Restoration of Rights Project – South Carolina Profile
Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a South Carolina criminal conviction
Related blog posts:
- More states enact major “second chance” reforms (6/11/2018) - In recent weeks, three more states -- Colorado, Louisiana and Vermont -- have enacted laws intended to make it easier for people with a criminal record to find and keep employment, or otherwise to regain rights and status. We are just now noting Wyoming's enactment in March 2018 of general standards for professional and occupational licensure, which impose new restrictions on how criminal record may be taken into account by licensing agencies, and its amendment of more than a dozen specific licensing laws. In the first five months of 2018 alone, a total of 21 states have enacted legislation to improve opportunities for people with a criminal record, with more similar laws evidently on the way. States have enacted several different types of "second chance" laws this year, from expansion of voting rights to expansion of judicial authority to relieve collateral consequences at sentencing. On May 25, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law an expansion of the state's expungement authority for both adult and juvenile offenders, reducing waiting periods and other eligibility criteria for qualifying felony and misdemeanor convictions. The new law also authorizes courts to expunge non-conviction records 12 months after the conclusion of the case, without need for a petition from the defendant, and without regard to the nature of the offense. This is the third time in recent years that Vermont has extended eligibility for expungement. On May 29, Colorado Governor Hickenlooper signed a bill extending the state's existing authority for sentencing courts to waive application of collateral consequences affecting employment, licensing, and other opportunities and benefits, to make this relief available in all cases regardless of sentence. Previously this waiver authority was available only in cases involving a community-based penalty. Courts are authorized to take action as early as sentencing and throughout the period an individual is under sentence. In this respect, the law resembles the authority proposed by the American Law Institute in the collateral consequences provisions of its new Mode Penal Code: Sentencing. The Colorado law is described in detail in the Colorado profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. At the end of May, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards approved several "second chance" bills: One new law extends voting rights to anyone under sentence for a felony who has not been actually incarcerated in the past five years; two additional laws make minor adjustments to the state expungement law, to exempt deferred adjudication cases from the 15-year eligibility waiting period for a second expungement, and to add to the requirements for filing an expungement motion. Another new law requires the governor to conduct regular periodic reviews of the standards applied by occupational licensing agencies. As finally enacted, this last-mentioned law substantially watered down provisions in earlier versions of the legislation that would have limited agency consideration of criminal records in licensing actions. Earlier this spring, Wyoming enacted a new provision of its general state licensing code establishing a "direct relationship" standard for consideration of conviction by all licensing agencies not otherwise subject to a specific contrary statutory standard. See Wyo. Stat. § 33-1-304. See Enrolled Act 63 (March 2018), available at http://www.wyoleg.gov/2018/Enroll/SF0042.pdf. This provision prohibits consideration of prior convictions that are more than 20 years old, except where the person is still under sentence or the sentence was completed fewer than 10 years ago, and unless the elements of the offense are "directly related to the specific duties and responsibilities of that profession or occupation." Among the new law's policies is that agencies should ensure that applicants have an adequate opportunity to appeal a denial. Wyoming also amended more than a dozen specific professional and occupational licensing statutes to rescind vague qualifications like "good moral character," and to substitute functional criteria specifically tying the nature of a particular crime to the licensed activity pursuant to a direct relationship standard. Licensing schemes affected include those regulating teachers, guides and outfitters, engineers, veterinarians, and nursing home administrators. Licensing standards for chiropractors, nurses, optometrists, dental hygienists, social workers, and marriage and family counselors and substance abuse counselors were also amended. Securities dealers and investment advisers, insurance agents, and athlete agents are covered by the reforms. Legislatures in several other states have passed bills that are currently awaiting approval of the governor, including Illinois, New Hampshire, and Tennessee. The only "second chance" legislation we know of that was disapproved by the governor is the South Carolina legislature's unsuccessful attempt to authorize expungement of drug convictions. We expect again to provide a summary of all new laws enacted in 2018 toward the end of the year, and we will also be keeping the state profiles and other resources in the Restoration of Rights Project up to date in real time.
