Please join us January 29 for our 2016 Symposium, Disjointed Regulation: State Efforts to Legalize Marijuana.
Congratulations to Volume 49 Executive Editor David Ligtenberg for winning second place in the California Supreme Court Historical Society's 2015 Student Writing Competition. His paper, "Inverse Condemnation: California's Widening Loophole," will be published in the Society's journal California Legal History in December 2015.
Forthcoming UC Davis Law Review article featured in The Wall Street Journal. Professor Kent Barnett's "Against Administrative Judges" will appear in Vol. 49, Issue 5. Click here for WSJ piece.
Ranked thirty-first among legal journals in the United States, the UC Davis Law Review publishes scholarly articles from legal academics, practitioners, and student editors. The Review's staff prides itself on consistently meeting deadlines while working with authors to produce the highest quality scholarship. Each academic year, the student staff publishes one volume composed of five issues. This year, the Review staff is excited to publish its forty-ninth volume.
“When Mercy Seasons Justice”: Interstate Recognition of Ex-Offender Rights
Wayne A. Logan
To the great relief of many, states are now rethinking their draconian criminal justice policies of the past several decades. In addition to shrinking prison and jail populations, reforms are underway to expand opportunities for relief from the collateral consequences of conviction, such as the loss of the right to vote, serve as a juror, or work in certain occupations, which can impede the ability of ex-offenders to successfully reintegrate into society. In coming years, as states seek to reduce their high recidivism rates, such relief efforts will likely continue to grow in number; as they do, we should expect to see parallel growth in an important horizontal federalism challenge.
The challenge comes when ex-offenders, having secured collateral consequences relief in one state, relocate to another and seek to have their restored status recognized there. When this occurs a legal conflict materializes not unlike that of late witnessed with same-sex marriage. Unlike same-sex marriage recognition, however, which was the subject of major public debate and legal attention, restoration recognition — despite its potential impact on many millions more lives — has been largely ignored. This Article aims to remedy the deficit, providing the first comprehensive examination of how restoration recognition thus far has been addressed, and outlining a legislative way forward for states, or Congress, to balance the important comity, federalism, and state autonomy interests implicated.