Restoration of Rights Project – Virginia Profile
Guide to restoration of rights, pardon, sealing & expungement following a Virginia criminal conviction
The Collateral Consequences of Arrests and Convictions under D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Law
By the Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs (2014)
Related blog posts:
- Reintegration Champion Awards for 2021 (1/27/2022) - Based on our annual report on 2021 criminal record reforms, the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda keeps getting stronger. A majority of the 151 new laws enacted last year authorize courts to clear criminal records, in some states for the very first time, and several states enacted “clean slate” automatic record clearing. Other new laws restore voting and other civil rights lost as a result of conviction, and still others limit how criminal record is considered by employers, occupational licensing agencies, and landlords. (The report includes specific citations to each of the new laws, and they are analyzed in the larger context of each state's reintegration scheme in our Restoration of Rights Project.) Again this year we have published a Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive legislatures in the past year. While more than a dozen states enacted noteworthy laws in 2021, two states stand out for the quantity and quality of their lawmaking: Arizona and Connecticut share our 2021 Reintegration Champion award for their passage of three or more major pieces of record reform legislation. Arizona – The state enacted eight new laws, including a broad new record clearing law, two laws improving its occupational licensing scheme, and a judicial “second chance” certificate. Arizona also repealed a law authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay and authorized its courts to redesignate some felonies as misdemeanors. Connecticut – Enacted a major automatic record clearing scheme, restored the right to vote and hold office upon release from prison, provided for record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization, and broadened expungement for victims of human trafficking. Another eight states and the District of Columbia earned Honorable Mention for their enactment of at least one major new law: Alabama – Enacted first state record-clearing authority applicable to misdemeanor convictions and pardoned felonies, and extended non-conviction sealing. California – Gave retroactive effect to automatic conviction sealing law enacted in 2019. (This new law may be the most consequential of any enacted last year in terms of its impact on criminal records in the state, and it was done without fanfare or publicity.) District of Columbia – Enacted a comprehensive scheme to limit consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing. Illinois – Added employment discrimination based on conviction to the state Human Rights Act, authorized voter education for prisoners. New Jersey – Enacted a landmark fair housing bill; made some improvements to its 1970’s-era occupational licensing law; and, provided for automatic record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization. (New Jersey was our Reintegration Champion for 2019, but evidently is not resting on its laurels.) New Mexico – Improved 1970’s-era public employment and licensing law; authorized expungement of marijuana convictions; and, enacted a substantial part of the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, limiting and providing relief from collateral consequences. Ohio – Expanded eligibility for record-clearing; significantly improved occupational licensing law. Virginia – Authorized petition-based and automated record-clearing of non-convictions and convictions, including convictions for marijuana possession; restored vote upon release by executive order and took steps to amend constitution to this end. Washington – restored vote upon release from prison; amended occupational licensing standards for health professions; repealed driver’s license suspension based on outstanding financial obligations Low marks go to three states that enacted no record reform laws at all in 2021. While there are six other states in this category this year, the legislatures of Alaska, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin earn their place at the bottom of the heap for having been equally unproductive in 2020 and 2019, years in which almost every other state passed at least some law limiting access to and use of criminal records. The profile of each state's restoration of rights scheme from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project is linked above (except for the states that made no progress). The profiles contain citations and links to the relevant new laws so that interested individuals can check their specific terms.