- 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<<
- Is pardon making a comeback? Probably not, but law reform may be (1/21/2015) - A recent issue of Governing Magazine reports that pardoning is "making a comeback" after decades of neglect. It would be nice if it were true. But the evidence of comeback is thin. Almost all of the jurisdictions where pardoning is thriving today are the same ones where it was thriving a decade ago. In a dozen states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina and South Dakota, pardon has never been neglected, much less abandoned by responsible officials. In these jurisdictions and a handful of others, pardon has deep roots in the justice system and is supported by accountable institutions of government. It is certainly true that Pat Quinn of Illinois and Jerry Brown of California have made generous use of the power of their office after years in which the pardon power in their states languished unused. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia is a newcomer to the small group of governors who evidently feel that pardoning is a responsibility of office. All three are to be commended for it. But three swallows do not make a summer. For the most part pardoning in the United States remains a timid exercise in tokenism, and the vitality of pardon in most jurisdictions still depends on the personal predilections of the particular elected chief executive. Most are not very interested in an activity that has few rewards and many pitfalls. Our President is a case in point. A number of current governors have refused to use their pardon power at all, some invoking bogus separation of powers arguments (Scott of Wisconsin), others making empty promises (Hickenlooper of Colorado). The Marshall Project recently published an article asking if pardon was still the third rail of American politics. Apparently most governors think it is, whatever changes there may have been in the public mood. Legislative alternatives to pardon It seems to me that if governors and presidents are reluctant to use the power of their office to temper what Alexander Hamilton called the "necessary severity" of the criminal code, they have an obligation to see that the legal system addresses the needs pardon serves. Ohio Governor John Kasich did that when he supported legislation to authorize courts to issue "certificates of qualification for employment" to help people with convictions overcome legal restrictions that bar them from certain jobs. Governors in Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota and Vermont have also recently signed legislation giving courts the power to do what they are evidently reluctant to do themselves. That is an acceptable alternative approach to governing, both in theory and in practice. Indeed, pardon was never supposed to be a substitute for law reform, and courts or administrative agencies are likely to be fairer and more accessible than an elected official. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the Obama Administration is interested in supporting legislation that would ameliorate the adverse effects of a criminal record, though this is one of the few areas in which there is bipartisan support for reform in Congress. The President's failure to give criminal justice reform more than a passing mention in the State of the Union address, and only in the context of police/community relations, was discouraging. Many U.S. jurisdictions are attempting to deal with the problems created by mass incarceration, by reducing the number of people who go to prison and by improving social services to keep those who do from going back. Mass conviction has produced a separate and less tractable set of problems, including proliferation of collateral consequences that discourage rehabilitation, and creation of a permanent class of second class citizens defined by their criminal record. The laboratories of democracy have not yet produced a single legislative solution that can command consensus. Reform efforts in some jurisdictions involve limiting public access to criminal records through expungement or sealing, an approach that has both practical and theoretical drawbacks. Other jurisdictions have adopted the more transparent judicial certificates recommended by the 2010 Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act and the 2014 Model Penal Code: Sentencing. Indiana's approach combining the two may be the wave of the future. With a clear problem demanding a legislative solution, the recommendation of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers looks appealing: The three branches of government, on the federal, state, and local levels, should undertake a comprehensive effort to promote restoration of rights and status after conviction. This is a major effort that requires a multi-faceted approach. It should include enactment of laws to circumscribe or repeal existing collateral consequences, and a resolve to stop enacting new ones. More fundamentally, government entities, the legal profession, the media and the business community must promote a change in the national mindset to embrace concepts of redemption and forgiveness, including a public education campaign to combat erroneous and harmful stereotypes and labels applied to individuals who have at one point or another committed a crime. As a cornerstone of this movement, the United States and the states and territories should establish a “National Restoration of Rights Day” to recognize the need to give individuals who have successfully fulfilled the terms of a criminal sentence the opportunity to move on with their lives. This will take leadership at a national level. Given the support for collateral consequences reform in Congress and in governor's mansions across the country, perhaps we will get it.
- 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.