Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:25 pm
Time: 12:25 pm
Results for fines and fees
10 results foundAuthor: Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area Title: Paying More for Being Poor: Bias and Disparity in California's Traffic Court System Summary: California's traffic fines and fees are some of the highest in the country, and new data shows that current California policies disproportionately impact people of color. This report looks at the most recent information available on California's current traffic court system, evaluates its impact on communities of color, examines the statewide fiscal impacts of these policies and practices, and offers some recommendations for how California could improve its traffic court system to become a national model for change. Californians who cannot afford to pay a fine for a traffic citation face harsher consequences than those who can: some Californians mail in a payment, while those who cannot pay experience license suspension, arrest, jail, wage garnishment, towing of their vehicles, and job loss - for the same minor offenses. In 2015, the California Department of Motor Vehicles reported that over 4 million driver licenses had been suspended in recent years for failure to pay or appear on a citation - affecting about one in six California drivers. In April 2017, a DMV point-in-time count showed that 588,939 Californians had lost their licenses because they could not pay or appear in court. To address this significant toll on Californians, Governor Jerry Brown signed an 18-month California Traffic Tickets / Infractions Amnesty Program that reduced fines on pre-2013 traffic tickets by 80% for indigent applicants and allowed people to get on payment plans to get their licenses back. The program allowed nearly 200,000 people to regain their driver licenses. That program ended in April 2017. California now faces the question of what to do next. With the expiration of the amnesty program, there is no longer a pathway by which people who cannot afford to pay fines may pursue license reinstatement. Californians lose the ability to drive legally as a punishment for being unable to pay a fine without any statewide system to make the punishment fit a person's ability to pay or to return a license if the person can make small payments. California has the opportunity to create permanent reforms to this inequitable system. In this report, we present data about the scope of the problem with license suspensions and traffic courts in California and offer some recommendations for policy solutions. We focused our research in the nine Bay Area counties and created fiscal analyses for statewide policy. Findings of note include: California traffic fines and fees are some of highest in country. Although the base fines for California Vehicle Code violations may be lower or comparable to many other states', the add-on fees - and particularly the $300 late penalty - make California one of the states with the steepest fines. 78% of Californians need a driver license to work or to get to work, which means California's current policy of suspending licenses for non-payment is putting at risk the ability of many California families to support themselves. In Bay Area counties, license suspension for failure to pay or appear is exacerbating the racial bias already present in traffic stops. As data show, people of color are more likely to be subjected to traffic stops. Once stopped, people of color are also more likely to be booked on arrests related to failure to appear or failure to pay. The available county-level data shows that African-American people in particular are four to sixteen times more likely to be booked on arrests related to failure to pay an infraction ticket. Even though traffic court is the most common point of contact with the court system - 60% of all court filings statewide are traffic or infraction citations - it is very difficult for someone who cannot afford to pay the full amount to resolve a ticket. None of the nine Bay Area counties surveyed had information about alternative options for low-income people on their websites, available by phone, or in person at the court clerk's office. Details: San Francisco: The Committee, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2017 at: https://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/LCCR-Report-Paying-More-for-Being-Poor-May-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/LCCR-Report-Paying-More-for-Being-Poor-May-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 145317 Keywords: BiasFines and FeesPovertyRacial DiscriminationTraffic Fines |
Author: University of California School of Law - Berkeley. Policy Advocacy Clinic Title: Making Families Pay: The Harmful, Unlawful, and Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administration Fees in California Summary: n the wake of tragedies in cities like Ferguson, Missouri, national attention is focused on the regressive and racially discriminatory practice of charging fines and fees to people in the criminal justice system.People of color are overrepresented at every stage in the criminal justice system, even when controlling for alleged criminal behavior. Racially disproportionate treatment in the system leaves people of color with significantly more criminal justice debt, including burdensome administrative fees. While regressive and discriminatory criminal justice fees have been described and critiqued in the adult system, the issue has received very little attention in the juvenile system. Nevertheless, families with youth in the juvenile system are