Policymakers from the Columbia River Basin Convened in Richland, Washington

Washington Senator Claudia Kauffman, the 2024 chair of CSG West’s Legislative Council on River Governance (LCRG), hosted Columbia River Basin policymakers in Richland, Washington, from September 9–11. The meeting kicked off with a reception at the REACH museum, featuring unique exhibits and grounds that celebrate the geology, history and the pivotal role of the Tri-Cities area and Hanford during World War II and its aftermath. 

 Issues presented and discussed during the meeting included:

  • Columbia River Basin Project & The Odessa Groundwater Replacement Project 
  • Columbia River Treaty: Preliminary Agreement on Amendments
  • Six Sovereigns Agreement
  • Preservation and Conservation of Salmon
  • Fisheries Activities and Updates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • 6-PPD Legislation and Roundtable Discussion
  • CSG West Resolution on Harmonizing State & Provincial Approaches to Invasive Species (AIS,) Prevention and Mitigation, and Canine Inspection Demo
  • The Future of Energy on the Columbia River
Forum Takeaways

Despite investments and efforts by federal, state, and tribal governments, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs,) Salmon, Lamprey, Steelhead and other fish species continue to languish from the basin. Hydroelectric infrastructure, even with modifications, present barriers to fish migration and water temperatures necessary for fish survival. Additionally, native, wild stock fisheries are further compromised by the reliance on fish planting to supplement the supply of salmon.

Salmon are directly linked to the cultural, health, and economic well-being of Northwest tribes and communities. Opportunities exist to restore salmon populations, and a path forward is possible through good faith negotiations and partnership among the federal, state, tribal and NGOs. These partners contend that eliminating 6-PPD and other hazards and toxins harmful to salmon should be a part of the solution.

AIS remain a persistent threat, primarily due to human vectors introducing them into the environment and waterways. In particular, Quagga mussels endanger marine and agricultural irrigation infrastructure, as well as recreational use of rivers and lakes. The risk of contaminated watercraft entering the Pacific Northwest has been mapped to sources in North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, Arizona, and California. LCRG participants stressed the importance of collaboration between the Pacific Northwest and these states to prevent contaminated boats from crossing state lines. They also highlighted the need for funding to continue and expand inspection and decontamination efforts as needed.

The Pacific Northwest’s energy outlook is favorable due to its hydroelectric system and broad diversification of renewable energy sources. Hydropower has long been the region’s dominant power source, representing 60% of electricity generation in Washington state. Global, national, and state net-zero energy goals have accelerated efforts to fully decarbonize the energy supply and diversify sources of electricity generation. However, adding these energy sources and addressing climate volatility have created vulnerabilities in the electrical grid. Expanding nuclear, wind, and solar are key paths toward non-carbon energy, though each requires further development and operates on different timelines.

After these discussions, the meeting adjourned with the gavel passed to Idaho, which will host the 2025 LCRG meeting. Members and attendees then toured the Ice Harbor Dam, Lock, and Powerhouse—a hydroelectric, concrete gravity, run-of-the-river dam on the lower Snake River in southeastern Washington. The facility includes two fish ladders, a removable spillway weir, and a juvenile fish bypass system, providing navigation, hydropower generation, flood risk management, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and incidental irrigation.

Oregon Representative Ken Helm (left,) Washington Senator Claudia Kauffman (foreground,) and fellow Western legislators tour the Ice Harbor Dam generators during the 2024 Legislative Council on River Governance. Photo by Jackie Tinetti.

The post Policymakers from the Columbia River Basin Convened in Richland, Washington appeared first on CSG West.

Provisional Ballots MythBusters

Provisional Ballots MythBusters

Dispelling myths surrounding provisional ballots in elections

By Morgan Thomas, Policy Associate

What are Provisional Ballots?

A provisional ballot, also known as a challenge or affidavit ballot, is a fail-safe method for states to ensure that all eligible voters are given the chance to cast a ballot. When an individual’s eligibility to vote is uncertain on Election Day, an election official will ask them to cast a provisional ballot. The provisional ballot is then stored separately from other ballots and only counted once a voter’s eligibility has been verified by election officials.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, commonly referred to as HAVA, requires states to offer provisional ballots on Election Day. As of February 2024, provisional ballots are offered in every state except Idaho, Minnesota and New Hampshire. However, these three states offer same-day voter registration where a qualified elector can register to vote and cast a ballot on Election Day. This has essentially eliminated a need for provisional ballots in those states.

In 2016, more than 2.4 million provisional ballots were cast nationwide. Given that a provisional ballot is reviewed in order to validate the voter’s eligibility, they often take more time to count. This can lead to votes still being tallied after Election Day. Confusion surrounding changes in post-election vote tallies spurs misinformation regarding provisional ballots and lead to allegations of voter fraud.

With a rise in misinformation and disinformation surrounding elections, it is critical to address myths and rumors with the facts. Falsehoods regarding the integrity of provisional ballots can undermine elections, lead to lower voter turnout and fuel mistrust in election officials. This article seeks to dispel some of the common myths about the use of provisional ballots in elections.

