records. Prosecutors have 20 days to object to a petition for juvenile expungement, after which the court may summarily grant the request. A minor admitted to a diversion program or granted a deferral, or whose arrest, charges, or disposition do not result in conviction or adjudication, may petition to expunge municipal and circuit court records in the same manner as juvenile records. Expungement of juvenile records (and certain municipal and circuit court records involving minors) is defined to mean destruction of records. More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Wyoming profile. Virginia - Automatic expungement for absolute pardons On February 27, 2019, Governor Ralph Northam signed HB 2278, which takes effect on July 1, 2019. This new law will entitle a person who receives an “absolute” pardon to automatic judicial expungement—no petition need be filed with the court. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-392.2(I). (Absolute pardons are generally granted only for innocence.) More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Virginia profile. OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING Ohio - Preliminary determination of whether record disqualifies from occupational licensure; publication of disqualifying convictions On December 27, 2018, the Ohio Legislature enrolled SB 225, which became law 10 days later without action by the governor. Effective April 5, 2019, anyone who has a conviction may request at any time that a licensing authority determine whether the conviction disqualifies the person from obtaining an occupational or professional license. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 9.78(B). A fee of no more than $25 may be charged. Id. Within thirty days of receiving a request, the licensing authority must inform the person of its decision (the decision is not binding if the licensing authority determines that the person's convictions differ from what was included in the request). Id. In addition, licensing authorities must make available on the internet a list of all criminal offenses for which a conviction would disqualify a person from obtaining a license. § 9.78(C). More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Ohio profile. Utah - Preliminary determination of whether record disqualifies from occupational licensure On March 25, 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a law that will allow a person with a criminal record to apply at any time for a determination of whether their record would disqualify them from obtaining a license in an occupation or profession regulated by Title 58 of the Utah code, when it takes effect on May 14, 2019. See HB 90; Utah Code Ann. § 58-1-310. A fee may be charged. Within 30 days of receipt of a completed application, the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing must make a written determination, and the decision may include additional steps the individual could take to qualify for a license. Id. This new law also amends the definition of "unprofessional conduct" in § 58-1-501(2), based on which a license may be denied or restricted. Existing law defines "unprofessional conduct" to include, among other things, a plea or conviction for a crime of moral turpitude or a crime that bears a "reasonable relationship" to safe or competent performance of the occupation. § 58-1-501(2). The new law replaces "reasonable relationship" with "substantial relationship." See id; HB 90. More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, Utah profile. EMPLOYMENT New Mexico - Ban-the-box in the private employment On April 3, 2019, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB 96, which will extend "ban-the-box" to include private employers when it goes into effect. Under the new law, if a private employer uses an employment application, the employer may not make an inquiry regarding an applicant's criminal history. (Enacted as new section of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-2-1, et seq.) Nonetheless, an employer "may take into consideration an applicant's conviction after review of the applicant's application and upon discussion of employment with the applicant." And an employer may notify the public or an applicant that the law or the employer's policy could disqualify an applicant with a certain criminal history from particular positions. Id. More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, New Mexico profile. (Note that the ban-the-box law applicable to public employers in New Mexico is considerably more protective of individuals with a record, prohibiting inquiries until the applicant has been selected as a finalist, and disallowing consideration of non-conviction records and misdemeanors not involving "moral turpitude.") CLEMENCY South Dakota - Streamlined clemency process On February 5, 2019, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed HB 1005, which authorizes a hearing panel of two Board members appointed by the chair to make clemency recommendations to the governor. See HB 1005 (repealing the requirement in S.D. Codified Laws § 24-13-4.6 that commutation and pardon recommendations be made by a majority of the nine-member board, and making conforming amendments to §§ 24-15A-10 and 24-15A-11). A new provision of § 24-15A provides for review of a panel’s decision to deny a pardon recommendation by the full Board, which may “adopt, modify, or reject the panel’s denial and recommend a pardon.” More details can be found in the Restoration of Rights Project, South Dakota profile. MISCELLANEOUS Virginia - Reinstatement of drivers' licenses An amendment to Virginia's 2019 budget bill specifically requested by Governor Ralph Northam to "eliminate[] the unfair practice of revoking a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay court fines and fees," was accepted by the legislature on April 3, 2019. See HB 1700. When this law becomes effective on July 1, it will immediately reinstate driving privileges to more than 627,000 Virginians.