charged similar fees, which significantly undermine the system's rehabilitative goals. The harmful practice of charging poor people for their interaction with the criminal justice system is not limited to places like Ferguson, Missouri. California, too, makes families pay for their children's involvement in the juvenile system. This report presents findings about the practice of assessing and collecting administrative fees from families with youth in the California juvenile system. We use the term "administrative fees" to describe the charges imposed by local jurisdictions on families for their child's involvement in the juvenile system. State law permits counties to charge administrative fees for legal representation, detention, and probation, but only to families with the ability to pay. Most counties in California charge these administrative fees, imposing millions of dollars of debt on families with youth in the juvenile system. Our research over the last three years reveals that juvenile administrative fees undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system. Counties charge these fees to families already struggling to maintain economic and social stability. Fee debt becomes a civil judgment upon assessment. If families do not pay the fees, counties refer the debt to the state Franchise Tax Board, which garnishes parents' wages and intercepts their tax refunds. Under state law, these fees are meant to help protect the fiscal integrity of counties. They are not supposed to be retributive (to punish the family), rehabilitative (to help the youth) or restorative (to repay victims). This report details our findings on juvenile fees in California, but we summarize them here: HARMFUL: Juvenile administrative fees cause financial hardship to families, weaken family ties, and undermine family reunification. Because Black and Latino youth are overrepresented and overpunished relative to White youth in the juvenile system, families of color bear a disproportionate burden of the fees. Criminologists recently found that juvenile debt correlates with a greater likelihood of recidivism, even after controlling for case characteristics and youth demographics. These negative outcomes from fees undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system. UNLAWFUL: Some counties charge juvenile administrative fees to families in violation of state law, including fees that are not authorized in the juvenile setting, fees that exceed statutory maximums, and fees for youth who are found not guilty. Some counties violate federal law by charging families to feed their children while seeking reimbursement for the same meals from national breakfast and lunch programs. Further, counties engage in fee practices that may violate the state Constitution by depriving families of due process of law through inadequate ability to pay determinations and by denying families equal protection of the law in charging certain fees. COSTLY: Counties are authorized to charge families for juvenile administrative fees to pay for the care and supervision of their children. Yet counties net little revenue from the fees. Because of the high costs and low returns associated with trying to collect fees from low-income families, most of the fee revenue pays for collection activities, not for the care and supervision of youth. Further, the fee debt can cause families to spend less on positive social goods, such as education and preventative healthcare, which imposes long term costs on families, communities, and society by prolonging and exacerbating poverty. Based on our findings, fixing the system is not an option. Charging administrative fees to families with youth in the juvenile system does not serve rehabilitative purposes. Other mechanisms in the system punish youth for their mistakes and address the needs of victims. Further, we did not find a single county in which fee practices were both fair and cost-effective. Counties either improperly charge low-income families and net little revenue, or they fairly assess families' inability to pay and net even less. Counties that have recently considered the overall harm, lawfulness, and costs of juvenile administrative fees have all ended the practice. Details: Berkeley: The Clinic, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: http://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/State-Juvenile-Fees-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/State-Juvenile-Fees-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147032 Keywords: Administrative FeesCriminal Justice DebtFines and FeesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hunt, Heather Title: Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina Summary: In trial courts across North Carolina, poor criminal defendants are regularly and systematically billed for an array of fines and fees they can't afford. Fees are imposed at almost every step in the criminal justice process, starting before conviction and extending for months or years after sentencing. As we detail in our report, Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina, defendants unable to pay these accumulating court costs risk triggering a cascade of draconian penalties: additional fees, revoked driver's licenses and jail time, often for offenses too minor to warrant incarceration in the first place. The result can be surreal and cruel. Defendants unable to pay their fees are sanctioned in ways that make it even harder for them to escape their criminal justice debt. For them, fines and fees constitute an ongoing poverty trap. One Orange County defendant who had previously