Category: Commentary

A closer look at racial disparities in California’s automatic record clearing

Numerous studies have demonstrated how Black Americans are treated more harshly at every stage of the criminal legal system—from over-policing to overcharging to more punitive sentencing. New research from California shows how eligibility limitations on criminal record relief perpetuate racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and have a disproportionately adverse effect on Black Americans.

The study, by Alyssa Mooney, Alissa Skog, and Amy Lerman, and published in Law & Society Review, examined recent legislative changes to criminal record relief laws in California, one of the first states to automate relief. The study assessed the equity of California’s existing automatic record relief laws by examining the share of people with criminal records who are presently eligible for automatic record clearing, and variations across racial and ethnic groups.

Read more

Forum on governmental barriers to small business financing for people with a criminal history

We are delighted to announce a program where a panel of experts will discuss the barriers faced by small business owners and managers with a criminal history in obtaining government-sponsored loans.

This virtual program will take place on November 18 from 12:00-1:15pm (EST), and is sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy as part of its Georgetown on the Hill series. Register for the event here.

The program–which we helped organize along with Georgetown’s PIVOT Program–will focus on the broad criminal history restrictions in rules and policies of the U.S. Small Business Administration. These policies came to the public’s attention in the early days of the pandemic, when thousands of small businesses were denied PPP and other relief authorized by the CARES Act. While many of these restrictions were eventually rolled back in response to widespread criticism, similar restrictions in the SBA’s general lending programs remain, restrictions that influence state and private lending as well. The program on November 18 will explore the origins, scope, and justification for these restrictions.

Panelists include a former high-ranking SBA official, a small business owner who successfully challenged the PPP restrictions in court, a scholar who has argued that the SBA restrictions contravene civil rights law, and the CCRC’s Deputy Director David Schlussel, who contributed to the bipartisan campaign in the spring of 2020 that led the SBA to abandon many of its exclusionary policies.

We hope that everyone interested in collateral consequences, notably those related to access to business capital, will register for the program. The Georgetown announcement describing the program is reproduced below.

Read more

CCRC’s First Newsletter

Dear Subscribers,

We write with an update on our continued work to promote public discussion of restoration of rights and opportunities for people with a record. Highlights from this year’s work are summarized below, including roundups of new legislation, case studies on barriers to expungement, policy recommendations, and a new “fair chance lending” project to reduce criminal history barriers to government-supported loans to small businesses. We thank you for your interest and invite your comments as our work progresses. Read more

Federal policies block loans to small business owners with a record

Starting a small business is increasingly recognized as a pathway to opportunity for individuals with an arrest or conviction history—particularly given the disadvantages they face in the labor market. An estimated 4% of small businesses in the United States have an owner with a conviction (1.5% have a felony conviction). Small businesses provide “a vital opportunity for those with a criminal record to contribute to society, to earn an honest profit, and to give back to others.” They also frequently employ people with a record and help reduce recidivism. A growing number of organizations and government programs are devoted to supporting individuals with a record in building their own businesses.

Yet many structural barriers remain, including a series of little-known federal regulations and policies that impose broad criminal history restrictions on access to government-sponsored business loans, notably by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).  A recent article illustrates the steep challenges faced by business owners with a record by telling the stories of several entrepreneurs who were either denied an SBA loan or were discouraged from even trying for one because of a dated felony conviction.  One of those entrepreneurs comments: “You might do five years, ten years, one year, but you pay for it until you’re in the grave.”

To illuminate and help reduce these barriers, our organization is working to develop a new “Fair Chance Lending” project. We hope to show that—rather than broadly exclude individuals with a criminal history—officials should draw record-based restrictions as narrowly as feasible, facilitate access to resources, and celebrate entrepreneurial efforts, consistent with growing national support for reintegration and fair chances in civil society.

Read more

“The Mark of Policing: Race and Criminal Records”

This is the title of an important symposium piece by Eisha Jain published by the Stanford Law Review, in which she urges that “racial reckoning in policing” include consideration of the negative credentialing effect of arrest records. Using the sociological framework of “marking,” Jain shows how unjustified arrests “both magnify and conceal race-based discrimination.” She argues that “Reckoning with race in the criminal justice system requires recognizing that the problem is not just the police: It is with a legal regime that entrenches racial subordination through criminal records.”

