Category: Voting

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

and

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.

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

The Reintegration Report Card

We are pleased to publish “The Reintegration Report Card,” a new resource that ranks and grades all 50 states on how their laws address voting rights, record relief (including expungement and pardon), fair employment, and occupational licensing for people with a criminal record.

This Report Card supplements our recent 50-state report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration.” That report surveys U.S. laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. It grades the states on nine different types of restoration laws, including voting rights, six different record relief remedies, and laws regulating consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. Based on these grades, the report includes an overall ranking of the states and D.C.

This Report Card provides the grades and rankings in a more easily accessible form. It also includes a brief narrative summary of how each state’s law stacks up in the different graded categories. Our hope is that these summaries will suggest ways in which a state might improve its laws and hence its overall ranking. An appendix collects all the grades and rankings (the rankings are also at the end of this post).

We emphasize once again that our grades are based solely on the text of each state’s law, leaving more nuanced judgments about their actual operation to practitioners, researchers, and the law’s intended beneficiaries. We expect to look more closely at the operation of some of the record relief laws in the near future, and welcome comments and suggestions from those who have experience with them. In the meantime, we hope our grades will challenge, encourage, and inspire additional reforms in the months and years ahead.

The Reintegration Report Card is available at this link. For more details and legal citations for each state, see the Restoration of Rights Project. For essays surveying each topic, consult “The Many Roads to Reintegration.”

Read more

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

and

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 newer to the field, like Nevada, Colorado, and North Dakota. These and the other states in our Top Ten set an example that we hope will inspire other jurisdictions in the months and years to come.

The executive summary of the report is reprinted below. The full report is available in PDF and HTML formats.

Read more

NC court rules vote may not be denied based on court debt

On September 4, a North Carolina state court issued a major decision on restoration of voting rights.  In North Carolina, voting rights lost upon a felony conviction are automatically restored upon “unconditional discharge” of sentence or unconditional pardon.  A three-judge panel, observing that “unconditional discharge” can be delayed for up to eight years because of unpaid restitution and other financial obligations, ruled that conditioning the vote on payment of money violates the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and ban on property qualifications in voting.  The court held, in a 2-1 ruling, that the state may not withhold the vote from people whose only remaining aspect of their sentence–other than regular conditions of probation–is payment of a financial obligation. The dissenting judge opined that people convicted of felonies have no “fundamental interest” in voting.

The court issued a summary judgment order and preliminary injunction requiring the state to allow individuals to register to vote immediately if: (1) their “only remaining barrier to obtaining a ‘unconditional discharge’ other than regular conditions of probation…is the payment of a monetary amount”; or (2) they have been discharged from probation and owed a monetary amount upon termination of probation, including if the amount was reduced to a civil lien.

Forward Justice, Protect Democracy, and Arnold & Porter represent the plaintiffs in the case: Community Success Initiative, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Justice Served NC, Inc, and Wash Away Unemployment. Forward Justice’s press release is here.

Meanwhile, the questions raised by Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system remain under consideration by the federal court of appeals for the 11th Circuit.  CCRC filed an amicus brief in that case describing how court debt affects restoration of voting rights in all 50 states. The full court heard argument in the case Jones v. DeSantis on August 18, but it is not clear whether there will be a decision before the October 5 deadline to register to vote in that state.

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

CCRC urges 11th Circuit to uphold Florida felony voting decision

and

Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case about the constitutionality of Florida’s system for restoring the vote to people with felony convictions.  We urge the court to affirm the lower court decision’s that declared Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system unconstitutional.  The brief draws on our new 50-state research report to show that Florida’s approach to this issue is an outlier among the states.

We were ably represented by Andrew L. Frey, Scott A. Chesin, and Luc W. M. Mitchell of Mayer Brown and very much appreciate their work.

Our brief is a contribution to high-stakes federal litigation in Florida over that state’s 2018 ballot initiative, Amendment 4, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of their criminal record, in some cases for crimes that occurred decades ago.  However, the initiative has been interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which threatens to drastically limit its anticipated reach.

Read more

Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey

We are pleased to publish a new 50-state report on how unpaid court debt blocks restoration of voting rights lost as a result of 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.

This issue has come to the fore as a result of the high-stakes federal litigation in Florida over that state’s 2018 ballot initiative, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of their criminal record, in some cases for crimes that occurred decades ago. However, the initiative has been interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which threatens to drastically limit its anticipated reach.

