Restoration of Rights Project – Mississippi Profile
Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a Mississippi criminal conviction
Related blog posts:
- Two Southern states enact impressive occupational licensing reforms (9/18/2019) - The 2019 legislative session saw two Southern states enact impressive new laws limiting the ability of occupational licensing boards to exclude qualified applicants based on their criminal record. North Carolina and Mississippi each passed strong new substantive and procedural licensing rules, and both of the new laws show the influence of the Model Law developed by the Institute for Justice. Both states have now eliminated vague "good moral character" criteria, and extended procedural protections that should make it substantially harder for boards to deny licenses based on criminal history. As a result of these bills, both states now prohibit disqualification from licensure unless a crime is "directly related" to the license involved, both require written reasons in the event of denial, and both provide for a preliminary determination as to whether an individual will be favorably considered. In North Carolina's case, this "predetermination" is binding on the board when the applicant later applies. North Carolina’s new law also requires licensing boards to report annually to the legislature on their consideration of applications from people with a criminal record. In 2019, the following additional states have enacted new restrictions on the occupational licensing process: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. All told, in the past eight months 14 states have enacted 18 laws regulating occupational licensing in one form or another, with Texas accounting for five of the 18. These new laws are described in the relevant state profiles of the RRP, and they will be discussed in greater detail in our year-end report. They will also be incorporated into the updating of our general survey of U.S. relief and restoration mechanisms ("Forgiving and Forgetting in American Justice"), which is now underway. The provisions of the new North Carolina and Mississippi laws are summarized below, and are set forth in detail in the respective state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project. North Carolina first imposed general restrictions on its occupational licensing boards in 2013, and the new law substantially strengthens the earlier law, notably in its procedural protections for applicants. Mississippi's Fresh Start Act of 2019 represents that state's first effort to regulate licensing boards in the State, and so one would not necessarily expect its law to be quite as strong as North Carolina's – though it is very close. In summary, both states have taken important new steps to improve employment opportunities and life prospects for people with a criminal record in their states. North Carolina: North Carolina first enacted general licensing non-discrimination law in 2013, and its law then prohibited occupational licensing boards from "automatically" disqualifying an individual based on a criminal record unless the board was "otherwise authorized by law" to do so. The law specified certain factors that agencies could consider in determining whether a license should be granted, but its protections were admittedly quite weak. The State has now substantially strengthened the law to enhance both substantive and procedural protections for people with a record, and extended its provisions to "state agency licensing boards" as well as "occupational licensing boards." Specifically, HB770 amends N.C. Gen. Stat. § 93B-8.1 to impose a "direct relationship standard" for all licenses; to require a board to consider certain factors that before were discretionary, giving effect for the first time to participation in a substance abuse treatment program and to a Certificate of Relief awarded by a court. It exempts only licenses governed by federal law. § 93B-8.1(b)-(b3). The new North Carolina law also provides for robust procedural protections for applicants, including written reasons in the event of a denial and an appeal procedure. § 93B-1(b4)-(b5). It also specifies that individuals may at any time apply for a "predetermination" as to whether their record is "likely" to be disqualifying, a determination that is "binding" on the board in the event of a subsequent application. § 93B-8.1(b6) though (b7). Finally, it amends § 93B-2(a) to requires each board to report annually to the legislature on how many applications it has received from people with a record, and how many were granted and denied. For further details, see the North Carolina profile from the RRP. Mississippi: Until 2019, Mississippi also had no general law regulating consideration of conviction in connection with occupational licensing, although it applied a direct relationship test in connection with some licenses. Under the Fresh Start Act of 2019, no one may be disqualified from engaging in any licensed occupation “solely or in part because of a prior conviction of a crime, unless the crime for which an applicant was convicted directly relates to the duties and responsibilities for the licensed occupation.” Section 3 of SB2781 (not yet codified). Only law licensure is excepted. Under Section 4, licensing authorities shall not include in their rulemaking “vague or generic terms including, but not limited to, ‘moral turpitude,’ ‘any felony,’ and ‘good character.'” Absent applicable state law, licensing authorities “may only consider criminal records that are specific and directly related to the duties and responsibilities for the licensed occupation when evaluating applicants.” In determining whether a conviction is “directly related,” the licensing authority shall make its determination by a clear and convincing standard of proof based on several specified factors, including the nature and seriousness of the crime and the passage of time since its commission, and any evidence of rehabilitation or treatment undertaken by the individual that might mitigate against a direct relation. Under Section 5, an individual with a criminal record may petition a licensing authority at any time for a determination of whether the individual’s criminal record will disqualify the individual from obtaining a license. The licensing authority must inform the individual of his standing within thirty (30) days of receiving the petition, and may charge a fee not to exceed $25.00. If a licensing authority denies an individual a license solely or in part because of the individual’s prior conviction of a crime, the licensing authority shall notify the individual in writing of the following of the grounds and reasons for the denial, that the individual has the right to a hearing to challenge the licensing authority’s decision. In any administrative hearing or civil litigation, “the licensing authority shall carry the burden of proof on the question of whether the applicant’s criminal conviction directly relates to the occupation for which the license is sought.” For further details, see the Mississippi profile from the RRP.