- Illinois set to become fifth state to cover criminal record discrimination in its fair employment law (2/13/2021) - NOTE: Governor Pritzker signed S1480 into law on March 23. In our recent report on criminal record reforms enacted in 2020, we noted that there were only four states that had fully incorporated criminal record into their fair employment law as a prohibited basis of discrimination. These states (New York, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California) provide that employers can only disqualify a person based on their record if it meets a specific standard, such as being related to the work in question or posing an unreasonable risk to public safety. Illinois will become the fifth state to take this important step as soon as Governor Pritzker signs S1480. Illinois has been working up to this, having amended its Human Rights Act in 2019 to prohibit employment discrimination based on “an arrest not leading to a conviction, a juvenile record, or criminal history record information ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded.” With S1480, Illinois has now taken the final step of incorporating criminal record fully into the law's structure, which includes authorization to file a lawsuit in the event administrative enforcement is unsatisfactory. A preliminary analysis of the new Illinois law indicates that it now offers more protection for more people with a criminal record in the employment context than any state in the Nation other than California. The provisions of the Illinois bill, enrolled and sent to the governor for signature on February 12, are described below. We then compare them with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. This post notes the handful of additional states that have fortified their record-related employment protections in recent years, then summarizes relevant reforms that were enacted in 2020. The new Illinois law makes it unlawful for any employer, employment agency, or labor union to use a conviction record “as a basis to refuse to hire” or to take other employment related adverse action, unless “there is a substantial relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held” or “the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-103.1(A). “Substantial relationship” is defined to mean “a consideration of whether the employment position offers the opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur.” In making a determination under subsection (A), the employer must consider a variety of factors including the length of time since conviction, the extent of the record, the nature and severity of the conviction itself and its relationship to the safety and security of others, the age of the employee at the time of the offense, and evidence of “rehabilitation efforts.” 5/2-103.1(B). If the employer reaches a preliminary determination of disqualification or other adverse action, the employer must give written notice and an opportunity for respond, and in the event of a final determination an explanation of the reasons.” 5/2-103.1(C). The new Illinois law compares well with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. Although the Illinois “substantial relationship” standard is not as protective as New York’s “direct relationship” standard, Illinois law elaborates the standard with the same public safety emphasis and offers more procedural protections in the form of reasons and an opportunity for reconsideration. Also, unlike New York, it prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records and sealed or expunged convictions. Hawaii has a weaker “rational relationship” standard and also excludes a large number of employments, although it bars inquiry into criminal record until after a conditional offer has been made and thereafter prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records, as well as any conviction more than seven years in the past for felonies and five years for misdemeanors (as reduced in 2020). California also bars inquiry until after a conditional offer has been made, prohibits consideration of non-conviction records and records that have been the subject of judicial relief, provides considerable procedural protections, and has the strongest standard for testing the relevance of a conviction (“direct and adverse relationship”). Wisconsin’s law is the weakest of the five: it applies a “substantial relationship” standard but does not elaborate it, and it offers no procedural protections to applicants or existing employees other than administrative enforcement of this substantive standard. The District of Columbia has also enacted robust fair chance employment protections that apply to both public and many private employers, but its law stops short of authorizing individuals dissatisfied with action by the Office of Human Rights to go to court. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Other states are still catching up, with many stalled at the "ban the box" stage. Our report on new legislation in 2020 documented comparatively modest but still noteworthy advances toward fair chance employment in 6 states last year. We reprint the discussion of 2020 reforms from our report below: In 2020, 6 states expanded access to employment for people with a record through 7 bills and one executive order. Two states (New Hampshire and Virginia) enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to public employment, while North Carolina’s governor issued a broad executive order that not only prohibited public employers from making application-stage inquiries, but also established standards for considering criminal record thereafter. Maryland’s legislature overrode a governor’s veto to apply application-stage limits on inquiry to private employers with more than 15 employees. Hawaii amended its venerable fair employment law to reduce the periods after which a conviction may not be considered by any employers. Overall, however, these 2020 laws had limited effect on the fair employment landscape. At the end of 2020, there were still only four states (California, Hawaii, New York, and Wisconsin) that included discrimination based on criminal record as part of their general fair employment scheme, and all but California’s law were enacted many years ago. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have, like Illinois, more recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Most of the fair employment laws recently enacted involve fairly modest limits on application stage inquiry. The National Employment Law Project keeps a running tab of new “ban-the-box” laws, and reported in September 2020 that 36 states and more than 150 municipal and county ordinances now require public employers to consider applicants’ qualifications before their criminal histories, with 14 extending these limits to private employers. However, as noted in our Many Roads report, few of these laws include the kind of robust post-inquiry standards that make the 2020 North Carolina Executive Order described below stand out. The new employment laws and orders in 2020 are described briefly below: Hawaii shortened the lookback period in which a person may be disqualified based on conviction under its fair employment law, to seven years for felonies and five years for misdemeanors, excluding periods of incarceration (SB 2193). Hawaii includes discrimination based on conviction record in its more general fair employment practices law, and under preexisting law it is an unlawful employment practice to inquire into arrest and conviction records before the employee receives a conditional offer of employment, and an employer could withdraw an offer only if a conviction within the previous 10 years (exclusive of any period of incarceration) “bears a rational relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position.” Under this new law, 10-year period is reduced to 7 years for felonies and 5 years for misdemeanors. Maryland enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to private employers with more than 15 employees, overriding Governor Hogan’s veto. The law prohibits inquiry into an applicant’s criminal record until the first interview; and authorizes civil penalties. Certain employment is excepted. The law specifically does not preclude local jurisdictions from imposed stricter standards (HB 994). Md. Code Lab. & Empl. § 3-1403. North Carolina’s governor issued an executive order (EO 158), which directs all state agencies to remove questions about criminal record from employment application forms, and to defer inquiries until “the completion of the initial job interview.” The order further prohibits agencies from considering the following: (i) expunged or pardoned convictions, (ii) charges or convictions that do not relate to the underlying employment matter, (iii) arrests not resulting in a conviction, or (iv) charges resulting in dismissal or not guilty. State employment decisions “shall not be based on the criminal history of an individual unless that criminal history is demonstrably job-related and consistent with business necessity associated with the position, or if state or federal law prohibits hiring an individual convicted of certain crimes for a particular position.” New Hampshire prohibited an application-stage inquiry into criminal record in public employment prior to the initial interview, “unless the public employer is required to screen applications for specific criminal convictions because it is prohibited from hiring those with such convictions under state or federal law” (HB 253). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:37-c(II). Utah removed an absolute barrier based on certain convictions for employment with vulnerable populations, if the applicant will be serving only adults whose only impairment is a mental health diagnosis. In addition, certain convictions cannot be disqualifying after 10 conviction-free years for felonies, and three years for misdemeanors (HB 436). Virginia prohibited inquiry into criminal record by public employers prior to interview. Excepts law enforcement employment and certain other sensitive employments (HB 757). Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-2812.1, 15.2-1505.3. Virginia added crimes to the list for which an exception is available for employment with a substance abuse or mental health program at community services boards and private providers of behavioral health services licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. This law also allows the Department to hire individuals convicted of various crimes at a state facility if the Department determines the individual has been rehabilitated successfully and is not a risk to those receiving services (HB 1540). Virginia also decriminalizes marijuana possession, restricted public access to records relating to past arrests, charges, or convictions for this offense, prohibited employers and educational institutions from inquiring about them, and prohibited state and local officials from requiring an applicant for a license, permit, registration, or governmental service to disclose information about them (SB 2 / HB 972). Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-250.1; 19.2-389.3.
- 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.
