By Erica Smith Ewing and Daryl James
People who do the crime should do the time. But Reno officials want more. Proposed code revisions would tack on additional penalties that would hinder anyone with a felony record from earning an honest living.
If the City Council approves the current draft, about one in 12 workers—roughly 8 percent, based on national estimates—would face punishments never imposed by a judge or jury. These collateral consequences would continue indefinitely, no matter what returning citizens do make restitution or show rehabilitation.
All crimes would come with a life sentence in Reno. No expiration. No redemption. No fresh start. Ex-offenders would feel the effects on two fronts. They would lose opportunities to work for themselves. And they would lose opportunities to work for others.
Reno would start by restricting access to business licenses, and not just for people with felony records. “Good cause” to stop an otherwise lawful enterprise could include a single misdemeanor conviction or any crime of “moral turpitude.” Even rumor and innuendo could be enough to trigger a rejection.
Regulators would consider everything, including “negative information or inferences regarding probity, moral character, reputation for truthfulness, honesty or integrity.” The only thing out of bounds would be minor traffic offenses.
This scrutiny would extend to investors and key employees. Applicants who partner with ex-offenders would be guilty by association, even if their own records are clean. The type of business would also make a difference. Food truck owners, sidewalk vendors, secondhand dealers, vending machine operators, and other types of entrepreneurs would face extra scrutiny.
“Reno still has time to back away from policy disaster.”
If would-be business owners give up and look for regular employment, they could still find themselves shut out. The proposed code revisions would give the police chief final say over work permits, and denial would be automatic for any person convicted of a violent crime or drug crime within the past five years.
These restrictions would be on top of state laws that already are the worst in the nation for ex-offenders seeking an occupational license. Nevada earns an F in every category on a nationwide report card from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice.
Only Alabama, South Dakota, and Vermont perform at the same low level.
Reno still has time to back away from policy disaster. The comment period for the proposed changes will continue through Oct. 31. Until then, the City Council should consider all the ways the revisions could backfire.
Blocking people’s ability to provide for themselves is the last thing society should want, unless the goal is to channel ex-offenders back to prison. People need some way to buy food and pay rent, and steady income is often a condition of parole. Stifling business activity would also hurt consumers and stunt economic growth.
Even if Reno cares nothing about humanitarian concerns or tax revenue, the government still has an obligation to follow the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law, which includes the right to earn an honest living. Regulators cannot block someone from starting a business or working in their chosen occupation without good reason.
Courtney Haveman already established this principle in Pennsylvania when the state cosmetology board tried to stop her from working as a skin care specialist due to two misdemeanor convictions in her youth. Following a lawsuit, Haveman scored one victory in court and another at the Legislature, where state lawmakers passed sweeping reforms.
Similar battles have played out nationwide. Regulators tried to stop Rudy Carey from working as an addiction recovery counselor in Virginia. Regulators tried to stop Jaime Rojas from working as an ocean lifeguard in Florida. And the Federal Communications Commission tried to stop Joe Armstrong from operating a radio station in Tennessee. All overcame these barriers once our firm got involved. But a person should not need a lawyer just to get a job.
The proposed code revisions in Reno are based on a cynical assumption: Once a criminal, always a criminal. Yet ex-offenders can turn their lives around, proving people can change.
Regulators should either help or get out of the way.
- Erica Smith Ewing is a senior attorney and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va.
- Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other outlets.
Submitted opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of This Is Reno. Have something to say? Submit an opinion article or letter to the editor here.
