|
By Alexandria Staubach WJI and a coalition of groups are working to get the word out: If you have a felony conviction and you’re “off paper,” you can vote. Wisconsin restores voting eligibility when someone is “off paper,” meaning after full completion of all portions of a sentence, including incarceration, supervision, and payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. In Milwaukee, the League of Women Voters, Souls to the Polls, and EXPO (Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing) lead efforts to educate and register eligible voters with felony records. Disenfranchisement upon felony conviction is nothing new. Its history extends back to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and Southern Reconstruction. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (laws allowing old activities to persist despite new laws) have largely been disavowed among the 50 states, but felony disenfranchisement remains. Christal Arroyo Roman of Milwaukee lost her right to vote because of conviction and incarceration, but has been off paper since 2020. Arroyo Roman, who serves on the WJI board, is now a paralegal, Marquette University student, and criminal justice organizer. In an interview with WJI, Arroyo Roman said that voting in 2020’s election “felt liberating.” For so long she felt her voice was suppressed. Prior to incarceration, she thought that politicians did not care about her community, so she did not vote. When she went to prison and felt the “laws and legislation that were being enacted against [her],” she became aware of the importance of voting. “Even if I feel like my community isn’t being heard, it feels good to have a voice,” she said. Arroyo Roman highlighted that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) wants formerly incarcerated people to participate in pro-social behaviors like paying taxes. “If the government wants us to participate, we should be able to vote,” she said. Maine, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not participate in felony disenfranchisement. But some form of felony disenfranchisement persists in 48 states, according to the federal government website vote.gov. Twenty-four states permit a person to vote immediately after release from prison, and 13 states may preclude one from voting even after full completion of a sentence. Wisconsin and 11 other states fall in the middle, restoring eligibility to vote after full completion of the terms of a sentence and being “restored to civil rights.” According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Wisconsin Legislature constitutionally “may enact laws excluding a person who has been convicted of a felony from voting until he or she is restored to civil rights,” and the law “precludes permanent felony disenfranchisement but does not define or describe what constitutes restoration of civil rights.” By statute, a convicted individual must sign a DOC form acknowledging that they may not vote. DOC is required by law to transmit to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on a continuous basis, a list of each living person who has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible to vote, plus the date on which DOC anticipates the person’s voting rights will be restored. The commission then forwards that list of ineligible people to municipal clerks. Clerks are responsible for notifying each person on the list in their municipalities that their voter registration is inactive until the person is eligible to vote again. Restoration under Wisconsin law occurs automatically upon completion of the terms of any sentence imposed, the Legislative Council says. No separate hearing or procedure occurs; no signed document from any entity is required or provided to prove restoration of the vote. Once a person is off paper, the person must re-register to cast a ballot. The DOC is required to inform an individual when their sentence is complete, civil rights have been restored, and they can vote, says the Legislative Council. An election clerk may nevertheless believe that someone with a felony record is ineligible to vote. In that case, the clerk must allow the person to cast a ballot. The ballot will then be marked for closer inspection, which could lead to a challenge. After an election, each election clerk generates and forwards a list of all persons who voted in their county to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission then checks that list against the information provided by DOC. The commission may refer any instance of voting by a disenfranchised person to the district attorney for prosecution in the county where the ballot was cast. Despite the lackluster framework around restoration of voting rights, providing false information on a voter registration form is a class I felony, as is voting in an election when one is not qualified. In recent years, organizations including EXPO, Wisdom, ACLU of Wisconsin, Project Return, Wisconsin Voices, Justified Anger (Madison), and Just Leadership USA, developed a package of legislation that sought to “Unlock the Vote.” The bill package addressed issues from prison gerrymandering (counting those in prison as residents of the prison location rather than as residents of their communities before incarceration) to restoring the right to vote to people who are out of prison yet still on supervision. The bills were introduced in 2022 by Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), who earlier this year left the Legislature after appointment as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. The bills were referred to legislative committees but did not reach committee votes. The bills were not reintroduced in the next legislative session. 
