Tag: Iowa

First fair chance licensing reforms of 2024

Expanding employment opportunities in licensed occupations has been a priority for criminal record reformers in the past half dozen years. Happily, fair chance licensing reforms also appear less politically controversial than some others, with Midwestern states like Iowa and Indiana among the most progressive in the Nation in their treatment of justice-impacted license applicants and licensees.

In the first three months of 2024, two more Midwestern states (South Dakota and Nebraska) enacted comprehensive changes to their licensing laws, while a third state (Pennsylvania) was poised to close a major loophole in its licensing scheme. These reforms continue a nationwide trend that since 2017 has seen 43 states and the District of Columbia enact 79 separate laws* to limit state power to deny opportunity to qualified individuals based on their criminal history. Significant legislation is under serious consideration in half a dozen additional states, so we expect this year to produce another bumper crop of fair chance licensing laws.

The new laws are described briefly below, and additional details can be found in the relevant state profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. Read more

Two significant new occupational licensing laws enacted in 2021

After 11 states enacted 19 laws limiting consideration of criminal records by occupational licensing agencies last year, the first significant record reforms of 2021 are occupational licensing laws enacted by Ohio and the District of Columbia.  D.C.’s new law is particularly comprehensive, and applies both to health-related and other licensed professions in the District.

The new District of Columbia law, Act A23-0561, is described in detail in the DC profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.  It provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the licensed occupation, as determined by a detailed set of standards; prohibits inquiry about a record until an applicant has been found otherwise qualified and then prohibits consideration of certain records (including non-conviction and sealed convictions); and provides procedural protections in the event of denial. The new law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals with a record to determine their eligibility, and requires the Mayor to report annually to the Council on each board’s record.  The Institute for Justice has described the “landmark” new D.C. law as “the best in the nation, second only to Indiana.”

The new Ohio law, HB 263, is more complex and less protective than DC’s, requiring licensing boards to publish lists of two types of convictions: those that “shall” be disqualifying (overcome only by a court-ordered certificate) and those that “may” be found disqualify based on their “direct relationship” to the licensed occupation. Other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license, and vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicants overall record that are linked to public safety, and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense.  In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing.  These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019.

Michigan‘s governor also signed a series of bills regulating occupational licensure on the last day of 2020, which include some of the features of the schemes described above but retain the unfortunate disqualification standard of “good moral character.” While Michigan’s licensing law could use improvement, it contributed to the state’s earning the title of Reintegration Champion of 2020.

Our report on new legislation in 2020, documenting that 11 states enacted 19 licensing reform laws, noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.”  We reprint the discussion of 2020 licensing reform from our report here:

Read more

Momentum grows to restore voting rights to people with a felony

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

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.

Read more

Report card on licensing laws finds progress, but still a way to go

The Institute for Justice, a leader in advocacy for reforming occupational licensing laws, has just issued a major new report grading the states on the opportunities they give to people with a criminal record.  The press release and links are below.  We are not at all surprised that Indiana got the best grade—or that so many states “tied for dead last.” Coincidentally, the legislatures in Iowa, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have in recent days sent broad new occupational licensing reform measures to their governors’ desks, so at least three states seem poised to climb out of IJ’s basement.    

Stay tuned for an update of our own survey of employment and licensing laws nationwide, which will be part of the revised Forgiving and Forgetting report that we expect to issue in a few weeks.  In the meantime, many congratulations to IJ for its pioneering law reform work on behalf of people with a record.

IJ press release:

Barred from Working: People with Criminal Records Are Unfairly Denied Licenses to Work

New Nationwide Report Offers the Most Comprehensive Look at the Occupational Licensing Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders

Arlington, Va.—Even as states debate opening the economy back up, millions of Americans with criminal records are still locked out of the job market. Today, nearly one in five workers needs a license to work, while one in three Americans has a criminal record of some kind.

Providing the most in-depth and up-to-date look at this intersection between occupational licensing and the criminal-justice system, a new report from the Institute for Justice (IJ), Barred from Working, analyzes and grades the legal protections offered to ex-offenders who apply for licenses to work.

Many state laws fail to make the grade: just nine states received a B- or better. Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation, earning the report’s only A grade. Meanwhile, six states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont—all tied for dead last due to their utter lack of protections for former felons seeking licenses.