been jailed for failure to pay court fees explained how she lives in fear of being incarcerated again. If that happens, her husband may have to quit his job to take care of their kids. Then, she frets, they will likely lose their home. "The whole thing leaves my family feeling hopeless," she said, "like we'll never get back on our feet." It feels like a cycle. "We'll never be able to pay and will always be burdened with these costs." It is "almost like a set-up, they know I won't be able to pay." This report is the first in a series of six to be issued by the North Carolina Poverty Research Fund exploring the criminal justice practices that work to criminalize poverty in our state. Through legal analysis, defendants' stories, court observations, and interviews with advocates, public defenders and judges, we show how criminal court fines and fees work in North Carolina to burden poor defendants, and their families and communities. We examine how fees raise troubling questions of constitutionality, cast doubt on the fairness of our courts and infringe on judicial independence. We scrutinize claims about the necessity and cost efficiency of fines and fees and look at the factors that drove their rise in the state. We conclude with simple, straightforward recommendations that can be easily adopted by the courts. Details: Chapel Hill: North Carolina Poverty Research Fund, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2018 at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Shelf Number: 149171 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal DefendantsFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: Gamboa-Eastman, Tara Title: The Problem with Probation: A Study of The Economic and Racial Impact of Probation Fees in California Summary: The Problem: Little Known About How Probation Fees are Implemented California's "tough on crime" doctrine of the last forty years left the state with two problems: a criminal justice system that imprisoned more people than any other state and no way to pay for the profound costs of mass incarceration. The state attempted to solve this problem by charging defendants for their so-called "use" of the system. Today, defendants are charged dozens of fees as they move through the criminal justice system-including probation fees. California allows the state's 58 county probation departments to charge people for the cost of probation. However, without statewide standards, guidelines, or oversight, there is little information about how counties are implementing these fees. While researchers, advocates, and legislators, alike, often raise the detrimental effect of criminal justice fees on a population primarily made up of low-income people of color, little specific attention has been paid to the harmful practice of probation fees. With more than 60 percent of the state's criminal justice impacted population on probation, California cannot ignore the injustice of probation fees. Nor can the practice be reformed without knowledge of how counties are implementing fees on-the-ground. Findings: Fees are Failing People on Probation and County Governments -- To illustrate how probation fees work in counties across California, Public Records Act (PRA) requests were sent to all 58 county probation departments. Eighty percent of counties responded, representing nearly 95 percent of California's total population. Responses show that most counties do not track collection rates, suggesting that the fees are of little consequence to county budgets. Those that did track collection rates reveal low collection rates and high costs of collection, fees contribute little Even if these fees brought in revenue, they are not worth the profound costs to people on probation. Responses highlight tremendous variation in implementation across the state, but even where individual fees are small, debt adds up quickly. The average debt burden for just the three most common fees is more than $3,600, alone. While probation departments are required to consider people's ability to pay these fees and adjust them accordingly, this rarely happens. The result is steep debt with steeper consequences. Details: Los Angeles: Western Center on Law & Poverty , 2018. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2019 at: https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TheProblemWithProbation_GamboaEastman_ForWCLP_Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TheProblemWithProbation_GamboaEastman_ForWCLP_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155055 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationFines and FeesPovertyProbation Fees |
Author: Colgan, Beth Title: Addressing Modern Debtor's Prisons with Graduated Economic Sanctions that Depend on Ability to Pay Summary: The use of monetary sanctions to punish crimes ranging from minor traffic or public order offenses to the most serious felonies is ubiquitous in the United States. Nationally, millions of people hold billions of dollars of criminal debt from past monetary sanctions, much of which is regarded as uncollectible because of the limited financial resources of the debtors. In addition to the costs these unmanageable economic sanctions place on the debtors, their families and communities also suffer significant negative consequences as a result of this regressive system. THE PROPOSAL Drawing on evidence from day-fines pilot projects, this paper offers proposals for taking more account of a person's ability to pay when determining sanctions. Colgan recommends the implementation of one of the following three mechanisms: (1) a flat reduction in penalties, (2) a sliding scale approach, or (3) a day-fines model. In support of the core proposals, the author also describes related best practices that would maximize the proposals' potential benefits. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, 2019. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: POLICY PROPOSAL 2019-04: Accessed march 20, 2019 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Shelf Number: 155066 Keywords: Criminal DebtFines and FeesMonetary Sanctions |
