By Ronald . . .  Like every other inmate being released at Missouri’s Farmington Correctional Center, I received a voter registration card and instructions on how to restore voting rights as a felon. The instructions said, “The right to vote is automatically restored upon release” unless convicted of a crime connected to the exercise of the right to vote.

Being released in June of 2024, I knew there was plenty of time to re-register to vote before the November presidential election. But when I began the process later in the summer, things took a decidedly different course.

I showed up to vote in the August primary with my ID and voter registration card

from before I was incarcerated, but the election clerk could not find my name on the voter rolls. A phone call to the election commission offices verified that my voting status was suspended because I had been incarcerated as a felon. I would need to come to the main election board with my discharge papers to renew my voting status.

When I appeared at the St. Louis County Board of Elections office, the clerk was courteous and efficient in reviewing my discharge papers and verifying my identity. But one thing caught her attention: the “lifetime supervision” notation on my discharge. She was hesitant to register me on the spot and said she would make copies of all my documentation and give it to her supervisor (who was out of the office at the time) to review. They would call me with their decision.

This was the first indication of a problem with registering to vote.

Two days later, Cindy, the election board office supervisor, called and told me I could not be registered to vote because I was disqualified since I was on lifetime supervision. (In Missouri, lifetime supervision is applicable only to those with sexual offense convictions.) I explained to her that Missouri law was quite clear in stating the only disqualifications in restoring the right to vote for felons was “probation, parole, or a crime connected with voting.” But she was firm in her decision: I could not register to vote.

The next day I called my attorney’s office and explained my dilemma. The receptionist assured me that one of the attorneys in the office would get back to me with an opinion.  Some time went by and I heard nothing from my attorney. Periodic follow-up calls and reminders—even a letter—did not engender a response.

When I re-read the paperwork on restoring voting rights, I noticed a paragraph at the bottom that said, “If you believe you are eligible to vote and encounter difficulty registering, please contact the Election Division of the Missouri Secretary of State” with the contact information included. I called.

In this day of “press one for …” I was surprised to be immediately connected to a live person. I explained my situation and received a sympathetic response. I was told definitively that I was in the right, and that “lifetime supervision” was not a disqualification for a felon to register to vote. They would call Cindy, the St. Louis Board of Elections supervisor, and instruct her to register me to vote.

The next day I received a call from Eric, the Election Board chair, who reviewed my situation with me and then cited RSMo 559.106 as the basis for his decision that I could not be registered to vote. When I questioned him further, he stated that, in the opinion of the board’s attorney, “lifetime supervision” was a form of probation—thereby a disqualification to being registered to vote. Even though he got a direct order from the office of the Secretary of State, he said, he was going to abide by the decision of their own attorney.

Not so automatic!

So, at the time of this writing, here I sit, four days from the registration deadline, caught between two interpretations of the law. What it shows is that restoration of

voting rights for a felon may not only vary state-by-state, but within a state like Missouri, may even vary from county to county.

The only way to resolve this problem is the hard way—through legal action—by suing the county election commission. And that is exactly what I will be doing, not only for my case, but for all those who come after me or who are currently facing the same challenge in Missouri.

Ronald is a registrant in the state of Missouri.  He has filed a petition with the Missouri Probation and Parole Board to be removed from lifetime supervision.

The post Restored voter’s rights in Missouri: not so automatic first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Looking at some of the headers of the articles sent in today’s alerts, I cannot help but shake my head in wonder.

“Communities explore other Halloween plans after sex offender law abolished,” announces a Missouri news outlet. This is in regard to the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent ruling that requiring those on the state sex offender registry to post “No candy here” signs at their homes is unconstitutional.

Even if the signage requirement were not only one part of a comprehensive set of restrictions, would this require that Halloween plans be changed?

Another media outlet says, “California’s tiered sex offender registry law allowed two convicted sex offenders to remain off list.” This is a reference to changes in the registry law in California that allows registrants to be removed after a certain length of time. This is part of a legal process, and a process followed in many states, not, as the article implies, some “loophole” that is used to skirt the law.

In spite of the online outlet Patch abandoning its “red dot” Halloween safety maps in virtually every state and location, a few Illinois editors are running them, “warning” parents where registrants in their communities live. NARSOL has done battle with Patch for years and are pleased that so few editors remain who are willing to defy all empirical evidence by printing this information.

Changing Halloween plans, dismay over legal registry procedures, and trick-or-treat “safety” maps—why would these have me shaking my head in wonder? Perhaps because I am old enough to remember the time when the registry and all it has spawned did not exist.

What was life like then? Were children molested while they were trick-or-treating? Did community members feel panic over who might live down the street? Were sexual crime and reoffenses rampant? Were children grabbed daily—or weekly—or monthly–out of school playgrounds and parks?

No.

Empirical evidence shows the rate of reoffense by those convicted of sexual offenses has remained steady over many years, both before the registry existed and since. As shown in an AI overview, “According to research, there is little evidence to suggest that sexual crime recidivism was significantly worse before the existence of sex offender registries, with most studies indicating that sex offenders generally have a low recidivism rate regardless of the registry system; in fact, some studies even suggest that public registration could potentially increase recidivism rates by making it harder for offenders to reintegrate into society and find employment, potentially leading to further criminal behavior.”

And as far as Halloween, this has been said many times, and it remains true: research reveals no instance of a child being abducted or molested by a person on the registry while trick-or-treating. As far as can be determined, the only time this has happened was pre-registry, in 1973—51 years ago—in Wisconsin. The victim was a little girl named Lisa French, and the perpetrator was someone who, even if there had been registries, would not have been registered.

This is a good place to remember that virtually all sexual crime against children is committed by those who are not already registered. What does this mean for Halloween?