The good news is that many of the criminal record reforms of the last several years provide for automatic or expedited expungement or sealing of non-conviction records. (See our 50-state chart on “Process for expunging or sealing non-convictions” and our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records recommending automatic expungement.) But the bad news is that even the laws streamlining the sealing of non-conviction records in two dozen states frequently fail to extend to records of uncharged arrests, which can linger in police files and repositories long after court records have been sealed. In the hands of police agencies, they may lead to further policing abuses. Disseminated through background checks and the internet they limit employment, housing, and other opportunities. When considering how to neutralize the effect of non-conviction records, jurisdictions must concern themselves with this neglected source of racial inequity.

Here is the abstract of Professor Jain’s article:

This Essay argues that racial reckoning in policing should include a racial reckoning in the use of criminal records. Arrests alone—regardless of whether they result in convictions—create criminal records. Yet because the literature on criminal records most often focuses on prisoner reentry and on the consequences of criminal conviction, it is easy to overlook the connections between policing decisions and collateral consequences. This Essay employs the sociological framework of marking to show how criminal records entrench racial inequality stemming from policing. The marking framework recognizes that the government creates a negative credential every time it creates a record of arrest as well as conviction. Such records, in turn, trigger cascading consequences for employment, housing, immigration, and a host of other areas. The credentialing process matters because it enables and conceals race-based discrimination, and because a focus on the formal sentence often renders this discrimination invisible. This Essay considers how adopting a credentialing framework offers a way to surface, and ultimately to address, how race-based policing leaves lasting marks on over-policed communities.

See the full essay here.

DC’s non-conviction sealing law is uniquely complex and restrictive

Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law.

Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged.

This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape.

Summary

Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas:

  • The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe.
  • The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm.
  • The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record.

Read more

“A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump”

The title of this post is the title of my second piece for Lawfare on the future of presidential pardoning after the unjust and irregular practices that characterized pardoning under President Trump.  In response to critics who urge that responsibility for pardon advice should be removed from the Justice Department, I argue for restoring the pardon program to its historic place as an independent and respected part of that agency, so it can be an effective counterweight to the punitive views of prosecutors that have in the past frustrated pardoning.  Reestablishing a functional institutional connection between the president’s power and the rest of the justice system will better serve both the presidency and the public interest in a more compassionate approach to criminal law enforcement. I suggest that Merrick Garland, whose Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to become attorney general begins on Monday, will understand how to reset the balance between pardon and justice to the benefit of both.

This is a follow-up to my Washington Post op ed, in which I argued that the presidential pardon power has been burdened with too many routine functions, and that the new administration should seek to restore a degree of practical efficiency to pardoning by working with Congress to reassign many of these functions to the courts — including shortening prison sentences and restoring lost rights.

The second piece is reprinted below:

A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump

The overarching theme that emerges from four years of Donald Trump’s pardoning is an approach to government authority as transactional and personality based, rather than principled, structured, and process based. From the nation’s earliest days, unruly pardon has been harnessed to the rule-of-law virtues of the justice system, secured since the 19th century by its relationship to the Justice Department and by presidents respecting that relationship. Trump ostentatiously rejected that relationship from the start.

Trump not only detached the pardon power from the structure and operation of the justice system but he also used his power to challenge and frustrate that system. His pardons have been described by Bernadette Meyler as a throwback to the theatrical pardoning of the 17th century English kings and playwrights, enlarged and darkened by self-interest.

In the wake of Trump’s abusive and frequently haphazard pardoning, there have been calls to reform the process by which the president receives advice in pardon matters by stripping the Justice Department of its long-standing gatekeeper role. While reform of the pardon process is certainly in order, it would be a profound mistake to institutionalize Trump’s detachment of pardon from the justice system as these reformers urge.
Read more

Sex offense registries in Europe and around the world

We are pleased to publish new research by Stephen Schulhofer about the treatment of sex offense registration in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU. The research, presented here with an introduction by Alessandro Corda, comes from material prepared for inclusion in an upcoming draft of the Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses (full citation and disclaimer below).

Introduction: An Important Look at Foreign Policy and Practices Regarding Sex-Offense Collateral Consequences

By Alessandro Corda, Lecturer in Law, Queen’s University Belfast School of Law

The American Law Institute’s ongoing project aimed at reforming the Model Penal Code provisions on sexual assault and related offenses includes within its reach not only substantive criminal law provisions, but also collateral consequences applicable specifically to persons convicted of a sexual offense, in particular sex offense registries.

Sex offense registration and notification laws are a quintessential example of a collateral consequence of conviction that flourished during the so-called “tough-on-crime era.” The first sex offense registries in the United States were enacted in the late 1940s as a way “to inform the police of the whereabouts of habitual sex offenders.” The idea soon lost favor to so-called sexual psychopath laws. By the 1970s, however, such laws had likewise lost approval, “either being repealed or widely ignored as ineffective and unjust policies” (Hoppe, 2016, p. 577; see also Rice Leave, 2009). Everything changed in the 1990s, following high profile cases of abduction and sexual torture of children in the context of a climate of raising punitiveness.

The first state sex offense registration law was passed in Washington State in 1990 and applied to people convicted of certain sexual offenses. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act as part of the controversial Clinton Crime Bill, requiring states to implement sex offense registries. In 1996, the so-called Megan’s Law amended the 1994 Act to require each state to provide notification and information to communities about convicted sex offenders living in the area for public safety purposes.[*] Prior to that, individuals convicted of a sexual offense only had to register with local law enforcement agencies, with public notification procedures available under certain circumstances. The subsequent Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), also known as the Adam Walsh Act, rewrote the law in its entirety to mandate the creation of a nationwide online registration and notification system and provided a set of minimum standards to be followed across the United States (Jones & Newburn, 2013, pp. 444-46; Logan, 2009, pp. 429 ff.). Since 2006, a number of federal bills have added to SORNA’s provisions to address issues such as online safety and international travel by registered individuals.

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, joined by seven other states, asserted that “States across the country have similar rules [to Florida] for felon voting” and that the district court’s holding “called into question the widespread practice” of permanently disenfranchising people who are not able to “pay their debts to society.”  As we demonstrated in our original report and amicus brief, the assertions in the Texas brief were not well-founded: few states have laws like Florida’s that indefinitely deny reenfranchisement based on any unpaid debt related to a disqualifying conviction.

This updated report documents whether and to what extent unpaid LFOs restrict voting rights in each state, and reflects developments in California, where voters early this month passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those on parole; and in Iowa, where the governor in August issued an executive order to restore voting rights after completion of incarceration and supervision, regardless of payment of LFOs.

Read more

Michigan makes sealing of convictions automatic, including for some felonies

On October 12, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a series of bills that will dramatically reform that state’s “set-aside” authority, colloquially known as “expungement.” The bills will establish a new automatic mechanism to expunge certain convictions without a person having to ask for it, and significantly expand eligibility for expungement under the existing petition-based application system.

“This is a historic day in Michigan. These bipartisan bills are a game changer for people who are seeking opportunities for employment, housing, and more, and they will help ensure a clean slate for hundreds of thousands of Michiganders,” said Governor Whitmer. “This is also an opportunity to grow our workforce and expand access to job training and education for so many people. I am proud to sign these bills today alongside Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist and many of the bipartisan leaders who worked on them.”

“Everyone deserves the chance to build a good life for themselves and their families. But far too many people enter the criminal justice system and end up cut off from those opportunities and are pushed toward a cruel cycle of poverty and crime. That’s not right, and it creates bad outcomes for all of us,” said Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield. “These bills are an important step to righting that wrong and helping good people who’ve paid their debt get back on their feet. I am glad we were able to find common ground on this important issue and deliver reform that will help people statewide.” 

It is estimated that the bills will make hundreds of thousands of Michiganders eligible for expungement for the first time, and that relief will be delivered automatically to a significant percentage of them when the automatic feature is expected to become operative in October 2022 (subject to necessary appropriation and a potential 180-day extension). The other bills signed into law, including one that streamlines expungement for marijuana misdemeanors, are effective immediately.

This legislative package makes Michigan the sixth state to enact an automatic conviction-sealing law covering a range of offenses. It also makes Michigan the third state to make relief automatic for some felony convictions, joining New Jersey and California. (An additional three states plus California have enacted more specialized laws to automatically seal low-level marijuana convictions.)

The specific provisions of the Michigan bills, as well as automatic sealing laws in other states, are discussed below.

Read more

1 2 3 … 11