Author: Braden, Myesha Title: Too Poor To Pay: How Arkansas's Offender-Funded Justice System Drives Poverty and Mass Incarceration Summary: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has observed that people of color, the poor, and people with disabilities - who suffer poverty at twice the rate of persons without disabilities - are disproportionately impacted by inability to pay court-imposed costs, fines and fees associated with misdemeanors and low-level offenses. In Arkansas, thousands have been jailed, often repeatedly, for weeks or even months at a time, simply because they are poor and cannot afford to pay court costs, fines and fees. They face numerous collateral consequences in addition to loss of freedom, including loss of employment, homelessness, and some have lost custody of their children when they were unable to pay fines and fees established by the state legislature to offset the growing costs of maintaining Arkansas' massive criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 2019. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2019 at: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Shelf Number: 155217 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Title: At All Costs: The Consequences of Rising Court Fines and Fees in North Carolina Summary: The United States formally abolished "'debtors' prisons" - the incarceration of people who fail to pay off debts - nearly two centuries ago. But today in North Carolina, thousands of low-income people are in jail, trapped in a cycle of debt, or both, because they cannot afford the unconstitutional fines and fees that courts order them to pay when convicted of any crime, even as minor as a speeding ticket. The cost and number of fines and fees have skyrocketed across North Carolina in recent years, thanks to a series of legislative changes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and the day-to-day decisions of judges who have too often bent to the legislative desire to turn the judiciary to debt collection. In courtrooms across the state, there is no consistent standard for when and how fines and fees are imposed, and too many judges do not fulfill their constitutional obligation to inquire about an individual's financial status before ordering them to pay fines and fees, as required by law. As a result, judges routinely order low-income North Carolinians - a disproportionate number of them people of color - to pay fines and fees that they cannot afford. Failure to pay will result in more fines, fueling a cycle of debt that forces people to forgo the basic necessities of life in order to avoid jail and collateral consequences. In this racially-skewed, two-tiered system, the rich and the poor can commit the exact same offense, but the poor will receive harsher and longer punishments simply because they are poor. While some actors, from public defenders to state legislators to reform-minded judges, have fought for fairer processes and outcomes, too many North Carolina judges nevertheless routinely violate the rights of low-income people who appear in their courtrooms. This report examines the history of those court costs, how North Carolina has sought to turn the judiciary from its role as a neutral arbiter of justice toward service as a state debt collector, and how the resulting unjust system criminalizes poverty, violates people's rights, and preys on many of our state's most vulnerable residents. Details: Raleigh: Author, 2019. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2019 at: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Shelf Number: 155456 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPovertyRacial Disparities |
Author: Garrett, Brandon L. Title: Driver's License Suspension in North Carolina Summary: In this Article, we analyze data concerning driver's license suspension for traffic offenses. The interest of a person in a driver's license is "substantial," and the suspension of a license by the state can result in "inconvenience and economic hardship suffered," as the U.S. Supreme Court has observed, including because a license may "essential in the pursuit of a livelihood." However, in this analysis of North Carolina data, we found that there are 1,225,000 active driver's licenses suspensions in North Carolina for non-driving related reasons, relating to failure to pay traffic fines and court courts, and failure to appear in court for traffic offenses. These suspensions constitute about 15% of all adult drivers in the state. Of those, 827,000 are for failure to appear in court, 263,000 for failure to comply with orders to pay traffic costs, fines, and fees, and 135,000 for both. These suspensions are disproportionately imposed on minority residents. Of those with driver's license suspensions, 33% of those with failure to appear suspensions are black and 24% Latinx, while 35% were white. The demographics for all North Carolina residents who are of driving age include: 65% white, 21% black, and 8% Latinx. Still more severe consequences, DWLR charges, also disproportionately fall on minority residents. We also conducted a series of