0 Comments
 By Alexandria Staubach For someone convicted of a criminal offense, even under the best circumstances—good financial resources, a job, decent credit—it can be very difficult to find housing. The basic need of housing is a primary condition of supervision for many, but access to housing can be hard to come by. In part 1 of this series, WJI reported on the professional licensing problems of Stuart Parker Arthur, a Wisconsin resident who was twice incarcerated for convictions in Missouri. Arthur told WJI that after his release from custody in Missouri, he came back to Wisconsin and began to look for a place to live. It was a condition of his supervision. Everywhere he applied inquired about his criminal history, he said. If he wasn’t denied outright, he was subsequently informed there was nothing available for him, he said. Not checking the boxes on applications asking about convictions was “not really an option,” Arthur told WJI. “You’re on probation and there’s this whole piece where you’re supposed to be doing the right thing, to be honest.” Arthur said he also knew Missouri gave free access to court records and a simple search for him would show his criminal history. Arthur moved in with his mother and began thinking about buying his own home. He “didn’t see another way,” he said. Mortgage lender Sue Foley (the lender who eventually became his boss) told WJI that she worked with Arthur for more than a year to get him to circumstances that would allow him to qualify for a mortgage. Arthur told WJI he ultimately purchased a home with help from his mother. Purchasing a home is not a viable option, though, for most people returning to Wisconsin communities after conviction and incarceration. Many reentering individuals do not even have family to provide a place to stay or otherwise help. According to “Who’s Coming Home?” a study conducted during 2019 and 2020 by Project Return in collaboration with Data You Can Use, about 2,475 people return annually to the Milwaukee area following incarceration. More than half are under age 35. Roughly 42% will have some need related to finding or maintaining a place to live. Those with shorter terms of incarceration show the greatest need for housing assistance: in 2019, 60% of people returning home had been incarcerated for two years or less, and half of that number had stable-housing needs. According to the report, “the importance of finding a stable residence cannot be overestimated," and evidence suggests that the ability find secure housing during the first year of release reduces the probability of return to prison. Conversely, those who enter a homeless shelter in the first year after release face a higher risk of re-incarceration. WJI spoke with Conor Williams, an economic policy analyst for Community Advocates who is familiar with the report and the issue. Williams facilitates the Milwaukee Reentry Council, a subcommittee of the Milwaukee Community Justice Council, which works to improve reentry outcomes and to reduce incarceration. Williams told WJI, “if we provide decent and affordable housing, (reintegration) becomes more manageable.” And, while Milwaukee has “reduced chronic homelessness over the last seven to eight years, we haven’t extended that to the reentry community.” Williams and the Milwaukee Reentry Council are trying to bridge this gap by introducing a third party to the tenant/landlord relationship. Williams pointed to nonprofit organizations such as Project Return or the Alma Center mediating with a landlord on behalf of a tenant who has been previously incarcerated. Williams said that practice “needs to be built out in a more systematic way.” Williams is a strong proponent of applying the “housing first” model to reentry. "Housing first" is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes permanent residence without preconditions for the unhoused. Milwaukee County adopted a housing first model in 2015. According to the county’s website, the approach has saved taxpayers $30 million since. In it first five years the program reduced overall homelessness by 46% and “unsheltered street homelessness” by 92%. Williams said that it costs roughly $45,000 a year to incarcerate someone, but resources are not made “available in a wise way to make people successful in reentry.” He highlighted the “reactive system” we have instead, addressing housing issues only after something has gone wrong. A Minnesota study by nonprofits working in reentry between 2010 and 2017 concluded that 11 of 15 categories of criminal offenses (including marijuana possession, alcohol-related offenses, minor drug-related offenses, minor public-order offenses, and reckless driving) had no significant effect on housing outcomes. The study found that four categories (fraud, assault, property offenses, and major drug-related offenses) “may have a statistically significant effect” but that even in those cases the risk to landlords of a negative outcome was increased by only three to nine percentage points. According to the study, data supports “a nuanced approached to screening based on criminal history” rather than a blanket ban by landlords on persons with prior convictions. A blanket ban “unnecessarily limits access to housing,” the report said. Williams suggests the book Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison by Bruce Western for those wishing to explore