Rumor: Provisional ballots are only counted if a race is close.

 

Reality: Provisional ballots are counted in every election regardless of the margin of victory.

Validly cast provisional ballots are counted in every election regardless of a candidate’s margin of victory. Under HAVA, states are required to inform voters if their ballot was counted or rejected and why. Although the timeframe for verifying provisional ballots varies by state, all provisional ballots are reviewed and either counted or rejected before the state’s deadline for certifying the results of an election. Provisional ballots are also included in the official tallies of any election recount.  

Rumor: Election officials fail to announce results on election night because they are meddling with the election process.

 

Reality: Election officials may not announce results on election night because absentee and provisional ballots are still being counted in the days following Election Day.

Election officials may be unable to announce election results on election night because provisional and absentee ballots are often still being counted. This process takes time and is intended to ensure that only validly cast ballots are counted. Election results may be delayed not due to any “meddling,” but due to the time it takes for election officials to ensure the results are correct.

Provisional ballots can take multiple days after Election Day to be counted due to the large quantity of provisional ballots cast and the time it takes to verify a voter’s eligibility. In 2020, over 1.3 million provisional ballots were cast nationwide. For each of these ballots, an election worker must verify the identity and eligibility of the voter. Only once this has been done can the ballot be counted and included in the final tally.

Federal law requires most states to allow voters to cast a provisional ballot; however, each state sets its own standards, guidelines and timelines for processing these ballots. In Hawaii, election officials have up to 20 days following an election to process provisional ballots. However, in Alabama, this process must be completed by noon on the seventh day after Election Day. It is not only normal, but administratively necessary, for states to have different timelines for announcing election results.

Regardless of each state’s timeline, finalizing an accurate tally of votes often cannot be done within the confines of election night. Trying to rush this delicate process can lead to inaccurate election results and increase partisan conflict. 

Rumor: Provisional ballots allow ineligible voters to vote.

 

Reality: Provisional ballots are only counted once a voter’s eligibility has been confirmed.

Provisional ballots are not a means for ineligible voters to cast a ballot, but instead ensure that only the ballots of eligible voters are counted. Provisional ballots are only issued if a voter’s eligibility cannot be determined on Election Day. Eligibility criteria are defined in each state’s statutes, along with explicit procedures for verifying an individual’s eligibility.  

In addition to eligibility criteria and verification processes, states specify circumstances under which a voter can cast a provisional ballot. These circumstances include an administrative error in a voter’s registration record and the inability of a voter to verify their identity when they appear to cast a ballot on Election Day, among others. More information regarding why a voter may be issued a provisional ballot can be accessed at Provisional Ballots 101.

All provisional ballots that are cast on Election Day are set aside and individually evaluated to determine whether if the voter in question is eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. Only after it has been determined that the voter was registered or is eligible to be registered in that jurisdiction and has not cast another ballot at another polling place, is the ballot counted. If a voter’s eligibility cannot be determined or the voter is found ineligible to vote in that jurisdiction, the provisional ballot is rejected and the voter is notified. 

Once the voter has been informed that their ballot has been rejected, they have a set amount of time to cure their ballot. Each state has a unique provisional ballot cure process. Generally, a state Canvassing Board, Board of Elections or equivalent will examine the information on the provisional ballot and any evidence presented by the voter, the challenger, or the election official to determine the voter’s eligibility. If the voter’s eligibility cannot be confirmed or the Canvassing Board finds the voter ineligible, the provisional ballot will not be counted. The provisional ballot will only be counted once a voter’s identity has been confirmed and the voter was determined eligible by election officials.

Understanding your state’s election laws and processes is critical to identifying false rumors regarding elections. Be sure to reference your state’s election page for more details on the provisional ballot process, timeline and other voting information. To learn more about the facts behind other election rumors, visit Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Election Security Rumor vs. Reality.  

Provisional Ballots 101

Provisional Ballots 101

By Morgan Thomas, Policy Associate

What is a Provisional Ballot?

Alas, the time has come for Election Day and the opportunity to cast your ballot at your precinct’s polling place. Most voters will be registered to vote prior to Election Day. However, voters who have yet to register or update their registration must either utilize their state’s same-day voter registration process, cast a provisional ballot, or, in some states, both.

A voter may cast a provisional ballot on Election Day when their eligibility to vote is uncertain or when there are uncertainties surrounding their registration status. A voter who casts a provisional ballot, which is also referred to as affidavit or challenge ballot, must verify their eligibility prior to their ballot being counted. This process is time consuming and entails reviewing voter rolls, verifying the voter’s identity and conducting signature verification, among other investigative procedures. Voters who fail to provide a valid form of identification when casting a provisional ballot may be required to return to their election office with the identification necessary to verify their eligibility.

The timeline for voter eligibility verification varies significantly by state. In some states, the verification process starts the day after Election Day and ends a few days later at a specified time. However, many states offer a range from five to 20 days after Election Day to process provisional ballots. For example, North Carolina begins processing provisional ballots immediately after the polls close on Election Day and continues until they are completed.