- 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<<
- Ohio pardons provide “only forgiveness, not forgetfulness” (1/29/2015) - On January 28, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court settled an issue it has toyed with for several years, relating to the inherent power of courts to seal criminal records. In State v. Radcliff, a closely divided court held that judicial power to seal a conviction record, including the record of a conviction that has been pardoned, is limited by law. In Ohio, there is no statutory basis for sealing a pardoned conviction as there is in many (though not most) states. The majority evidently found this conclusion an unhappy one, lamenting that "until the General Assembly acts, we are left with the understanding that a pardon provides only forgiveness, not forgetfulness." "Only forgiveness." Is pardon then such a second class prize? What makes an official determination of the recipient's good character by the state's highest elected official so much less attractive an option for mitigating the adverse consequences of conviction than pretending it never occurred? If the answer is that the American people are relentlessly unforgiving, we clearly have some national soul-searching to do. As will come clear from the following discussion, I do not share the Radcliff majority's evident belief that a pardon is worth little unless it results in a court expunging the record of the pardoned conviction (and presumably the pardon itself). In January 2011, Governor Ted Strickland pardoned James Radcliff's five dated convictions (which included "a 1982 felony conviction in Franklin County for breaking and entering a donut shop while possessing a screwdriver") in recognition of his 30 years of law-abiding conduct. A month later Radcliff went to court to have his record sealed, even though the sheer number of his crimes put him outside the category of people authorized to pursue that relief under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2953.31. The court of appeals thought Radcliffe's record of rehabilitation "deserves redemption," and ordered that his petition be granted. The government appealed, arguing that the court had no inherent power to seal a record of conviction, even a pardoned one. The high court held that "if he is to have that redemption, it must come from the General Assembly." Earlier decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court had found inherent judicial power to expunge or seal convictions, but that was before the legislature entered the conversation to define with some precision exactly what convictions it wanted courts to be able to seal. The enactment of sealing legislation meant there was no longer a role for the court to take an independent view of the matter. Over and above the detailed sealing law, the Radcliffe court pointed out that the legislature had also made certain provisions for retaining pardon documents, noting that “[t]he fact that the General Assembly has required that a record of a defendant’s pardon be filed in the same court where the pardoned offense was originally adjudicated expresses the General Assembly’s intent that courts must preserve the record of a pardon, not conceal it.” In determining that courts had no power independent of statute, the Ohio high court expressed disappointment over the legislature’s failure to provide for a broader sealing remedy in cases like Mr. Radcliff's: Despite any frustrations judges may have with their inability to do justice in any given case of a pardoned offender, judges must respect that it is the role of the legislature to address the statutory scheme on sealing records, even in cases in which gubernatorial pardons are granted. Until the General Assembly acts, we are left with the understanding that a pardon provides only forgiveness, not forgetfulness. . . . . The pardon does not wipe the slate clean. If the slate is to be wiped clean for those pardoned of crimes, including Radcliff, the General Assembly must act. The majority associated itself with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in stating that “[a] pardon without expungement is not a pardon.” The three dissenting justices thought it "unnecessary in this case to state the proposition so unequivocally," though they thought there was enough left of the inherent judicial power to order expungement in the "unusual and exceptional circumstances" of a pardon. In concluding that courts have no inherent authority to seal pardoned convictions, the Ohio court is in good company. The Supreme Court of Mississippi recently came to a similar conclusion about the limits of judicial authority in closing records, so that pardon in that state also "provides only forgiveness, not forgetfulness." In this regard, it seems worth noting that a majority of states do not authorize sealing or expungement of pardoned convictions. Of those that do, it is by statute in all but three states (Indiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). Even a presidential pardon provides "only" forgiveness. It appears that a national discussion of the relative merits of forgiving and forgetting as a way of restoring rights and status may be well underway. NOTE: It seems anomalous that Ohio law would provide for "forgetting" out-of-state and federal convictions by authorizing Ohio courts to seal them, but not for "forgiving" them through a Certificate of Qualification for Employment. (See today's post on CQE's here.) How will an Ohio court enforce its sealing order directed to a foreign jurisdiction?
- The New Southern Strategy Coalition works on criminal records reform in the South (12/2/2014) - “I don’t know why everyone is talking about the New Jim Crow; in the South the old one never went away.” – 2013 New Southern Strategy Coalition conference participant Introduction The New Southern Strategy Coalition is a collaborative network of Southern advocacy groups and their national allies, originally convened in 2011 and dedicated to reducing the negative consequences of a criminal record in the South. Because the South has always been seen as a region resistant to criminal justice reform, many national groups do not have a presence there, and state-based advocacy efforts are generally underfunded and understaffed. The voices of those most affected are missing from southern state capitols, and the region is often left out of the national dialogue altogether. NSSC addresses these challenges by providing opportunities for southern organizations to network and share information about regional best practices to minimize legal barriers to reentry. The premise is that state-specific reform efforts in the South will be supported and magnified by the Coalition’s collective goals operating across a unified landscape. NSSC holds regional conferences to discuss effective reform strategies, provides training and materials, ensures that the voices of directly affected individuals are included in a meaningful way, and uses web-based and social media tools to leverage reform efforts. NSSC hopes to lay the foundation for a stronger movement for the reform of reentry policies, both in the South and nationally. While the Coalition recognizes that minimizing interactions with the criminal justice system is the ultimate goal, we have chosen the lens of reentry and collateral consequences as an effective reform tool in a region that has not dealt with its legacy of racism, and which unabashedly declares support for “law and order” policies. Opening the dialogue with efforts to reduce recidivism paves the way for a broader conversation about drug policy and front-end criminal justice reform. NSSC’s vision is that all people throughout the nation have American citizenship rights to fair and equitable opportunities to thrive and succeed politically, socially and economically. Our mission is to be a diverse, Southern-based catalytic force for change, working with national allies and people directly impacted by the criminal justice system and their families, to remove the barriers they face to full participation in society, using direct services, education, organizing, advocacy, and litigation. The Need for a Southern Coalition The Coalition is particularly important for two reasons. First, the South has been ground zero in the build-up of the U.S. prison population. Overall, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, but it is the South that has led this growth trend. Nationwide one in 31 adults is behind bars, on probation or on parole, but in Georgia, for example, one in 13 adults is under correctional control. Second, Southern states tend to have more restrictive barriers to reentry than in other regions, perpetuating a cycle of arrest and recidivism. This was established by the Legal Action Center's seminal report, After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. Given the disproportionate effect of these barriers on communities of color, the need for a regional effort becomes clear. Research has shown that a criminal record constitutes more of a barrier to employment for black men than it does for white men as reported by Devah Pager in Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. The last census found 47% of Black Americans live in the 14 states encompassed by the New Southern Strategy Coalition, and recent reports indicate a trend of black migration to the South. Our experience as southern-based advocates teaches us that reform strategies that work in California or New York are not always effective in Alabama or Mississippi. Also, conservative southern legislators, who dominate our state houses, are generally more interested in what is happening around the region rather than what is happening in other parts of the country. There are many underfunded and understaffed Southern state and local groups that care about these issues and want to become more involved in advocating for change. Unfortunately, national funders are often reluctant to invest in the South because of the lack of infrastructure and capacity of non-profit and advocacy organizations. (See Grantmakers for Southern Progress.) A goal of the Coalition is to strengthen the capacity of these organizations, and through partnership, produce greater results than each group could accomplish on their own. Structure and Activities of the Coalition NSSC is led by a steering committee that consists of several state-based organizations – Georgia Justice Project, The Southern Coalition for Social Justice (North Carolina), South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, LifeLine to Success (Tennessee), and One Voice Mississippi – and two national partners – the National H.I.R.E. Network and the National Employment Law Project. Members have largely donated their time over the last three years to bring the idea of the Coalition to fruition. Beyond the steering committee, NSSC is a loose network of individuals and organizations working on reentry and criminal justice reform. Over 90 individuals, representing over 57 different organizations, have participated in the Coalition by attending one or both of the regional meetings or as presenters on the webinars. NSSC held regional meetings in 2011 in Atlanta, GA and in 2013 in Durham, NC. In 2014, state meetings were held in Mississippi and Tennessee. The NSSC has also hosted several webinars, with its latest webinar coming up on Wednesday, December 3rd, “Reactions to Ferguson from Arch City Defenders.” Please join this effort by signing up on the website, www.newsouthernstrategy.org. After joining, you will receive an email with a passcode that will allow you to log into the members section of the website. It may take up to one week to receive the passcode.