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<<
Excessive filing fees frustrate new expungement schemes (6/3/2016) - How much is a clean slate worth? That’s the question many people with criminal records are asking in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee, where the cost of filing for expungement is (or will soon be) between $450 and $550. To put that into perspective: In Kentucky, the $500 fee required to expunge an eligible felony conviction under a new law that takes effect in July will equal nearly half of the monthly wages of a full-time worker earning the state’s $7.25 minimum wage. The relative cost will be even higher for the many people who have difficulty securing steady full-time employment because of their criminal record. The high filing fee puts relief effectively out of reach for most of those it was intended to benefit, even if they elect to file without retaining a lawyer. There is a major disconnect between these exorbitant fees and the policy rationale that has led many states to create or expand expungement opportunities in recent years. Expungement improves the employment prospects of people with criminal records, allowing them to achieve a degree of economic stability that in turn discourages further criminal behavior. People held back from economic stability by their criminal records are the people that are likely to benefit most from expungement, and the social advantages of expungement are most keenly experienced among this population. But these are the very people least likely to be able to afford to pay high application fees. According to an article by Maura Ewing published by the Marshall Project earlier this week that takes a closer look at the issue, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee are outliers among states that allow for expungement in charging such high fees: Many states charge $150 or less to apply for expungement ... and some states offer a waiver if the applicant is too poor to pay. In the 17 states that allow for expungement of low-level felonies, "the application fee is generally in line with standard court fees." So why are the application fees in those three states so high, and where does that money go? Ewing found that while Louisiana's fees were considered necessary to cover the costs of an inefficient and underfunded justice system, the fees in Kentucky and Tennessee were driven solely by the prospect of generating general revenue. From the article: In Tennessee and Kentucky, bloated prices have little to do with processing the application, but rather the state revenue they were designed to produce. Fifty-five percent of the cash collected in Tennessee goes into the state’s general fund. In Kentucky, it will be a full 90 percent. The prospect of revenue is exactly why Tennessee lawmakers were persuaded to pass felony expungement legislation in 2012, said State Representative Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat. At the time, the official estimate was that the law would raise $7 million for the state annually. But it didn't turn out that way. Apparently the Tennessee legislature failed to consider that the state’s $450 fee would be an insurmountable obstacle for many otherwise eligible petitioners: In reality, it has generated only about $130,000 each year according to an analysis by a criminal justice nonprofit, Just City. The lack of income is tied to the fact that few would-be applicants can afford to apply, Akbari said. Those disparities are now causing some Tennessee lawmakers to reconsider the high fees; but others seem unwilling to act if lowering the fee means even a modest decrease in the state’s revenue stream. The relatively small revenue stream provided by the expungement fee has complicated legislative reform. A recent bill, sponsored by Akbari, would have lowered it by $100. It had wide bipartisan support, but never made it to the floor because it would have reduced overall income by $88,000. Akbari is undeterred and plans to reintroduce it next year. The $100 reduction is a baby step, she said. Eventually she would like the fee to reflect only the cost of processing the application. As it stands, the costs are so prohibitive in Tennessee that advocates have resorted to creating private funds to pay the fees on the behalf of petitioners who cannot afford them. Public awareness of the issue is gaining momentum in Tennessee. At a fundraising event in February, Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland raised $55,000 in private donations to cover the cost of expungement for indigent applicants. A similar fund run by Just City … has underwritten 70 applicants since its launch three years ago — a modest gain, said Josh Spickler, the Just City executive director. In its reporting on the enactment of Kentucky’s new expungement law, the AP noted that it will give over 60,000 people with felony records a chance at a clean slate. But if Tennessee is any indication, the $500 application fee will make expungement a practical impossibility for those who could benefit from it the most. And, since a vast majority of the fees will go directly into the state's general fund, for which there are many strong defenders, it could be many years before the legislature acts to reconcile the law's substantive policy goals and its deterrent fee stucture.
