Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "prisoners-rights"
Coalition Asks FCC for More Protection of Prisoners' Communications
A broad coalition of public interest, civil rights and other groups has filed comments with the agency asking it to expand its protections in the area in the wake of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision last fall to control rates charged for communications services in jails, prisons and detention centers for immigrants,.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
Virginia GOP Legislators Sue to Stop Ex-Inmate Voting Rights
Carrying out their earlier pledge to seek court reversal of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to an estimated 206,000 former inmates, Republican leaders of the Virginia legislature filed a lawsuit on May 23, claiming McAuliffe’s action violates the state constitution.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