mixed-model linear regressions on North Carolina driver's license suspensions from 2010-2017, analyzing the effects of race, poverty, population size, traffic court cases and traffic stops on suspensions per county. Overall, population accounts for most of the variation in suspensions: the more people in the county, the more people have suspended licenses. When we control for population, we see little evidence that traffic stops or traffic cases are driving suspensions. We find that the relationship between the number of people in poverty and the number of suspensions in a county is dependent on race. Put another way, increasing a county's population by one white individual below poverty increases the number of suspensions by a greater amount than increasing the county's population by one white above poverty. However, increasing the population by one black individual below poverty increases the number of suspensions by less than increasing the county population by one black individual above poverty. This suggests that poverty functions differently for whites than it does for blacks. We conclude by setting out questions for future research, and describing both law and policy responses to driver's license suspensions in other jurisdictions, including: constitutional challenges, restoration efforts, dismissals of charges, and legislative efforts to restore licenses and end the suspension of driver's licenses for non-driving related traffic offenses. Details: Durham, NC: Duke University School of Law, 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355599 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355599 Shelf Number: 155459 Keywords: Court AppearanceDrivers License SuspensionsFines and FeesPovertyRacial DisparitiesTraffic OffensesTraffic Violations |
Author: Murphy, Don K. Title: Why Crime Doesn't Pay: Examining Felony Collections Summary: What makes collecting in felony cases so difficult? In 2013 alone $278 million dollars were assessed on felony cases state-wide. The collection rate for felony costs was below 14%. That left a collections gap of over $240 million dollars in 2013. While each felony defendant may receive different sanctions, all of them are assessed fines and costs. If these costs are part of the court's sentencing sanctions, what prevents them from being satisfied? What can be done to improve things? This project explored the potential for felony collections both state-wide in Florida and in the local courts of Volusia County. Research identified expectations for felony collections and asked what factors inhibit achieving a better collection rate for these cases. An analysis was then performed to identify the types of investments that should be made by the courts to gain a better collection rate for the felony sanctions assessed each year in Volusia County. The literature review initially began with the National Center for State Courts' CourTools performance measures as a means to seek best practice guidelines on the collection of court fines and fees from a national perspective. However, CourTool Measure 7 focused on misdemeanor case performance rather than felony case types. The literature review continued with a look at best practices in collections that are used in trial courts by examining collections handbooks published by the National Center for State. The project also examined the experiences of four specific state trial courts in Texas, Michigan, Arizona, and California to understand techniques used in these jurisdictions to collect criminal fines and costs. Finally, Florida legislation was analyzed that defines the obligations of court collections. In addition to the literature review, surveys were conducted with collectors in Clerk's offices across Florida to better understand how collections are performed. Court collections experts were surveyed separately to gain insight from long standing collection practitioners concerning their opinions on the challenges and opportunities to improve collections in felony cases. Annual statistics were reviewed from the state mandated Assessments and Collections Report and a five year statistical review was conducted of Volusia County felony cases to explore the characteristics that make collections difficult to obtain, including prison sanctions, defendants who lack the means to pay, and the high dollar assessments required in drug trafficking cases. Literature suggested and results in both surveys supported the finding that felony collections are especially difficult. Two separate data reviews confirmed the depth of the challenge and potential causes that inhibit felony collections. According to the collector's survey, prison sentences contribute to collections difficulties. The Volusia report indicated that over 35% of felony defendants sentenced in Volusia County went to prison over the past five years. Defendants not in prison also faced difficulties paying. Over 70% of all felony defendants were declared indigent by federal guidelines, which determines a defendant's ability to pay costs. Collections were also inhibited by the very large assessments assigned to drug trafficking cases; in Volusia County over the past five years, 1% of all defendants sentenced were for drug trafficking offenses. This accounts for up to 62% of all outstanding felony debt. The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), is involved with 93% of all sentenced felons. Survey results and an interview with DOC suggested that dialogue between collectors and DOC is limited. DOC staffing constraints require focus primarily towards additional criminal behavior and victim protection, leaving