the topic further. Conor Williams will be the speaker at WJI's upcoming August Salon. Save the date and time: Aug. 28 at noon. Location in Milwaukee TBD. By Alexandria Staubach An employer wants him, he has the skills to do the job, and he passed the required courses and test required for a mortgage-lending-originator license. Yet he is barred from obtaining that license—and related employment and career—because of felony convictions for conduct unrelated to the financial industry or matters of trust. “Collateral consequences” are the various restrictions that affect people convicted of crime even after they have served their sentences. Such restrictions can impact access to employment, licensing, and housing, and myriad other things. They may not directly relate to the crime of conviction, and they can apply without consideration of the person’s rehabilitation or risk. The struggle to find employment after a felony conviction is well documented and studied. A September 2023 report conducted by the Internal Revenue Service states “that (criminal) records may be preventing about one third of working-age males from contributing to the formal economy.” The same study found negative effects on employment prospects “even in cases where charges did not lead to convictions.” WJI recently sat down with a formerly incarcerated person who is putting in serious work to obtain gainful employment, to discuss the roadblocks he has faced in a system that just won’t get out of his way.  Stuart Parker Arthur Stuart Parker Arthur, 26, grew up in south central Wisconsin. When he was in his late teens, he relocated to Missouri to work for his biological father in his business.
Shortly after Arthur arrived, he threw a large party. Arthur was young. The police came. The police found drugs. The police found a gun. According to Arthur, the drugs were trace quantities of cocaine and the gun was disassembled. Missouri court records indicate that on Jan. 26, 2019, Arthur was charged with possession of a controlled substance other than marijuana, a Class D felony, and unlawful use of a weapon, a Class E felony. Missouri felonies are graded on an A-E scale, with Class E felonies carrying the least significant penalties. Arthur told WJI he felt his best option was to take a plea deal that avoided a prison sentence because his then-fiancée was pregnant with their first child. Court records indicate that Arthur pleaded guilty to the two charges on July 25, 2019, and received a suspended sentence, meaning the charges would ultimately be dismissed if he successfully completed five years of supervised probation. Arthur told WJI that his fiancée suffered from a drug addiction and in the winter of 2020, after the birth of their child, she overdosed in a hotel room on a combination of drugs including fentanyl and heroin. “It happens a lot more than people think,” said Arthur. Arthur said he went to the hotel room with his infant child and met with police. The overdose was fatal. Initially, Arthur was not charged with any crime. Court records do not reflect any probation violations, either. Six months later, on June 27, 2020, Arthur was charged with endangering the welfare of a child involving drugs, as a result of bringing his child to the scene of his fiancée’s drug overdose. “I had completed drug rehabilitation” pursuant to his supervised probation, said Arthur. “I voluntarily went to inpatient treatment to deal with potential relapse from the grief,” he told WJI. Consistent with the new charges, court records of July 15, 2020, reflect the first violation of probation filed in his original case. Nearly two years later, on May 2, 2022, Arthur pleaded guilty to the child endangerment charge, again feeling the pressure of having a child on the way and hoping to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. On the new charges, Arthur was sentenced to 120 days of inpatient treatment while incarcerated and two years of supervised probation that included random blood, breath, and urine testing, despite any indication that ongoing drug use was an issue. Court records reflect no subsequent probation violations, and he was discharged from probation on the child endangerment charge as of May 28, 2024. However, as a result of the second offense, his earlier drug and gun possession suspended sentence was revoked and a new sentence was imposed. He served 120 days of additional incarceration and was sentenced to another five years of supervised probation. Supervision on the drug and firearm case will terminate in August 2027, though they could terminate as early as winter of 2025 with time credits for good behavior, said Arthur. Arthur told WJI he has otherwise met the obligations of his sentence. Following release, Arthur relocated to Wisconsin, where his mother lives. Among other stipulations, Arthur was required to obtain housing and employment. He initially found work as a car salesman. But he was unable to find housing (look for part 2 on the housing issue). Because he could not find housing, Arthur reached out to a mortgage lender with the hope of eventually purchasing a home. In the process, he discovered he was good at deciphering what he needed to qualify and what rates and programs would be available to him. “I had done my homework,” Arthur said. Sue Foley, Arthur’s mortgage lender, also thought he had a knack for the work. She remains “impressed by his efforts to turn his life around.” “His credit score is in the 700’s, he owns a home” Foley told WJI. Foley encouraged Arthur to come work for her at Nations Lending, even though they had never hired anyone with a felony conviction. She believed he could be licensed in Wisconsin if they could get him through her company and its attorneys. In Wisconsin, the license for a mortgage loan originator is obtained through the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). According to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), the license is required of anyone who takes or negotiates the terms of a residential mortgage loan. According to NMLS, the license requires completion of 20 hours of precertification training and passage of a test. Wisconsin law further requires that "(a)n applicant shall not have been convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a felony in a domestic, foreign, or military court during the 7-year period preceding the date of the application or, for a felony involving an act of fraud, dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, at any time preceding the date of the application. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any conviction for which the applicant has received a pardon." However, the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits discrimination against individuals and “certain licensed activities” on 14 protected traits, including records of arrest or conviction. Storm Larson, a Madison based employment attorney, wrote in an article in Wisconsin Lawyer that employers and licensors have “leeway to consider an employee’s record of conviction” and “the general rule is that conviction records cannot be considered in making an employment decision unless ‘the circumstances of the [the conviction] substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity’” (emphasis in original). The Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 2022 decision muddied the waters and caused employer and licensors to deploy a “fact-intensive inquiry into the circumstances of the job and conviction itself,” wrote Larson. Now, “the supreme court specifically notes that the length of time between the conviction and the application for employment can be relevant to determining the likelihood of recidivism,” he wrote. Previously that was not a factor. Despite the law and the costs, Arthur completed the necessary course work and testing to obtain his license. He applied at Nations Lending and was hired by the firm. When Arthur submitted his license application to DFI, Nations Landing backed him. Arthur supplied additional letters of support from his employers at two car dealerships. Foley told WJI that Arthur even obtained a letter of support from the warden of the Missouri prison where he had been incarcerated. Nevertheless, DFI rejected Arthur’s license application because of his felony convictions. DFI wrote that its legal staff had reviewed case law about the WFEA and that the law governing licensure for mortgage loan originators “does not give the Division discretion to consider those facts and circumstances, unless the crimes have been expunged or pardoned or are older than seven years.” “(E)ven if the Division could consider those facts and circumstances for these offenses, it would not find licensure appropriate at this point given the recency of the offenses. Your subsequent life changes are more consistent with holding a position of financial trust, but establishing a longer post-offense track record is required to provide adequate assurance that the applicant meets the requirements for licensure,” DFI wrote. Arthur attempted to dispute DFI’s decision, but there is no formal appeal process under Wisconsin law. Ultimately, on May 29, 2024, Arthur withdrew his application so it would not later show up as a denial. “They’re making me give up a job that that I am good at, a job that could give me a better life,” Arthur told WJI. “There are people who want something better when they get out of prison,” said Foley. “We shouldn’t throw away the baby with the bath water.” WJI reached out to DFI and spoke with the agency’s Chief Legal Counsel, Matthew Lynch. Lynch said DFI has no official position and that the agency cannot comment on specific cases. Lynch acknowledged the tension between state licensing requirements and WFEA. Lynch told WJI that in his analysis, federal law drove Wisconsin’s adoption of the statue governing mortgage lending and sets minimum requirements, including the provision requiring seven years between conviction and licensure. According to Lynch, states that run afoul of the federal standards would be subject to federal intervention and control over licensing in the area. Lynch said the “agency would be happy to take another direction but it would likely run afoul of federal law.” Lynch further told WJI that his analysis of the legislative intent behind the mortgage lender licensing statue also drives their decision making. In 2013 the Legislature added language to the mortgage licensing statue that permits them to use the discretion described in WFEA for convictions that have been expunged or pardoned, Lynch said. The 2013 addition “can’t make sense” if the agency had the ability to use the mitigation factors under WFEA in every case, he said. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed