Category: New legislation

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: In 2020, 11 states enacted 19 laws limiting consideration of criminal records by occupational licensing agencies. Four states (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, and Rhode Island) regulated licensing agencies statewide for the very first time; two other states (Utah and West Virginia) improved upon their first venture into licensing regulation in 2019; and Pennsylvania made improvements in licensing standards originally adopted in an earlier era of reform in the 1970s. These enactments continue a trend begun in 2017 that has transformed the licensing policy landscape across the Nation and opened opportunities in regulated professions for many thousands of people. As explained in our national report The Many Roads to Reintegration, these licensing reforms are particularly important in supporting reintegration, since studies have shown that more than 25% of all jobs in the United States require a government-issued license.  Occupational licenses offer a gateway to the middle class, particularly for people who may have learned a trade or gained a skill while in prison. The new wave of licensing reforms resurrects a progressive approach to occupational opportunity that dates from the 1970s.  In recent years it has been strongly influenced by model legislation developed by the Institute of Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, and the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a workers’ rights research and advocacy group.  Despite their origin in differing regulatory philosophies, the IJ and NELP model laws reflect a similar approach:  they 1) limit the kinds of records that may result in disqualification, rejecting vague “good moral character” and other criteria irrelevant to competence; and 2) insist that individual denials be grounded in findings of rehabilitation and public safety with rigorous due process guarantees, making agency procedures more transparent and accountable.  In the IJ model, applicants may seek binding preliminary determinations of qualification, and agency compliance is monitored by disclosure and reporting requirements. Some of the more familiar provisions of these new laws are drawn from the IJ or NELP models: Preliminary determination: Providing for a preliminary determination of qualification, for a small fee with quick turnaround and written reasons Relevant standards: Deleting vague standards like “good moral character” in favor of standards likely to evidence low risk and rehabilitation Prohibited considerations: Barring consideration of certain types of records and other types after a specified time Transparency: Requiring agencies to publish a list of disqualifying convictions and to provide written reasons for rejection in individual cases Accountability: Including reporting requirements intended to monitor agency compliance. The new occupational licensing laws in 2020 are summarized below: Colorado enacted the “Occupational Credential Portability Program,” which authorizes approval of an application for reciprocal licensure by anyone licensed in another jurisdiction, apparently without regard to whether they meet Colorado’s standards for licensure that relate to consideration of criminal record, unless they have committed an act that would be grounds for disciplinary action in Colorado (HB 20-1326). Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-20-202(3)(a), (b), (f)(III). In addition, HB 20-1424 creates “social equity licenses” to operate legal marijuana businesses, available to people who: (1) themselves or their family members were arrested, convicted, or subject to a civil forfeiture for a marijuana offense; (2) have a low income; or (3) live in an “opportunity zone” or “disproportionate impacted area.” Iowa had no general law regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing prior to 2020. HF 2627 adds a new section to Chapter 272C of the Iowa Code to impose an unusually robust and license-specific “direct relationship” test on all but a few health-related licenses. Each covered board must provide a list of offenses that “directly relate[] to the duties and responsibilities of the profession,” and may not deny a license based on non-conviction records or any finding that an applicant “lacks good character” or “suffers from moral turpitude.” Iowa Code Ann. §272C.15. Under the new section, an agency “shall grant” an exception to an individual “who would otherwise be denied a license due to a criminal conviction” if the individual is determined to be rehabilitated and an “appropriate candidate for licensure” based on a list of factors that include the nature and seriousness of the crime, the passage of time, and other mitigating or aggravating factors. There is a rebuttable presumption that an applicant is “rehabilitated” five years after release from incarceration unless the conviction was for certain violent or sexual crimes. The board shall consider whether a “certification of employability” has been issued and any letters of reference. A prospective applicant may petition for a preliminary determination, for which a board may charge a fee of $25. Grounds for denial must be in writing, and the applicant must be given an opportunity to appeal and informed that evidence of rehabilitation will be considered on reapplication. The board’s findings on each criterion specified must be “sufficient for review by a court.” The board has the burden of proving direct relationship. An individual may be requested to submit a “complete criminal record,” which includes the complaint and judgment for each conviction. Idaho had no general law regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing, prior to 2020. SB 1351 adds a new chapter 94 to Title 67 of the Idaho Code, inter alia establishing a committee “to study and review occupational licensing and certification laws in general in order to determine, as applicable, how the legislature may be able to ease occupational licensing barriers while still