Quoting myself from the Lisa French piece:

According to research, approximately 96% [of the perpetrators of sexual crime] have no previous history of this type of crime and therefore are on no registries. They aren’t locked up or confined to their homes with all lights off on Halloween. They aren’t checked on by law enforcement to assure that they are keeping themselves away from all child-related activities. They don’t show up as red dots on a map warning parents away from those addresses.

They are in your homes, at your parties, in your neighborhoods. They answer the doors and hand out candy to your children. They are where they have always been. And all of the Halloween restrictions on all of the people on sexual offense registries across America mean absolutely nothing.

The post Halloween 50 years ago and now first appeared on NARSOL.

By Janice and Sandy . . . Registrants in Missouri were not required to post a Halloween sign on their home this year, a sign that for all practical purposes identified the property as being residence to someone on Missouri’s sex offender registry. This was due to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by a federal district court on October 27.  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the TRO a few days later on October 30.  As a result, registrants and their families as well as their homes were not exposed to significant harm to themselves and damage to their property. The case, brought by ACSOL, is Sanderson v. Bailey.

November 3, 2023, the district court judge in the Missouri case issued an order extending the TRO and consolidating it with the trial date of March 27, 2024.  The trial will be a bench trial, with no jury, and it could last up to two days.  One of the issues in the case is whether the court should issue a permanent statewide injunction against the use of the signs.

This victory in Missouri was based, in part, upon precedent set in Georgia last year by NARSOL’S case McClendon v. Long, which was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In that case, the appellate court ruled that the state of Georgia could not require registrants to post Halloween signs on their home because the signs were compelled speech and therefore violated the First Amendment.

The requirement of “No candy” signs at registrants’ homes on Halloween by county or parish sheriffs is an abomination and will be challenged.

Janice is an attorney and executive director of ACSOL.

The post Missouri: more good “Halloween signs” news first appeared on NARSOL.

By  Stephen . . . Federal civil suits have been filed in both Arizona and Missouri challenging the constitutionality of state-imposed registry laws.

In Arizona, John Doe, an activist within AZRSOL, a NARSOL Affiliate, filed a broad suit encompassing multiple parts of the registry and is seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against the Sheriff of Maricopa County, alleging violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

The complaint filed on behalf of registrant Doe alleges that the violations apply both to Doe and facially to all of Arizona’s approximately 14,000 registrants. Doe has been required to register in Arizona since 2015 for a non-internet-based crime, and he is not listed publicly on the registry, as he was deemed a low risk, Level One, offender.

The suit claims the 2021 Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3821 and 13-3822, violate the First Amendment by preventing Doe and others from exercising their right to free speech by preventing them from exercising lawful discourse on the internet free of government surveillance. Internet identifiers must be reported, even if the underlying offense did not involve the internet or a minor. Any website intended for use must be identified before it is used, even if it is an adults-only website.

Doe also has no means to be removed from the registry, and most Arizona registrants must remain on the registry for life without further assessment of risk.  A recent case from South Carolina ruled a similar registry law unconstitutional. (Powell v. Keel, 433 S.C. 457, 860 S.E.2d 344 (2021)). The suit alleges that lifetime registration “. . . predicated solely on the fact of conviction and without opportunity for judicial review, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The suit also alleges a plethora of vaguely worded laws that leave both registrants and law enforcement guessing when and how various requirements must be reported. The suit claims, “The Reporting Requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3821 and 13-3822 are Unconstitutionally Vague, Both on Their Face and As Applied, in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process.”

The suit claims the registry inflicts punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. For example, “Under Arizona Statute § 13-3821(J), Plaintiff must, at all times, carry with him identification specifically identifying him as a sex offender.” Such branded identification cards were recently found unconstitutional in Alabama. (Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019))

In Missouri, a federal suit backed by ACSOL has been filed against the State Attorney General and the Chief of Police of Hazelwood, Missouri. The suit challenges the legality of mandated Halloween signage that must be placed in registrant’s addresses.

Thomas Sanderson was convicted of a sexual crime in 2006, prior to the passage of Halloween restrictions imposed by MO Rev Stat § 589.426  imposed August 28, 2008. Sanderson has from 2000 through 2022 displayed an elaborate Halloween decorative experience for his community, with up to 300 in attendance. The display included music and animated displays with lighting, fog machines, and bonfires. The local fire departments attended and handed out candy. Sanderson was aware of the new law and inquired multiple times with authorities, who all told him it was not applicable to him, as his crime predated the ordinance.

Suddenly on October 31, 2022, his residence with full display was surrounded with six marked police vehicles, sirens blaring. At least ten officers entered his property stating he was in violation of the state statute and requested to search his residence. Sanderson refused the request without a warrant. On November 3, a warrant was issued, and Sanderson was arrested and charged with one count of failure to comply with the statute. He was subsequently sentenced to 12 months of unsupervised probation.

The suit alleges that the statute mandating posted signage that states, “No candy or treats at this residence,” is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The suit cites NARSOL’s previously supported victory in Georgia over similar compelled signage at Halloween. McClendon v. Long, 22 F.4th 1330 (11th Cir. 2022).

Sanderson is seeking relief for himself and all the approximately 20,000 registrants in Missouri. The suit asks that the defendants be enjoined in perpetuity from enforcement of the mandated signage and that the signage law be struck as null and void in violation of the First Amendment.

Federal district cases such as these have potential for a broader impact. If the litigants are successful, the decision is often appealed to one of the twelve federal circuit courts. Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit while Missouri is in the Eighth Circuit. Successful appeals have the potential to become binding precedent to all states within that circuit and offer persuasive authority to other circuits.

NARSOL is hopeful for positive findings as both the Arizona and Missouri cases move forward.

The post Multiple federal lawsuits filed first appeared on NARSOL.