Expungement expansion round-up (2016 edition) (5/23/2016) - More and more states are enacting new expungement and sealing laws, or expanding existing ones, some covering convictions for the first time. The first four months of 2016 alone saw courts given significant new authority to limit access to criminal records in four states, and bills have been introduced in several others that promise more new laws in months to come. In April, Kentucky authorized expungement of felonies for the first time, while New Jersey reduced waiting periods for some offenses and made expungement automatic for some others. Also in April, Maryland's Governor Hogan signed that state's Justice Reinvestment Act, permitting expungement of misdemeanor convictions for the first time. Beginning in November, Pennsylvania courts will have new authority to seal misdemeanor offenses, and follow-up bills have been introduced in both houses to make sealing automatic for most non-felony records after a waiting period. There are also several pending proposals to significantly expand existing expungement laws in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Rhode Island. We take a closer look at each of these new expungement authorities below. The new laws evidence the growing momentum behind second-chance reforms. They also show how expansion of expungement and sealing mechanisms can be an incremental process. For example, the legislatures in Maryland and Pennsylvania first tested the waters by giving courts new authority to mitigate low-level conviction records in relatively limited ways, with both following up shortly after with proposals to increase both the availability and effectiveness of those mechanisms. Meanwhile, states with fairly robust expungement mechanisms already in place, like New Jersey, Missouri, and Kentucky, have taken steps to make relief available sooner and to more people. Relatedly, in the first four months of 2016, six more states enacted or expanded state-wide ban-the-box laws limiting inquiry about criminal records at early stages of the hiring process, bringing the total to 23. Perhaps the most significant thing about these legislative initiatives is the almost total absence from the debate of objections based on public safety concerns. Indeed, to the extent the principal purpose of expungement laws is to increase employment opportunities for people with a criminal record, their proponents argue that they actually reduce recidivism. As legislators and their constituents witness firsthand the additional benefits provided by each small expansion of expungement authority, they are increasingly willing to take those reforms a few steps further. For a review of expungement laws in all 50 states, see here. Newly enacted and newly effective legislation: Kentucky – HB-40 In April, Governor Matt Bevin signed HB-40, giving people convicted of certain non-violent Class D felonies or who have had received a full pardon the opportunity to petition to have their convictions vacated, charges dismissed, and records expunged. Previously, expungement was only available for misdemeanors. A waiting period of five crime-free years applies, and vacatur and expungement may only be sought once in a person’s lifetime (though multiple eligible felonies stemming from the same incident may be expunged under a single petition). Expunged records are deleted from official databases (including law enforcement), will not show up in background checks, and need not be acknowledged. The court and other agencies “shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter.” Felony expungement also restores the right to vote. The law will take effect in July. The law’s short waiting period and broad effect are good news to anyone with an eligible conviction, but the high $500 filing fee required to apply could make relief unattainable for many Kentuckians. The irony is that the people most likely to benefit from the new law -- those who have difficulty finding employment because of their record -- are the same people least likely to be able to afford the fee. High filing fees have come recently under fire in Tennessee, where the $450 filing fee for expungement has become so prohibitive that groups have resorted to creating private funds to pay the fees on behalf of petitioners. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Kentucky here; and our in-depth post on the new law here. New Jersey – P.L. 2015, c. 261 In April, P.L. 2015, c. 261 went into effect, authorizing immediate expungement following successful completion of drug court or court-ordered rehabilitation, allowing for early expungement of youthful drug offenses, reducing the waiting period for expungement of both misdemeanors (or “disorderly persons offenses,” as they are known in the Garden State) and felonies (“indictable offenses”), and allowing felonies and misdemeanors to be expunged at the same time. The new law also makes expungement of non-conviction records automatic and immediate. The law’s drug court expungement provision is expected to have the greatest impact. According to one article, “in the last 15 years, nearly 20,000 people have been enrolled in the state’s Drug Court program.” Under the new law, anyone who successfully completes a court-ordered rehabilitation program under NJSA § 2C:35-14 may have the record expunged immediately upon discharge. Expungement is mandatory “unless [the court] finds that the need for the availability of the record outweighs the desirability of having the person freed from any disabilities associated with their availability.” The law is retroactive, so that people who were successfully discharged prior to the new law's effective date can petition the convicting court for expungement. Expungement under this provision is not necessarily permanent, though: Acess to the record may be restored if the person is subsequently convicted of a crime, and “no future expungements shall be granted.” In effect, this gives individuals only one bite at the expungement apple. The new law also allows persons convicted of low-level drug offenses when they 21 years old or younger to petition for expungement just one year after completion of their sentence if they have no other convictions and no probation or parole violations. The presumptive waiting period for felony and misdemeanor expungement through the normal route remains ten and five years, respectively. However, the new law offers an “early pathway” to expungement: If the court finds that expungement “is in the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense, and the applicant’s character and conduct since conviction,” then the court may expunge a felony after five years and a misdemeanor after three. Though a person may only seek expungement once, up to three misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time, and, under the new law, up to two misdemeanors may be expunged at the same time as a single felony. Previously, expungement of a misdemeanor precluded felony expungement, and conviction of a felony precluded misdemeanor expungement. If multiple offenses are expunged at once, the waiting period runs from the date of the latest conviction. The legislature had originally proposed to reduce the waiting periods for felonies and misdemeanors outright (five years for felonies and three years for misdemeanors). The discretionary waiting period reduction that found its way into the new law was the result of a compromise with Governor Christie, who vetoed the original proposal in January, saying: As written, this bill would cut in half the presumptive waiting period to expunge indictable offenses, often felonies, from ten years to five years, and eliminate an important safeguard which allows a judge to consider whether granting an expungement is in the public’s interest. The current public interest exception to the presumptive waiting period is an effective and efficient way to help ex-offenders combat the collateral consequences of their offense, while also ensuring that public safety is not compromised. Taken as a whole, the new law represents a major overhaul of New Jersey’s expungement scheme, making it easier for people to clear their records and allowing them to do it sooner. Unfortunately, the new law did not expand upon the list of offenses that are eligible for expungement through the usual route. In addition to violent felonies, most first and second degree non-violent drug crimes remain ineligible. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in New Jersey here. A "New Law Advisory" on the changes published by the Administrative Office of the Courts is available here. Maryland – Justice Reinvestment Act (SB-1005) Just this month, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed the Justice Reinvestment Act, a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill that authorizes courts to expunge misdemeanor offenses for the first time. The new expungement authority follows closely on the heels of a law enacted last year that allowed for “shielding” of certain misdemeanors. Records expunged under the new bill are subject to more expansive protections than those that are merely “shielded;” however, the waiting period for sealing is much longer. Under the new law, over 100 enumerated misdemeanors are eligible for expungement after ten crime-free years. Eligible offenses include second degree assault, drug possession, prostitution, theft, disorderly conduct, various fraud offenses, and various regulatory offenses. Second degree assault and “domestically related offenses” are subject an an extended 15-year waiting period. Only 12 non-violent misdemeanors are eligible for shielding under the law enacted last year, but a record may be shielded after only three years. Expungement under the new law is discretionary, and a court can only grant a petition if sealing “is in the best interests of justice,” and the person does not pose a public safety risk. Shielding is similarly discretionary, but may be granted under a lower “good cause” standard. Records that are expunged are afforded more protection than those that are shielded, which explains the heightened eligibility requirements that apply to expungement. A record that is expunged may only be opened