Skip to content
University of Maryland LibrariesDigital Repository at the University of Maryland
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   DRUM
    • Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
    • Program for Public Consultation (PPC)
    • View Item
    •   DRUM
    • Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
    • Program for Public Consultation (PPC)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Large Majorities Favor Congressional Proposals Limiting Negative Consequences of Criminal Records

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Executive Summary (1.274Mb)
    No. of downloads: 17

    Questionnaire toplines (629.6Kb)
    No. of downloads: 16

    SPSS Dataset (507.9Kb)
    No. of downloads: 15

    Press release (65.18Kb)
    No. of downloads: 9

    Date
    2021-04-15
    Author
    Kull, Steven
    Fehsenfeld, Evan
    Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
    DRUM DOI
    https://doi.org/10.13016/dafg-qgjm
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Large majorities of American voters support reforms that would limit or remove barriers to economic opportunities, housing, and voting for people with criminal records. A representative sample of 2,487 American voters were given a detailed presentation of numerous proposed Congressional reforms that would restrict employers, licensing boards and public housing authorities from disqualifying people based on their criminal records. All of the proposed reforms received support from large bipartisan majorities. A proposal for automatically restoring the right to vote for people who have served a felony sentence also received majority support, though Republicans were divided. Additionally, bipartisan majorities favored both making it easier for those who were arrested but never convicted to have their record sealed, as well as automatically sealing records for people with non-violent drug offenses after a short period of time.
    Notes
    In the innovative survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland, respondents were given relevant background information for each proposal. They then evaluated a series of strongly stated arguments for and against each proposal before making their final recommendation. The briefing material and arguments were reviewed by experts representing the range of opinions on the issue to assure that the briefings were accurate and balanced and that the arguments were the strongest ones being made.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1903/26988
    Collections
    • Program for Public Consultation (PPC)

    DRUM is brought to you by the University of Maryland Libraries
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)314-1328.
    Please send us your comments.
    Web Accessibility
     

     

    Browse

    All of DRUMCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister
    Pages
    About DRUMAbout Download Statistics

    DRUM is brought to you by the University of Maryland Libraries
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)314-1328.
    Please send us your comments.
    Web Accessibility