- Pennsylvania expands access to 255 licensed occupations for people with a record (7/14/2020) - On July 1, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law an expansive new regulation of the state's occupational licensing process, giving the agencies that control access to 255 occupations detailed new standards for considering criminal records in the licensing process. Pennsylvania has not addressed these issues on a state-wide basis since the 1970's, and with proper implementation the new law promises a path to the middle class for skilled individuals whose career prospects might otherwise be limited. While Pennsylvania's law is by far the most ambitious one of its kind passed this year, five other states have also passed laws since the beginning of 2020 regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing. Two were states that previously had no general law governing this issue (Idaho and Missouri) and three were states that extended laws passed in recent years (Iowa, Utah and West Virginia). Pennsylvania's new law is analyzed in detail below. The provisions of the other five states' new licensing laws are summarized briefly at the end of the post, and the laws of all six states are written up in greater detail in the relevant state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project. Pennsylvania's new occupational licensing law Pennsylvania's new law (SB637) is very strong substantively. To summarize, it supersedes provisions in existing law that provide for "good moral character" criteria for certain licenses, as well as laws that mandate disqualification, including 10-year bars that apply in numerous health-related licensing schemes. It requires each licensing agency to identify offenses that may be disqualifying as "directly related" to the occupation, pursuant to a notice-and-comment rule-making process. If an offense is not considered "directly related," the new law mandates an individualized assessment of each applicant pursuant to detailed criteria that emphasize public safety. It gives individuals recently released from prison a chance to demonstrate their abilities through offering "restricted" licenses to those who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness under the law's new standards. Finally, it expands the category of records that may not be considered to include convictions that are subject to an order of "limited access." At the same time, unlike recent licensing reforms in some other states, it does not rule out consideration of dated or minor convictions. The new law is not as strong from a procedural standpoint as some other recent licensing reforms, and its due process provisions are not well-developed. For example, it does not require licensing agencies to defend record-related denials with written reasons, nor does it provide for an administrative appeal, so that applicants who have been denied a license must seek redress in the courts through the state's administrative procedure act. In this respect, disappointed applicants seeking to challenge an agency decision are in no better position under this 2020 law than disappointed applicants for employment under Pennsylvania's 1980 law, which also has strong standards but no enforcement mechanism. It is possible that the legislature decided to wait to see how licensing agencies perform under the new substantive criteria before imposing new procedural requirements. As an interim accountability measure, the new law includes a requirement that each agency make detailed statistical reports to the legislature after two years. If the agencies proceed with good will to implement the new criteria, many individuals previously excluded should benefit. As background, in 2017 Governor Tom Wolf directed the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA) in the Department of State to study several licensing-related issues in Pennsylvania, including how licensees are disciplined, how licenses from other jurisdictions are considered, and how a criminal record operates to deny many licenses either by operation of law or because of unaccountable discretionary decisions. The resulting report (Review of State Occupational and Professional Licensure Board Requirements) found a number of flaws in how people with criminal records are treated in the licensing process: Criminal history bans also vary from board to board, with significant bans set in statute for most healthcare-related occupations. Lastly, the requirement to demonstrate “good moral character” is loosely defined and while this administration has provided guidance through policy statements regarding the use and review of criminal histories there is the potential for it to be applied unevenly across boards. The governor and administration officials should examine the impact of criminal history bans and “good moral character” requirements on ensuring Pennsylvania residents are able to engage in the workforce without unnecessary barriers. The report found that, particularly with respect to health-related licenses, "[a]mong the regional comparison group, Pennsylvania is an outlier in applying an automatic criminal history licensure ban." See report at p. 25, also listing professions that have a 10-year bar. The report made a number of recommendations which provided new organization for the 29 agencies and commissions that regulate 255 licensure types, a single disciplinary structure, and licensure by endorsement for people with out-of-state licenses. Most importantly for our purposes, the report made a number of recommendations related to criminal records that two years later have now made their way into SB637. The new law applies to the 29 licensing agencies under BPOA jurisdiction, and includes architects, pharmacists, veterinarians, podiatrists, psychologists, physicians, nurses, barbers and cosmetologists, occupational therapists, nail technicians, and engineers. Building trades requiring a license, teachers, and lawyers are not covered. Under preexisting law, licensing agencies "may consider convictions of the applicant of crimes but the convictions shall not preclude the issuance of a license, certificate, registration or permit." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9124(a). Licensing agencies may not consider records of arrest if there was no conviction of a crime based on the arrest; convictions which have been annulled or expunged; convictions of a summary offense; convictions for which the individual had received a pardon from the Governor; or "convictions which do not relate to the applicant's suitability for the license, certificate, registration or permit." § 9124(b)(2). Agencies are free to suspend or revoke a license because of a felony conviction, or where the applicant was convicted of "a misdemeanor which relates to the trade, occupation or profession for which the license, certificate, registration or permit is sought." § 9124(c). SB637 established in Title 63 of the Pennsylvania statutes a new Chapter 31 to establish standards for consideration of criminal record in licensing. The new law amends existing § 9124(a) to add to records that may not be considered any that have been made subject to limited access, including by the state's automated "clean slate" process. It also specifically supersedes any other provision of law that disqualifies an individual for a license or provides for "good moral character" findings. § 3113(a). It then establishes in §§ 3113(b) and (c) an elaborate two-stage inquiry to determine qualification for licensure: First, the agency must determine, considering a list of potentially disqualifying crimes developed through a notice-and-comment process under § 3117, whether there is a "direct relationship" between the applicant's criminal record and the profession. ("Direct relationship is defined in § 3102 as having "a direct bearing on the fitness or bearing on the fitness or ability to perform one or more of the duties of responsibility necessarily related to the profession trade or occupation"). § 3113(b) Second, if there is not such a direct relationship, the agency must make an "individualized assessment" as to whether licensing the individual would pose a public safety risk, as determined under a long list of specified factors. § 3113(c). Section 3113(d) makes clear that those convicted of sexual offenses may not qualify for health-related licenses, and § 3113(e) establishes a separate test for offenses involving violence. Additional features of the new law: § 3114 prohibits consideration of juvenile adjudications (this is in addition to the various exclusions in § 9124(a) above for non-conviction records, and records of convictions that have been expunged or sealed); § 3112 authorizes restricted licenses for applicants who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness due to a criminal conviction, §§ 3112 (barbers and cosmetologists) and 3112.1 (all other occupations), with various standards for demonstrating "fitness" that relate to conduct in prison and supervision, and "a commitment to living a law-abiding life," §§ 3112(B) and 3112.1(B); § 3115 provides for a "preliminary determination" for applicants considering undergoing training for a license, which is binding unless the crime is one on the list of crimes "directly related," in which case it may be subject to further inquiry when a formal application is filed; § 3116 provides for issuance of a best practices guide; § 3117 provides for a process (involving the business community as well as the boards) for identifying crimes that will be presumptively considered "directly related" for each profession, and for publishing them for public comment. Section 3118 provides for a report to the legislature within two years by the Secretary of the Commonwealth on the implementation of each section of the act, and statistical report on applications received, granted and denied under each section of the act. Effective date: Sections 3112 through 3115 are effective at end of 2020, the rest are effective immediately. Other new occupational licensing laws enacted in 2020 Idaho: As of 2020, licensing agencies must determine whether a person’s criminal record is "currently relevant to the applicant’s fitness" to engage in the occupation, using a multi-factor test; vague terms like "moral character" are prohibited. Individuals may apply for a non-binding preliminary determination. SB1351 Iowa: A 2020 general licensing law enacted a direct relationship standard, defined rehabilitation broadly (and presumed it after 5 years for most crimes), provided for a preliminary determination, and provided for strong due process protections. HF2627. Previously, the only licenses for which consideration of criminal records was limited were in trades taught in the state’s prisons (e.g., electrician, plumber, mechanical, contractor, and barbering licenses). Missouri: The 2020 Fresh Start Act requires licensing agencies to apply a "direct relationship" standard, and provides that they may not deny a license "solely" because an applicant has a felony conviction. Licensing agencies may consider a conviction "some evidence of an absence of good moral character," but they must also consider the nature and date of the crime, as well as conduct after the conviction. A license may not be denied "primarily" because of a conviction that was pardoned, and expunged records may be grounds for denial of some licenses involving sensitive employment. HB2046. Utah: An occupational licensing agency may not disqualify based on conviction unless it is "substantially related" to the occupation, and applicants must be given individualized consideration pursuant to a multi-factor test, with an appeal in the event of denial. Non-convictions, and most convictions after seven conviction-free years may not be considered. Potential applicants may apply for a preliminary determination as to whether their criminal history will be disqualifying. SB201. West Virginia: Licensing agencies may not disqualify an applicant because of a conviction unless it has a "rational nexus" to the desired occupation, determined by specified standards including seriousness of crime, passage of time, and evidence of rehabilitation. Agencies are not required to give reasons for denial, but they are authorized to give potential candidates a preliminary determination respecting likely disqualification. An applicant who is denied licensure may reapply after 5 years (with violent and sexual crimes subject to a longer period). HR4352, HR4353.
- 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<<
- What (if anything) does the Virginia voting rights decision tell us about the president’s pardon power? (7/24/2016) - On July 22, 2016, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a series of executive orders issued by Governor Terry McAuliffe restoring voting and other civil rights to more than 200,000 convicted individuals. See Howell v. McAuliffe (Va. 2016). The court, in a 4-to-3 decision, disputed the governor’s assertion that his restoration power was absolute under the state’s Constitution. “We respectfully disagree,” the majority justices wrote. “The clemency power may be broad, but it is not absolute.” Governor McAuliffe responded to the court's action by promising to restore the vote on an individual basis to everyone affected by his orders, starting with the 13,000 who had already registered to vote. More details of the reaction to the court's ruling are reported here. The Virginia court's decision is interesting for what it may tell us about the possibility of class-wide grants of clemency, whether full pardon or sentence commutation, under the president's pardon power. In finding limits on the governor's restoration power under the Virginia constitution, the court relied upon two other constitutional provisions that have no analogue in the U.S. Constitution. In limiting the so-called "Restoration Clause" of the Virginia Constitution, the court relied primarily on its "Suspension Clause," which prohibits suspension of laws by the executive. All agree that the Governor can use his clemency powers to mitigate a general rule of law on a case-by-case basis. But that truism does not mean he can effectively rewrite the general rule of law and replace it with a categorical exception. The express power to make exceptions to a general rule of law does not confer an implied power to change the general rule itself. The unprecedented scope, magnitude, and categorical nature of Governor McAuliffe’s Executive Order crosses that forbidden line. The court also noted the apparent inconsistency between a blanket class-wide restoration and the requirement, also in the state constitution, that the governor report annually to the legislature on each individual grant. In this regard, the court noted that the only Virginia governors who have in the past seriously considered blanket restoration (including Hillary Clinton's choice for Vice President Tim Kaine) concluded that they did not have the power to dispense with disenfranchisement on any but a case-by-case basis. All of the dissenting justices would have rejected the suit on standing grounds, while two also thought the Restoration Clause trumped the Suspension Clause. The U.S. Constitution contains nothing analogous to Virginia's Suspension Clause, and no requirement that the president report to Congress on his pardons. Indeed, the Article II pardon power has always been thought unlimited. That said, no president has ever sought to restore rights to convicted individuals, or commute prison sentences, on a blanket basis. The closest thing is President Jimmy Carter's blanket amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders, and even in that case only a small percentage of those covered by the amnesty had been convicted. Moreover, any convicted individual who wished to claim coverage under the Carter order was required to have his eligibility certified by the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department. That looks a lot like the sort of case-by-case procedure that had been followed by the Ford Clemency Board several years before. All other large-scale federal clemency grants to convicted individuals, including post-war grants by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (Philippine Insurrection), Harding (World War I), and Truman (World War II and Korean War), and Ford (Vietnam War) were on a case-by-case basis. Class-wide amnesties (such as those issued by President Washington to the Whiskey Rebels, by President Madison to deserters during the War of 1812, by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson during and after the Civil War, and by Presidents Harrison and Cleveland to Mormon bigamists when Utah became a state) all applied to individuals who had not yet been convicted. In short, quite apart from the political and practical problems involved with using the pardon power to restore civil rights or reduce prison sentences automatically to an entire class of individuals, there seems to be little historical foundation for proposals that President Obama do so. That said, there may be presidential actions short of a full and unconditional grant of clemency that would allow quicker favorable action on the thousands of petitions that are presently pending in the Justice Department. That possibility will be the subject of another piece in this space.