by court order and is destroyed after three years. A person may not be required to disclose information about an expunged records to an employer, educational institution, or government licensing agency. Additionally, a person cannot be denied employment or licensure solely because of a refusal to disclose an expunged record. Shielded records are afforded far less protection in comparison: Though they are not publicly available and may not generally be used by employers or licensing boards, any employer or licensing agency that is required or authorized by law to inquire into a person’s criminal record may access a person’s shielded record, as may health occupation boards, child care facilities, and the medical marijuana commission, and others. Prior to the enactment of the new shielding and expungement laws, there was no way to hide or get rid of any adult criminal conviction, with small exceptions for nuisance offenses, decriminalized offenses, and pardoned non-violent first-offender convictions. In spite of the legislature’s recent flurry of action, all felonies remain ineligible for expungement or shielding. The new law will take effect on October 1, 2017. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Maryland here; and our in-depth post on the Mafryland "shielding" law enacted last year here. Pennsylvania SB-166 (2015) Beginning on November 14, Pennsylvanians will be able to seal the records of 2nd and 3rd degree misdemeanors and ungraded offenses under an “order for limited access,” thanks to a law enacted last year. As was the case in Maryland before the passage of the shielding law, there was previously no way for Pennsylvanians to seal or expunge their conviction records (with narrow exceptions for certain elderly applicants and pardoned convictions). Sealing will be available after a ten-year waiting period, during which time the petitioner may not have been arrested or prosecuted for another offense. People with certain convictions, including simple assault (except in the 3rd degree), four or more offenses punishable by imprisonment of one or more years, and any offense punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, will be ineligible. Sealing appears to be discretionary, though the law provides no standards to guide the court’s discretion. Sealed records will not disappear and will not be entirely confidential. They will remain available to state professional and occupational licensing agencies and to agencies such as the Department of Human Services for child protective services uses, as well as to criminal justice agencies. However, sealed records will be unavailable to the general public, including private employers and landlords, and, unless requested by an agency to whom disclosure is already authorized, “no individual shall be required nor requested to disclose information about the person’s [sealed] criminal history records.” The limited effect of sealing is understandable from a political perspective given that this is Pennsylvania's first general authority for sealing convictions. What is less understandable is the fact that an arrest for conduct not proven in court resets the ten-year waiting period -- itself already relatively long compared to the waiting periods for sealing of minor convictions in other jurisdictions. As discussed in the next part, the legislature is already considering broadening the effect of sealing, but there have been no proposals to amend the law to address the effect of arrests. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Pennsylvania here. Pending legislation Pennsylvania SB-1197/HB-1984 Twin “Clean Slate” bills introduced in April would follow up on last year’s sealing bill by making make sealing automatic upon satisfaction of an eligibility waiting period: Ten years for misdemeanors, five years for summary offenses, and seven years for juvenile adjudications. Sealing of non-conviction records will be automatic and immediate. The bills would also eliminate the exception under the current law that allows for most occupational and licensing boards to consider records that have been sealed. tisan sponsorship. According to Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, both bills have received broad bi-partisan support, and indeed the Senate passed its bill unanimously not long after its introduction. Missouri SB-588 On May 11, the Missouri legislature passed a bill that would significantly reduce the waiting periods for both felony and misdemeanor expungement. The bill is currently awaiting action from Governor Nixon, who said he will give it serious consideration. The bill would reduce the waiting period for felony expungement from 20 years down to seven. Misdemeanor waiting periods would be reduced from ten years to three. If the bill is approved, it is expected to drastically increase the number of expungement applications filed in the state. One report notes that, “according to a financial analysis of the proposal, the additional number of people filing for expungement could trigger the hiring of hundreds of workers to process the requests.” The benefit of reduced waiting periods would come with a trade-off, though: Under the proposed law, a person would only be able to expunge one felony or two misdemeanors in their lifetime (although, multiple offenses resulting from the same indictment would be treated as a single expungement of the highest-level offense). Under current law, there is no limit on the number of convictions that can be expunged, with the odd caveat that a person cannot receive more than one expungement order from the same court. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Missouri here. Oklahoma HB-2397 House Bill 2397, which is currently in conference in Oklahoma’s Senate, would reduce the expungement waiting period for people sentenced to a term of imprisonment or suspended sentence from ten years down to five. Additionally, people convicted of misdemeanors would be allowed to seek expungement immediately upon satisfaction of a fine of $500 or less, so long as imprisonment or a suspended sentence was not ordered. The bill would also allow those convicted of up to two non-violent felonies that have been pardoned to seek expungement. You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Oklahoma here. Rhode Island H-7536, S-2111 Two separate expungement bills are now in committee in the House and Senate. The bill in the House, H-7536, would authorize courts to expunge up to five misdemeanors if a person has remained conviction and arrest-free for ten years and has never been convicted of a felony. The current law only allows for expungement of first-offender misdemeanors. The bill is chiefly backed by Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, a former police officer. The bill in the Senate, S-2111, would permit courts to expunge records related to a deferred sentence immediately upon compliance with all of the terms of the deferral agreement so long as the person has never been convicted of a crime of violence. Deferred sentencing records can be sealed under the current law, but expungement provides a slightly higher degree of protection than sealing. Under both bills, expungement would be contingent upon a person demonstrating "good moral character." You can view our guide to restoration of rights, pardon, expungement & sealing in Rhode Island here.
Kentucky expungement offers fresh start to thousands (4/15/2016) - On Wednesday Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed a bill giving state courts authority for the first time to expunge felony convictions. The new law, HB 40, allows people convicted of specified non-violent class D felonies who have been crime-free for 5 years to petition to have their conviction vacated, charges dismissed, and record expunged. Expunged records are deleted from official databases (including law enforcement), will not show up in background checks, and need not be acknowledged. The court and other agencies "shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter." Democrats in the Kentucky House had worked for years to pass similar legislation, but were unsuccessful until one man's moving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee galvanized bipartisan support for the bill. According to the AP, At least 62,000 convicted felons in Kentucky will have the opportunity to wipe their records clean in part because a 45-year-old man convicted of stealing car radios 27 years ago convinced a powerful Republican lawmaker to change his mind. West Powell, who has not had a run-in with law enforcement in 27 years, told the Committee: "I have this mark on me, it's like the mark of the beast or something," he said. "Every time you apply for a job they ask you have you been convicted. ... So you lie, you work two or three weeks, four weeks, then they find out and fire you. But three or four weeks of work beats no work. So I did it. I did it for years. Just hopping from job to job." Powell's testimony resonated in a special way. From the AP: Powell's testimony was different. It had such an impact on Whitney Westerfield, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, that he reversed his long-held opposition on the spot. Before the meeting was over, he was sending messages to his Republican colleagues telling them they had to pass the bill. Westerfield began drafting the new law two months later and quickly secured the support of the Republican-controlled legislature as well as the Republican Governor. KFVS reported yesterday: "It is a great day when doing the right thing transcends all political boundaries and all ideologies,” Governor Bevin said. “It’s an honor and privilege to be able to sign House Bill 40 into law. It is critical that there is an opportunity for redemption and second chances because America is a land that was founded on these principles. The greatness, uniqueness, beauty and extraordinary nature of America is based on the fact that we do give people an opportunity for redemption.” Senator Westerfield and West Powell were particularly pleased. From KFVS: “I'm grateful to see the passage of a bill that gives hope to tens of thousands of Kentuckians looking for a new start in their lives,” Sen. Westerfield said. “This is one of a handful of enormously consequential days I've had the privilege to experience while serving in the Senate, and I'm thankful for the many hands that worked to bring this to fruition.” .... Powell said he did not know of Westerfield's full role until a reporter told him about it. "This has been a cross to bear for many years for me," he said. "I'm glad that, you know, someone finally listened." The new law is a major victory for second-chance advocates, but it is not without its shortcomings. Most significantly, the $500 filing