After a group of voters and organizations sued, a federal judge found this “pay-to-vote” system unconstitutional. The case is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. CCRC expects to file an amicus brief next week that will include an abbreviated version of this report. Our brief will address the claim that many states have reenfranchisement schemes like Florida’s, and that the trial court’s decision would therefore cast doubt on a widespread national practice. But our research finds that very few states have laws like Florida’s that indefinitely deny reenfranchisement based on any unpaid debt related to a disqualifying conviction. In fact, only two other states, Alabama and Arkansas, share the specifics of Florida’s approach.

The issues in the Florida case and the findings of our report are detailed below.

Read more

Loss and restoration of voting and firearms rights after conviction: A national survey

*Update (9/8/20): the full national report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” is now available.

Earlier today we announced the forthcoming publication of a national report on mechanisms for restoring rights and opportunities following arrest or conviction, titled “The Many Roads to Reintegration.”  As promised, here is the first chapter of that report on loss and restoration of voting and firearms rights, a subject that needs little or no introduction.  The research, drawn from the Restoration of Rights Project, reveals a trend since 2015 toward expanding opportunities to regain the vote that has accelerated just in the past two years.

This trend seems particularly timely in light of the pending constitutional challenge to Florida’s restoration system, which raises the question whether the state may constitutionally require people to pay outstanding legal financial obligations (LFOs) before being allowed to vote, even if they cannot afford to do so.  There are now only two states in addition to Florida in which the vote is permanently lost for those unable to pay all LFOs associated with a disqualifying conviction.  An additional seven states permanently deny the vote for those unable to pay certain types of LFOs.  (Early next week, we will publish a report surveying state laws and practices on this issue, which will be included in abbreviated form in an amicus brief we plan to file in the court of appeals in support of the Florida plaintiffs.)

In contrast to voting rights law, there has been almost no change in the past half dozen years in how state and federal law treats firearms restoration after conviction.  In most states, firearms dispossession remains indefinite for anyone convicted of a felony, and restoration depends upon petitioning a court for discretionary relief or asking for a pardon. In 11 of the 26 states in which all firearms rights are permanently lost upon conviction of any felony, and for those with a federal conviction, a pardon is the exclusive restoration mechanism.

A PDF of this chapter is available here.  Coming next week, the report’s chapter on “Employment and Occupational Licensing.”

Read more

Florida felony disenfranchisement law held unconstitutional

This evening the district court issued its opinion in Jones v. DeSantis finding, as expected, that Florida’s system for restoring voting rights to those convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. The opinion is at this link, and its summary by the court is below. Additional details of the decision and the court’s order are reported in this article from the New York Times, and we will report further on the case, including next steps, in a few days.

The State of Florida has adopted a system under which nearly a million otherwise-eligible citizens will be allowed to vote only if they pay an amount of money. Most of the citizens lack the financial resources to make the required payment. Many do not know, and some will not be able to find out, how much they must pay. For most, the required payment will consist only of charges the State imposed to fund government operations—taxes in substance though not in name.

The State is on pace to complete its initial screening of the citizens by 2026, or perhaps later, and only then will have an initial opinion about which citizens must pay, and how much they must pay, to be allowed to vote. In the meantime, year after year, federal and state elections will pass. The uncertainty will cause some citizens who are eligible to vote, even on the State’s own view of the law, not to vote, lest they risk criminal prosecution.

This pay-to-vote system would be universally decried as unconstitutional but for one thing: each citizen at issue was convicted, at some point in the past, of a felony offense. A state may disenfranchise felons and impose conditions on their reenfranchisement. But the conditions must pass constitutional scrutiny. Whatever might be said of a rationally constructed system, this one falls short in substantial respects.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already ruled, in affirming a preliminary injunction in this very case, that the State cannot condition voting on payment of an amount a person is genuinely unable to pay. See Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020). Now, after a full trial on the merits, the plaintiffs’ evidence has grown stronger. This order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay or on payment of taxes, even those labeled fees or costs. This order puts in place administrative procedures that comport with the Constitution and are less burdensome, on both the State and the citizens, than those the State is currently using to administer the unconstitutional pay-to-vote system.

 

1 2 3 4 5