protecting the public health and safety.” The new law authorizes a non-binding preliminary determination as to whether a person’s conviction would be disqualifying, and establishes a multi-factor test to determine whether a person’s criminal record is “currently relevant to the applicant’s fitness” to engage in the occupation. A license may not be denied on the basis of “vague or generic terminology related to a criminal conviction, including but not limited to ‘moral turpitude’ or ‘moral character.'” “Where such terms appear in code or rule with respect to a criminal conviction, a licensing authority shall conduct a relevancy evaluation pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.” The “relevancy” standard was inserted in a variety of licensing chapters as a basis for denial or revocation of a license, replacing a formulation that permitted adverse action based on “conviction of any felony, or conviction of any other crime involving moral turpitude.” It was also inserted into the rules of the division of human resources and the personnel commission that regulate public employment in the state. Louisiana’s SB 354 provides for issuing a card to individuals leaving prison that includes a list of all vocational licensing and certification programs completed while incarcerated. Michigan enacted a series of bills applicable to occupational licensure to limit agency consideration of certain types of criminal record. HB 4488 and related bills retained the standard of “good moral character” as a basis for restricting licenses to those with a criminal record but limited it for most licenses to exclude non-convictions, misdemeanors that do not carry a prison term, and convictions “unrelated to an individual’s capacity to serve the public.”  The new law requires each licensing agency to specify the crimes that are likely to fall into the last-mentioned category. They must also provide a statement of reasons in the event of denial (“including a complete record of the evidence upon which the determination was based”), an opportunity to appeal, and judicial review. An annual report must be submitted with the number of applications denied because of lack of good moral character and a summary of the convictions on which denials were based. Missouri provided very little protection to a person with a criminal record in the licensing process prior to 2020. The Fresh Start Act (HB 2046) requires that a disqualifying criminal record must be “directly related” to the license, also specifying that certain violent crimes “shall” be considered “directly related” to whatever license is involved even if sentence is not imposed. Drug crimes “may” be disqualifying for certain occupations, while fraud offenses “may” be disqualifying for other occupations. If convicted of a lesser included offense, the period of disqualification as “directly related” lasts only for four years after release from incarceration. “Direct relationship” is determined by a multi-factor test. Applicants may apply for a preliminary determination that is binding on the agency. If a person is denied a license, they have a right to a hearing, as well as written findings addressing each factor on which the agency relied sufficient for a reviewing court. “In any administrative hearing or civil litigation authorized under this subsection, the licensing authority shall carry the burden of proof on the question of whether the applicant’s criminal conviction directly relates to the occupation for which the license is sought.” The new law does not apply to significant classes of licenses, including teachers, various health professionals, accountants, real estate brokers and agents, and peace officers. Pennsylvania enacted SB 637 to bolster its weak occupational licensing law dating from the 1970s. SB637 supersedes any law that disqualifies an individual for a license or provides for “good moral character” findings, requires that there be a “direct relationship” between the crime and the profession and whether licensing the individual poses a public safety risk, as determined by an “individualized assessment” under a long list of specified factors. It excludes those convicted of sexual offenses from health care licensure and establishes a separate set of standards for those convicted of violent crimes. Prohibits consideration of juvenile adjudications, non-conviction records, and records of convictions that have been expunged or sealed). It also authorizes restricted licenses for applicants who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness due to a criminal conviction, and it 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. The law falls short in not ruling out consideration of dated or minor convictions, although it does rely on a public safety standard for denial of a license and gives those recently released from prison a chance to demonstrate their abilities. While existing law requires boards to defend record-related denials with written reasons, neither old nor new law provides an opportunity for an administrative appeal, requiring a disappointed applicant to file a lawsuit. Rhode Island enacted its first generally applicable law regulating the occupational licensing process, extending it as well to professional and business licenses issued by state agencies. S 2824 applies a “substantial relationship” standard to licensing boards under most departments of state government, establishes standards for determining substantial relationship, excludes certain records from consideration, allows applicants to establish rehabilitation by detailed standards, provides detailed procedures in the event of denial, suspension or revocation, and includes accountability standards. Records that may not be considered include non-conviction records, juvenile records, expunged records, records of misdemeanors that may not be punished by incarceration, and any crime that is not substantially related. If a licensing authority intends to deny, suspend, or revoke an occupational license solely or in part because of a