fee required by the law is a major obstacle to relief for the very people the law was meant to aid -- those unable to find jobs because of their conviction. Additionally, the law's language appears to give courts discretion in determining whether to grant or deny an expungement petition, but fails to articulate any standards for exercising that discretion. A person can seek expungement under the new law only once in their lifetime. However, multiple felonies stemming from the same incident can be expunged simultaneously as long as all are eligible. In addition to authorizing felony expungement, the new law allows people whose convictions have been pardoned to seek expungement for the first time. Note that the two-step procedure of vacatur followed by expungement applies only to felonies; misdemeanor records are already subject under Kentucky law to automatic expungement after five years. Maryland and Pennsylvania may soon join Kentucky in enacting significant second chance legislation this year. The Maryland General Assembly passed a bill earlier this week authorizing misdemeanor expungement that has the strong support of Republican Governor Larry Hogan. And, "Clean Slate" bills were introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature with strong bipartisan support that would authorize automatic sealing of nonviolent misdemeanors and non-conviction records. We have updated our Kentucky Restoration of Rights profile to provide details of the new discretionary felony expungement authority. The law has also been expanded to authorize automatic expungement of multiple misdemeanor convictions.
Outgoing Kentucky governor issues order restoring voting rights (11/24/2015) - UPDATE: Governor Matt Bevin rescinded Governor Beshear's order on December 22, 2015, saying: While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration of rights, it is an issue that must be addressed through the legislature and by the will of the people. Governor Bevins went on to sign a major felony expungement bill in April of 2016 that gives many with felony convictions the chance to restore their voting rights. The outgoing Democratic governor of Kentucky has signed an executive order restoring the right to vote and hold public office to thousands of people convicted of non-violent felonies who have completed their sentences. The order from Gov. Steve Beshear — who leaves office next month — estimates that about 180,000 people in Kentucky have served their sentences yet remain disenfranchised. As a result of the order, 140,000 of those will become immediately eligible to register. Before today, all convicted individuals were required to apply to regain their right to vote to the governor's office, which approved restoration of voting rights on a case-by-case basis. The order does not restore rights to those convicted of specified violent crimes, sex offenses, bribery or treason, who will still have to apply for discretionary restoration. "All of our society will be better off if we actively work to help rehabilitate those who have made a mistake," Beshear said. "And the more we do that, the more the entire society will benefit." Republican Governor-elect Matt Bevin is said to support restoring voting rights to nonviolent offenders, but a spokesperson said he was not notified of Beshear's order until a few minutes before he announced it. "The Executive Order will be evaluated during the transition period," she said. Kentucky was one of only four states that did not automatically restore voting rights to convicted individuals even after they completed all the terms of their sentences. Florida, Virginia, and Iowa still make restoration discretionary for those convicted of felonies; Alabama and Mississippi and a handful of other states make restoration discretionary for certain crimes. A 50-state chart of loss and restoration of civil rights is here. This new order automatically restores voting rights to convicted individuals who meet certain criteria upon their release. In addition to completing their sentences, they must have paid all restitution and have no charges pending. Those who have already been released can fill out a form on the state Department of Corrections' website. The Kentucky legislature has tried and failed numerous times to pass a bill to restore voting rights to convicted individuals. The Republican-controlled Senate would agree only if there was a five-year waiting period, which Democrats refused. Republican State Rep. Jeff Hoover, the minority floor leader of the state House of Representatives, said he supports restoring voting rights to convicted felons but opposes Beshear's method of doing it. "It should be the role of the legislature, not one person, which should address these issues through legislative debate," Hoover said in a news release. "This is a prime example of this Governor following in the footsteps of President Obama and putting his own agenda above the people of Kentucky and the elected legislators who serve them." This is one of several actions Beshear has taken by executive order to accomplish things the state legislature refused to do. In 2011, Beshear used an executive order to create a state health exchange and expand the state's Medicaid program under the federal Affordable Care Act. In June, Beshear raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for some executive branch state employees.