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Legislative Analyst Nick Sibilla, who authored the report. “Undoubtedly, some license restrictions make sense: No one wants child molesters working in daycare centers or school bus drivers with DUIs. But as this report shows, many licensing barriers have little basis in common sense or public safety and unfairly deny a fresh start to countless Americans.”

Read more

CCRC urges Supreme Court to reverse Iowa expungement decision

*Update 2: On November 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

*Update (11/1/2019):  On September 23, 2019, the Supreme Court asked Iowa to respond to the cert petition.  Iowa’s response is here.  The petitioner’s reply is here.

On September 9, we filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to review and reverse a decision out of Iowa that upholds wealth-based barriers to expungement.  We were joined by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.  At issue in the case is an Iowa law that bars a person from obtaining expungement of a dismissed or acquitted case if they owe any court fees in the case.  We point out the inequity of denying access to expungement based on socio-economic status:  “The irony of Iowa’s expungement law could not be clearer: a law that removes a hurdle to employment and economic security cannot be invoked by indigent individuals until outstanding costs and fees are paid to the state, effectively defeating the very purpose of providing expungement relief in the first place.”

This case arises from Jone Doe’s request in 2018 to expunge her dismissed criminal case from 2009.  But she still owes $550.38 for her court-appointed attorney, which she cannot afford to pay.  Doe argued the requirement to pay outstanding fees before obtaining expungement violates her equal protection rights under the constitution.  She pointed out that had she been able to hire a private attorney, she would be eligible for expungement, whether or not she owed attorney fees.  The lower court denied the request, finding that Doe “was made aware of reimbursing attorney fees and that expungement could not occur until all fees and assessed costs were paid.”  The Iowa Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, upheld the requirement, finding the state has a legitimate purpose “to encourage payment of court debt.”  On petition to the Supreme Court, we urge the Court to “grant certiorari and hold that one’s inability to pay court fees may not restrict access to statutorily-created expungement rights.”

We were represented by Ethan P. Fallon and Thomas M. Bondy of Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, and appreciate their work on this case.  The full amicus brief is available here.

“Invisible Stripes: The Problem of Youth Criminal Records”

This is the title of a paper by Professor Judith McMullen of Marquette University Law School.  Professor McMullen points out that “the efforts of today’s young people to ‘go straight’ are hampered by nearly unlimited online access to records of even the briefest of encounters with law enforcement, even if those encounters did not result in conviction.”  She argues that “we need to restrict access to and use of information about contacts that offenders under the age of 21 have had with the criminal justice system.”

CCRC’s forthcoming study of how jurisdictions manage non-conviction records underscores the points made in this article.  It may come as a surprise to many that few jurisdictions automatically limit public access to and use of non-conviction records, and in fact many facilitate both through mass on-line posting of records – including arrests that never result in charges.  Even states that authorize courts to seal or expunge non-conviction records frequently impose daunting barriers to this relief, including financial barriers.  A decision of the Iowa Supreme Court last month, upholding a law conditioning expungement of dismissed charges on an indigent defendant’s payment of court-appointed attorney fees, vividly illustrates this access to justice problem that squarely frustrates efforts at reintegration.  There are a number of studies underway of the adverse effect of court debt on reentry, but none that we know of linking court debt to the operation of “clean slate” laws.

Read more

New research report: Four Years of Second Chance Reforms, 2013-2016

Introduction

4 year report coverSince 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.

Read more

Michigan takes baby steps on criminal justice reform

Michigan spends one in five tax dollars on corrections so the state continues to explore strategies to safely reduce these costs.  In its most recent session, the legislature fishconsidered bold criminal justice reforms, but strenuous last minute objections from the Attorney General succeeded in halting much of the reform agenda. In the end, only a few reforms were implemented and most of them were passed in watered-down form.

The new laws include (1) the establishment of a Criminal Justice Policy Commission; (2) narrow expansion of set-aside eligibility to victims of human trafficking; and (3) authorization for Certificates of Employability for prisoners who complete certain in-prison training programs.  A more ambitious (though still narrow) expansion of the set-aside law is currently on the Governor’s desk for signature.  These “baby steps” leave lots of room for improvement, but constitute a blueprint for future reform efforts.

Read more