conviction, the person must be given reasons in writing, and if the conviction is “substantially related” an analysis under each of the criteria. The person must be permitted to respond and given an opportunity to appeal. Every agency must post on its website each year a report with “(1) the number of applicants granted licenses, the number of applicants denied licenses for any reason, and, to the extent available, the demographic breakdown of the applicants, including race, ethnicity, and gender, and city or town of residence; and (2) The number of applicants denied solely, or in part, because of a criminal conviction. The law took effect on January 1, 2021. Utah’s legislature acted to enhance a 2019 law that provided for a preliminary determination of qualification for licensure applicable to many state licensing boards, upgrading its standard for decision-making from “reasonable relationship” to “substantial relationship.” SB 201 takes regulation of licensing a step further, establishing heightened standards for consideration of licensure of applicants with criminal records. Licensing boards must “provide individualized consideration to the applicant or licensee,” and “determine whether the criminal conviction bears a substantial relationship to the applicant’s or licensee’s ability to safely or competently practice the occupation or profession.” In this determination the board will “consider the applicant’s or licensee’s current circumstances” measured by a number of the customary factors such as age when offense committed, time since conviction, and various indicia of rehabilitation. Applicants are provided an opportunity to appeal a denial. § 58-1-402. Certain convictions are per se “not evidence of unprofessional conduct,” including non-convictions, and convictions where seven years have passed since release from incarceration without a conviction or guilty plea. Convictions for violent and sexual crimes, and for fraud or embezzlement are excepted. § 58-1-501(4). Vermont has very weak regulation of occupational licensing agencies, allowing denial or discipline for “unprofessional conduct” based on “[c]onviction of a crime related to the practice of the profession or conviction of a felony, whether or not related to the practice of the profession.” 233 did nothing to tighten this standard, providing only that its licensing boards must offer interested persons a pre-application determination regarding whether their criminal background will be disqualifying. This request shall provide documentation related to the individual’s conviction or convictions, evidence of rehabilitation, and identification of the profession or professions for which the individual seeks licensure. An applicant would pay a $25 fee for this so-called “second chance determination,” and this fee would be deducted from the license application fee if the applicant does thereafter seek licensure. The new law applies to the professions and occupations regulated by the Office of Professional Regulation, the Department of Environmental Conservation (for well drillers), the Standards Board for Professional Educators, the Board of Medical Practice, the Electricians’ Licensing Board, and the Plumbers’ Examining Board. Washington enacted HB 2870 to create a “social equity program” to reduce barriers to entry to the cannabis industry for individuals and communities most adversely impacted by the enforcement of cannabis-related laws. West Virginia enacted two laws (HR4352 and HR4353) extending regulation enacted in 2019 to a variety of different licenses, applying a “rational nexus” standard for denial, lifting mandatory bars after five years, and authorizing a preliminary determination. 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. Read more

Legislative Report Card: “The Reintegration Agenda During Pandemic”

CCRC’s new report documents legislative efforts in 2020 to reduce the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. In total, 32 states, D.C., and the federal government enacted 106 bills, approved 5 ballot initiatives, and issued 4 executive orders to restore rights and opportunities to people with a record. Our Legislative Report Card recognizes the most (and least) productive state legislatures last year. Hands down, Michigan was the Reintegration Champion of 2020 with 26 new record reform laws, while Utah was runner-up, and seven other states were commended for their work. LEGISLATIVE REPORT CARD This year Michigan gets the top mark as our Reintegration Champion for the most consequential legislative record of any state in 2020, enacting a remarkable 26 bills addressing record relief, diversion, occupational licensing, driver’s license suspension, sex offense registration, and public benefits. Most notably, Michigan’s new “clean slate” record relief scheme is even more ambitious than the reform that earned New Jersey the title of Reintegration Champion in 2019. Like New Jersey, Michigan substantially expanded the number of convictions eligible for petition-based sealing and directed the development of an automated sealing system applicable retroactively to a wide range of misdemeanor and felony convictions going back decades. Unlike New Jersey’s automation program, which has no timetable for coming online, the Michigan scheme by law must be made operational within two years. Michigan also significantly expanded record relief for juvenile records and marijuana offenses. In other relevant reforms, Michigan limited the kinds of criminal records that can be considered by occupational licensing agencies, barred suspension of driver’s licenses for a range of legal violations unrelated to dangerous driving, repealed bans on federal food and family assistance due to felony drug convictions, and revised its sex offender registration scheme. Utah is runner-up for our Reintegration Champion award, based on a prolific legislative record that addressed issues as various as diversion, occupational licensing, and record-sealing in a total of seven separate laws. Utah’s productive 2020 followed an equally productive 2019, when its legislature authorized automated expungement of many misdemeanor convictions and non-conviction records and took major steps toward regulating occupational licensing agencies. Honorable mention for a productive legislative season goes to seven states. California, Louisiana, and Virginia each enacted a number of new authorities intended to promote reintegration, and California restored the vote to parolees by a ballot measure amending the state’s constitution. Virginia’s legislature deserves special recognition for having enacted 10 separate laws after many years of producing little or nothing related to restoration of rights. Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, and Rhode Island all passed impressive schemes to regulate consideration of criminal record in occupational licensure for the first time. Low marks go to four of the states that enacted no record reform laws at all in 2020. While there are many states in this category this year, likely because of the distractions and burdens of the pandemic, the legislatures of Alaska, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin earn their place at the bottom of the heap for having been equally unproductive in 2019, a year when almost every other state passed at least some law limiting access to and use of criminal records. We conclude by noting that many of 2020’s new laws were enacted after state legislatures were virtually shut down by the pandemic. (Indeed, several provisions of the most recent federal pandemic stimulus bill qualify for inclusion in this report.) This seems to us evidence that criminal record reform is now regarded as central to the Nation’s legislative agenda. We anticipate that in the coming year Congress and states that have been comparatively cautious in their recent law-making will be inspired to take larger steps to limit discrimination based on criminal record, as they see what more ambitious jurisdictions have already been able to accomplish. — The full report is available here. A more comprehensive 50-state grading system is incorporated into our national report The Many Roads to Reintegration and accompanying Reintegration Report Card. Read more

“The Reintegration Agenda During Pandemic: Criminal Record Reforms in 2020”

In each of the past five years, CCRC has issued an end-of-year report on legislative efforts to reduce the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life.[i] These reports document the progress of what has become a full-fledged law reform movement to restore individuals’ rights and status following their navigation of the criminal law system. Our 2020 report, linked here, shows a continuation of this legislative trend. While fewer states enacted fewer laws in 2020 than in the preceding two years, evidently because of the disruptions caused by the pandemic, the fact that there was still considerable progress is testament to a genuine and enduring public commitment to a reintegration agenda. In 2020, 32 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government enacted 106 legislative bills, approved 5 ballot initiatives, and issued 4 executive orders to restore rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record. As in 2019, in 2020 a majority of the new laws involve what we have come to call “record relief,” measures that operate directly on the criminal record itself to reduce its negative effect. Record relief may limit public access through expungement or sealing, vacate or pardon the conviction, or avoid a conviction record through diversion or deferral of judgment. Other restoration laws regulate discretionary decisionmakers that control access to the workplace, public benefits, and education. Still others expand the franchise, and curb driver’s license suspensions based on unpaid court debt or grounds unrelated to driving offenses. Also, again this year we publish a legislative Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive state legislatures in 2020. Hands down, Michigan was the Reintegration Champion of 2020 with 26 new record reform laws, while Utah was runner-up, and seven other states were commended for their work. We will publish this Report Card separately tomorrow. The body of the report itself provides topical discussions of last year’s reform measures, followed by an appendix documenting the laws by jurisdiction. More detailed analysis of each state’s laws is available in the CCRC Restoration of Rights Project. (A general roundup of criminal justice reforms in 2020 is also available at The Appeal’s Political Report.) *** Looking ahead to 2021 The legal landscape at the end of 2020 shows states continuing to experiment with different types of relief to advance a reintegration agenda. The crisis of the pandemic may have slowed the legislative momentum seen in 2019, but it certainly did not bring it to a halt. Approaches to record reform continue to vary widely from state to state, with respect to the type of relief, the specifics of who is eligible for it, the mechanics of delivery, and its effect. Yet despite this variety it is clear that there has been no flagging in the lively national conversation about how best to limit unwarranted record-based discrimination. In 2021, we predict a continuing expansion of record-clearing opportunities, both for conviction and non-conviction dispositions. We also expect additional efforts to automate record relief, which in turn will necessitate simplification of eligibility criteria and improved records management by courts and repositories, which should lead to better coordination of state and federal records systems and more reliable criminal background checks. Elimination of bars to occupational licensing will also continue to be a top priority, given the bipartisan support for these regulatory reforms. So will expansion of diversionary and deferred dispositions, which we were pleased to see in the Business Roundtable’s “second chance agenda.” We also hope for continued progress toward restored voting rights for—at the very least—all citizens living in the community, without regard to whether they have completed the terms of their sentence or paid off court-ordered financial obligations.  