- NYT says NO to “the other f-word,” and YES to Gov. McAuliffe (5/8/2016) - The New York Times has two great Sunday editorials on issues relating to collateral consequences. One deals with the issue of labeling people with a criminal record, of special concern when headline writers seem unable to resist using what Bill Keller at the Marshall Project recently called "the other F-word." The editorial points out that ugly demeaning labels like "convict" and "felon" are "an unfair life sentence." Let us hope the message reaches newsrooms across the country, and that journalists (especially headline writers) will find another way of describing people with a criminal record. The Times also has another very fine editorial on Virginia Governor McAuliffe's restoration of the vote to more than 200,000 individuals, pointing out that his authority under the Virginia Constitution is indisputable. A very good day for the editorial staff of the Gray Lady, whose editorial page is setting an example of enlightened thinking about criminal law issues - notably including the collateral consequences of conviction.
- A plea to stop labeling people who have a criminal record (4/25/2016) - On April 22, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order restoring civil rights to more than 200,000 individuals once convicted of felonies. His courageous action is welcome and long overdue, and there are now only three states nationwide that permanently disenfranchise people based on a felony conviction. The Governor's press release promises new restoration orders on a regular monthly basis as additional individuals become eligible -- the model followed in Iowa between 2005 and 2011, when convicted individuals were restored to the franchise under a similar executive process before it was discontinued by a Republican governor. The one sour note on an otherwise happy occasion was the pervasive use of the word "felon" in print and media accounts to describe the beneficiaries of Governor McAuliffe's action. This ugly stigmatizing label has been broadly criticized as counterproductive to reintegration efforts, perpetuating stereotypes about people with a criminal record and encouraging discrimination against them. While the Governor himself was careful with his language, not a single major newspaper reporting on his action could resist including the word in its headline. It is not that hard to avoid. For example, instead of announcing that "Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Felons," the New York Times might just as accurately have told us that "Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Thousands" -- and in the bargain conveyed an additional useful piece of information about the scope of the order. Over the weekend, the Washington Post could have told us that "Governor McAuliffe's Move on Voting Rights Upends 2017 Races," and anyone who cared would have known exactly what was meant. The problem is not confined to headline-writers, or to journalists new to the issues. Senior reporters at The Times used the word "felon" 37 times in two articles published on April 23. One of the articles added the meaningless prefix "ex-," seeming to concede the problem without dealing meaningfully with it. The one bright spot at The Times -- and a very bright one at that -- was provided by its editorial board, which put Governor McAuliffe's action in the larger voting rights context and avoided labels entirely, showing that where there's a will there's a way. On the eve of National Reentry Week, it seemed timely to reprint a piece written several years ago for The Crime Report, in an earlier (and evidently unsuccessful) effort to persuade journos of good will to stop using the term because of its negative effects in an increasingly important area of public policy. What’s in a Name? A Lot, When the Name is “Felon” March 13, 2012 By Margaret Colgate Love At a recent conference of journalists at John Jay College, I raised an issue I have about language in the media: the frequent use of the word “felon” to describe a person who has been convicted of a crime. One recent example, in a Washington Post story this month, is headlined: “Erhlich plans law school clinic, training program for felons seeking pardons.” “Felon” is an ugly label that confirms the debased status that accompanies conviction. It identifies a person as belonging to a class outside many protections of the law, someone who can be freely discriminated against, someone who exists at the margins of society. In short, a “felon” is a legal outlaw and social outcast. But the word “felon” does more work than that. It arouses fear and loathing in most of us. I confess that it arouses those visceral feelings in me. I do not want to live or work around felons. I do not want to socialize with them. The word “felon” conjures up images of large, scary people (men, of course) whose goal in life is to steal my things and hurt me, the staple weekend fare on MSNBC. Affixing an “ex-” changes nothing. Felons deserve a wide berth and whatever opprobrium they get. I make a living representing people who have been convicted of a crime. They are, for the most part, very interesting and thoughtful people who have a great deal to offer society. In many cases, it is precisely their experience in the criminal justice system that has made them this way. So it is hard for me to think of my clients as “felons.” And yet that is the label they must bear, in the workplace, in their communities, and in society at large. It is an unhelpful label and in many cases it is