limited time to work with felony payment obligations, and in many cases, defendants' cases are closed with payments due. Felony cases received longer prison sanctions, carried larger fines and costs, and the costs were assessed against defendants with limited abilities to pay. Felony collections have definite challenges that require different types of attention. Working these cases the same as other collections cases will continue to produce unsatisfactory results. Knowing what it takes to collect felony assessments requires an improved focus on factors that inhibit collections from the organizations involved. Legislators require assessment and collection results each year in Florida; these numbers demonstrate a sizeable collections gap. By including factors that inhibit collections in state reporting, reviewers see the challenges associated with collections efforts. Clerks recently introduced these collection inhibitors to the current Assessment and Collections Report to better reflect these factors. Felony cases carry longer sanctions. Adjusting felony collection timelines beyond 12 months would more properly demonstrate efforts made on cases over a period of three years once defendants are released from prison. While in prison, Florida should consider requiring defendants to pay court sanctions. Collections practices in Michigan and Texas confirmed that this process can work and that paying while in prison acknowledges the sanction ordered by the court. It is necessary to orient all court participants towards a program where felony collections become a priority to ultimately improve collections received. Educating participants about the causes will contribute to the solution. Crime can pay in these cases - but it is necessary to take time to properly educate participants about the nuances of felony collections as well as a collaborative approach to felony collections with all justice partners contributing towards the solution. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Shelf Number: 155567 Keywords: Court FinesDebtors PrisonFelony ConvictionsFelony OffendersFines and Fees |
Author: Colgan, Beth Title: Wealth-Based Penal Disenfranchisement Summary: This Article offers the first comprehensive examination of the way in which the inability to pay economic sanctions-fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution—may prevent people of limited means from voting. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of penal disenfranchisement upon conviction, and all but two states revoke the right to vote for at least some offenses. The remaining jurisdictions allow for re-enfranchisement for most or all offenses under certain conditions. One often overlooked condition is payment of economic sanctions regardless of whether the would-be voter has the ability to pay before an election registration deadline. The scope of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement is grossly underestimated, with commentators typically stating that nine states sanction such practices. Through an in-depth examination of a tangle of statutes, administrative rules, and policies related to elections, clemency, parole, and probation, as well as responses from public disclosure requests and discussions with elections and corrections officials and other relevant actors, this Article reveals that wealth-based penal disenfranchisement is authorized in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. After describing the mechanisms for wealth-based penal disenfranchisement, this Article offers a doctrinal intervention for dismantling them. There has been limited, and to date unsuccessful, litigation challenging these practices as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. Because voting eligibility is stripped of its fundamental nature for those convicted of a crime, wealth-based penal disenfranchisement has been subject to the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, leading lower courts to uphold the practice. This Article posits that these courts have approached the validity of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement through the wrong frame - the right to vote - when the proper frame is through the lens of punishment. This Article examines a line of cases in which the Court restricted governmental action that would result in disparate treatment between rich and poor in criminal justice practices, juxtaposing the cases against the Court's treatment of wealth-based discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment doctrine and the constitutional relevance of indigency in the criminal justice system broadly. Doing so supports the conclusion that the Court has departed from the traditional tiers of scrutiny. The resulting test operates as a flat prohibition against the use of the government's prosecutorial power in ways that effectively punish one's financial circumstances unless no other alternative response could satisfy the government's interest in punishing the disenfranchising offense. Because such alternatives are available, wealth-based penal disenfranchisement would violate the Fourteenth Amendment under this approach. Details: Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law, 2019. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 19-10: 72 Vand. L. Rev. 55 (2019): Accessed July 2, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3312439 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3312439 Shelf Number: 156823 Keywords: DisenfranchisementDue ProcessEconomic SanctionsEqual ProtectionFines and FeesFourteenth AmendmentPovertySentencingVoting Rights |