Other issues that should be addressed by the states are the extension of fair employment and housing laws to cover discrimination based on criminal record, matters of particular importance during a pandemic and economic crisis. Finally, we hope that Congress will work to develop and make available to people with federal convictions the same type of statutory restoration mechanisms that are available for people with state convictions, to supplement if not largely replace presidential pardons as a routine record relief mechanism. For example, the absence of any statutory or administrative mechanism for restoring firearms rights to people with a federal conviction has swelled pardon case backlogs at the Justice Department in the past 25 years, and this issue should be addressed by the incoming administration. Congress could also usefully expand the existing federal deferred adjudication statute[ii] to cover any probation-eligible offense, since avoiding a conviction record is infinitely preferable to trying to neutralize one after the fact. Another area that Congress should reconsider is how federal statutes treat state non-conviction dispositions like diversion and deferred adjudication, including under the immigration laws, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Small Business Administration assistance, and criminal history provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.[iii] In short, in 2021 we expect to see a continuation of recent years’ commitment to fair treatment of people with a criminal record, in legislatures, in state houses, and in courts. In this regard, three projects we intend to focus on this year are improving access to petition-based felony expungement, putting together a set of best practices for court-managed diversionary programs, and advising jurisdictions in developing a reasonably attainable legislative package of record reforms. We will develop an agenda of statutory and regulatory reforms for the federal system as well. We will also look for opportunities to advocate for improvements in specific laws and record relief programs, and to participate as amicus curiae in promising litigation involving restoration of rights. Throughout, we will encourage a conversation about the vexing problem of unclear and inconsistent terminology that frustrates the development of a consistent national record relief policy.  And, of course, we will continue to update the Restoration of Rights Project as laws are enacted, report periodically on significant new authorities, and sum up each year’s work at its conclusion. The full report is available here. [i] See CCRC annual reports on new legislation describing new restoration and record relief laws from 2013 through 2019, accessible at https://ccresourcecenter.org/resources-2/resources-reports-and-studies/: Pathways to Reintegration: Criminal Record Reforms in 2019 (2020); Reducing Barriers to Reintegration: Fair chance and expungement reforms in 2018 (2019); Second Chance Reforms in 2017: Roundup of new expungement and restoration Laws (2018); Four Years of Second Chance Reforms, 2013 – 2016: Restoration of Rights & Relief from Collateral Consequences (2017). [ii] 18 U. S. C. § 3607, the so-called Federal First Offender Act. [iii] See Federal laws that give effect to state relief mechanisms, Federal: Restoration of Rights & Record Relief, CCRC Restoration of Rights Project (Last updated Nov. 2, 2020), https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/federalrestoration-of-rights-pardon-expungement-sealing/#E_Federal_laws_that_give_effect_to_state_relief_mechanisms. 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. As of this writing, in nearly half the states (21 states), LFOs have no bearing on reenfranchisement.  In a number of others (15 states), regaining the vote is tied to completion of supervision, which may give courts and supervision officials some discretion to delay reenfranchisement if LFOs have not been paid, but not to deny it permanently. Moreover, officials in many of these “delay” states must consider ability to pay in determining whether to extend supervision, and officials may consider ability to pay in others. In total, 10 states deny the vote to at least some people who have otherwise completed all aspects of their sentence, but still owe LFOs. Of these 10, only 3 states including Florida have laws mandating indefinite denial of the vote to any person with any unpaid LFOs from a disqualifying conviction, even if the person has completed all non-financial requirements of the sentence, and regardless of ability to pay.  The other 7 states indefinitely deny reenfranchisement because of unpaid LFOs, but only in certain cases.  An impressive new report prepared for the Sentencing Project estimates that 5.2 million Americans remain disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, including an estimated 900,000 Floridians who have otherwise completed their felony sentences, but still owe LFOs; the authors of that report have not been able to provide firm estimates on the number of people adversely affected by the LFO policies in the 9 other states, but note that they “serve as an additional driver of disenfranchisement.”[1] Four states handle reenfranchisement exclusively through a discretionary exercise of constitutional clemency.  The governors of 3 of these states currently exercise their clemency power on a broad basis to reenfranchise most individuals who have completed incarceration and supervision time, without regard to payment of LFOs. Our report, which includes legal citations, is available at this link. [1] Chris Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Arleth Pulido-Nava, Locked Out 2020: Estimates of People Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction, Sentencing Project (Oct. 30, 2020), https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/. Read more