deeply unfair. My clients come to me because they hate the label, because they want it removed, because they think they don’t deserve it. And they are right. They are all right. In the Middle Ages, and even in the early days of our own Republic, felony convictions were hanging affairs, and civil death statutes simply anticipated the impending corporal end. After the Civil War, felonies expanded to include many minor property crimes (Mississippi’s infamous “pig law” is illustrative), and prosecution became a convenient way of disenfranchising and re-enslaving the recently-freed black population. In the late 20th century, the war on crime made conviction an industry, and reinforced status as punishment. These days, you don’t have to do anything particularly evil to be condemned to what sentencing scholar Nora Demleitner has called “internal exile.” The “felon” label now applies to more than 20 million Americans. A journalist friend at the John Jay conference pointed out that “felon” is convenient shorthand, helpful for headlines, certainly evocative. How could I argue? But labeling people as “felons” is also fundamentally at war with efforts to reduce the number of people in prison, to facilitate reentry, and to encourage those who have committed a crime, or even many crimes, to become law-abiding and productive citizens. Social liberals and fiscal conservatives alike pay lip service to the supposed American ideal of second chances. But our language, like our law, points in the opposite direction. We have schooled ourselves to avoid other stigmatizing labels that in the past were used to distance mainstream society from ethnic and racial minorities, and those groups from each other, because we understood that labels function to distract and excuse us from the hard work of building community. The word “felon” (and for that matter other less ugly but still degrading labels like “offender,” with or without the feckless prefix “ex-“) is no less dysfunctional. We can do better. So, my journalist friend asked, what word can we use instead? What snappy alternative sobriquet can we give the headline writers to describe this class of people with a criminal record? Perhaps there isn’t a single word, and perhaps that is precisely the point. We can say first that our brothers and sisters are people, then (if relevant) we can also say that they are people who have been convicted of a felony. Skilled writers can find ways to avoid using words that are toxic. Even headline writers can be weaned from them. Journalists play a key role in advancing the cause of social justice, and they do it through the language they use. It is time to junk the label “felon” and restock our language toolkit.
- Federal fair chance hiring proposal advances (4/6/2015) - The following note was received today from the National Employment Law Project: We wanted to report back on the exciting progress in support of the federal fair chance hiring initiative, which builds on the momentum from the sign-on letter to the President that your organizations endorsed. On March 25th, representatives from NELP, All of Us or None, PICO National Network and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice met with White House and Labor Department officials to present the letter signed by nearly 200 organizations and urge immediate federal action. The news about the sign-on letter and the White House meeting was covered in an excellent exclusive that appeared in Politico (check it out) the day of the meeting. The sign-on letter was also featured in an op-ed by a Florida small business owner (and a member of our partners at the Main Street Alliance) in The Guardian, in an NNPA syndicated story picked up by several news outlets, as well as in a National Law Review story. In addition, thanks to the active engagement of your organizations, the social media around the initiative is also picking up steam. The Facebook image (attached) produced over 60,000 views, and it was shared by nearly 1,000 people. During the one-hour “tweet storm” on the 25th, there were 250 unique tweets using the #FairChance or #BanTheBox hashtags (a special shout out goes to Danny Glover, whose tweet led the way with most retweets). In just a few short months, we’re building a serious social media following thanks again to all of you. Based on the feedback we received at the meetings on the 25th, all the support from your organizations, the press and the social media is getting the Administration’s attention – they have made clear that they are taking a serious look at the proposal to issue an Executive Order and Presidential Memo to extend fair chance hiring/ban the box to federal contractors and the federal hiring process. Now, it’s all about continuing to build the grassroots and public pressure to move the Administration to act. Your continued active involvement is critical to the success of the effort. On another positive note, we wanted to also share the news that Virginia Governor McAuliffe issued a strong executive order today extending fair chance hiring to all state positions (and urging the private sector to do the same). McAuliffe’s action got the attention of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s Senior Advisor, who tweeted out her support using the #BantheBox hashtag. Please take minute to retweet it as well. Thanks again everyone for all your amazing support! We’ll be in touch soon with more details and next steps. Best, Maurice Maurice Emsellem, Director Access and Opportunity Program National Employment Law Project (510) 663-5700