Category: Caselaw

Update on federal firearms restoration program

Last spring, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to revive a long-dormant program to remove federal restrictions on firearm possession, including for those with a criminal record.  In July DOJ published for comment a proposed rule that would, when finalized, accomplish this for people who are determined to pose no public safety risk. See 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). See Trump’s Justice Department aims to restore gun rights for nonviolent offenders. The comment period closed on October 20, and it is therefore possible that a final rule will be published at any time to launch the revived program. This will open the door, for the first time in more than 30 years, to many individuals who have been unable to regain their firearm rights because of their criminal record. It is anticipated that thousands of people will want to apply for this relief, which will be administered by the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. We have some concerns about whether the demanding § 925(c) application process described in the proposed rule will deliver on its promise. For example, the document production requirements may be challenging for many people, especially those with dated minor convictions. See proposed 28 […]

Read more

North Carolina court restores the vote to 56,000

Update: This decision was stayed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2021. As a result, the decision will not go into effect either until the appeal is resolved or further order of the court. A three-judge state court in North Carolina has ruled that state’s felony disenfranchisement law unconstitutional as applied to individuals under supervision in the community, immediately restoring the vote to some 56,000 individuals. The decision means that in 24 states and the District of Columbia individuals convicted of felonies and serving a sentence in the community may vote.  North Carolina is the first southern state to restore the vote to convicted individuals upon release from prison. As the New York Times noted in describing the court’s action, the ruling was “not entirely unexpected,” since “the same court had temporarily blocked enforcement of part of the law before the November general election, stating that most people who had completed their prison sentences could not be barred from voting if [the] only reason for their continued supervision was that they owed fines or court fees.”  See Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-cv-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2020). While last year’s preliminary decision rested on […]

Read more

Updated: “Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey”

We are pleased to publish an update of our 50-state report on how unpaid court debt blocks restoration of voting rights lost as a result of a felony conviction: Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey This report examines the extent to which state reenfranchisement laws consider payment of legal financial obligations (LFOs), including fines, fees, and restitution, in determining whether and when to restore voting rights to people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. (Our national survey discusses and ranks each state’s general approach to loss and restoration of voting rights based on conviction.) We first published this research in July 2020 during litigation over Florida’s 2018 voting rights ballot initiative, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. However, the initiative was interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which drastically limited its anticipated reach. A federal district court found this system unconstitutional, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed that conclusion in a 6-4 decision. During the appeal, an amicus brief by the State of Texas, […]

Read more

“The Many Roads to Reintegration”: A 50-state report on laws restoring rights and opportunities

We are pleased to release a new report describing the present landscape of laws in the United States aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after an arrest or conviction. This report, titled The Many Roads to Reintegration, is an update and refresh of our previous national survey, last revised in 2018. The report covers voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies such as expungement and pardon, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. In each section of the report we assign a grade to each state for each type of relief. We collate these grades to produce an overall ranking on the nine categories that we graded. That ranking is reproduced below. We are encouraged by the amazing progress that has been made in the past few years toward neutralizing the effect of a criminal record since the present reform era got underway less than a decade ago. The last two years in particular have produced a bumper crop of new laws in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. Some of our top performers have been long-time leaders in promoting reintegration, including Illinois, Utah, and Minnesota. But some of the most progressive lawmaking has come from states […]

Read more

CCRC research featured in Florida felony voting case briefs

Last week, we published our amicus brief in an appeal about the constitutionality of Florida’s system for restoring the vote to people with felony convictions.  We urged the Eleventh Circuit to affirm a district court decision that Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system is unconstitutional, relying on our research report showing that few states have as restrictive a scheme as Florida’s.  Other groups also weighed in, including 19 states and D.C. and several organizations that draw on CCRC’s research to argue in favor of the decision below.  CCRC board members Jack Chin and Nora Demleitner joined a group of 93 law professors who also argued in favor of the district court’s determination that Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional.

Read more