Why are Provisional Ballots Issued?

There are several reasons why an eligible voter may need to cast a provisional ballot. Some of the most common reasons for submitting a provisional ballot are:

  • A voter’s name does not appear on the voter registration list at their precinct.
  • A voter has already requested an absentee ballot but claims that they have not cast or received it.
  • A voter’s address or name has changed and has not been updated on their voter registration.
  • A voter lacks a valid photo identification in states that require one.
  • A poll watcher challenges a voter’s eligibility.
  • For primary elections, a voter’s registration does not reflect their correct party affiliation for primary elections.

In some states, provisional ballots are issued as part of the same-day voter registration process. For example, voters in Wisconsin who are not able to provide a valid form of identification when registering to vote on Election Day must cast a provisional ballot. For the provisional ballot to be counted, the voter must provide election officials with the proper identification by 8 p.m. on Election Day. If the voter cannot supply a valid form of identification on Election Day, they have until 4 p.m. on the Friday following Election Day to present this information at the municipal clerk’s office. In some cases, a voter is already registered to vote but arrives on Election Day without proper photo identification.

Similarly, a voter may already be registered to vote prior to Election Day but arrived on Election Day without proper photo identification. In states with similar voting procedures, such as Indiana and Ohio, the voter may need to return to their election office after Election Day to show their required identification before their provisional ballot is counted.

Although provisional ballots are issued to ensure eligible voters receive an equal opportunity to cast their vote, they also provide an additional level of election security. Provisional ballots are only counted once a voter’s eligibility to vote at a specific precinct has been verified by election workers. This prevents voters from attempting to cast more than one ballot in the same election.

Provisional Ballots and the Help America Vote Act of 2002

States were not required to offer provisional ballots until passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). In fact, by 2000, only 17 states and the District of Columbia offered a provisional ballot process. This resulted in many eligible voters being turned away from the polls on Election Day.

Today, HAVA requires most states to offer provisional ballots for voters whose eligibility to vote on Election Day is uncertain. Although provisional ballots must be available in most states under federal law, states have discretion over how and why provisional ballots are used. For example, Maine counts all provisional ballots in the same manner as regular ballots regardless of the precinct in which they are cast unless a recount is requested. In contrast, North Dakota provides a provisional ballot process only if a court order extends polling hours on Election Day or if a voter is unable to present proper identification at their polling place. Given that does not require voter registration, the need to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day is rare.

States that offered same-day voter registration or did not require voter registration when the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was enacted are exempt from HAVA’s provisional ballot requirements. These states include Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In 2023, New Hampshire became the newest state to implement a provisional ballot process. Currently, Idaho and Minnesota are the only two states that do not have a provisional ballot process. Idaho and Minnesota are the only two states that do not have a provisional ballot process.

Note: This information is current as of February 2024. There is currently pending legislation in Minnesota to allow provisional ballots for voters who register to vote on Election Day.

How are Provisional Ballots Cast?

The process of casting a provisional ballot varies by state. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has a list of recommendations for how states should implement provisional voting. However, to some degree, the process of casting a provisional ballot is as follows:

Once a voter casts a provisional ballot, they should ensure that their eligibility was verified and that their vote was counted. Under HAVA, states must provide a method for voters to confirm that their vote was counted, and, if it was not counted, inform the voter as to why. Most states use an online tool or a toll-free phone number where voters can check and ensure their ballot is counted.

Can Provisional Ballots Be Rejected?

If a voter finds that their provisional ballot was not counted — meaning that their ballot was rejected — they were likely deemed ineligible to vote. In 2017, the Election Administration and Voting Survey gathered data regarding the usage of provisional ballots nationwide between 2006-16. According to the survey, the most common reasons for provisional ballots to be rejected were:

  • The voter was not registered.
  • The voter cast a provisional ballot in the wrong jurisdiction.
  • The vote was cast in the wrong precinct.
  • The voter did not have the required form of identification or did not provide the required identification within the specified time frame.
  • The information provided on the provisional ballot was incomplete, or the envelope was illegible.
  • The voter had already cast a ballot for that election.
  • There was no signature on the provisional ballot or the ballot envelope.

The examination body that is responsible for determining eligibility can vary by state. To determine a voter’s eligibility in a specific jurisdiction, a state will use a canvassing board, board of elections, or equivalent body to examine the information on the provisional ballot and any evidence presented with the ballot. If the voter’s eligibility cannot be determined or the voter is found to be ineligible to vote in that jurisdiction, the provisional ballot will not be counted. 

If you have questions about your state’s specific provisional ballot cure process and timelines, be sure to visit your state’s elections website.

Southern Pulse Newsletter, October

HELLO!

Life is “gourd” here at CSG South 🎃! As the leaves continue to turn, we are close to wrapping up our fall programming season.

We have successfully concluded three Fall Policy Masterclasses, with 45+ legislators and upper management executive staffers. Each masterclass focused on a unique and regionally relevant policy topic. We are already looking forward to planning our 2025 Policy Masterclasses.

The Center for the Advancement of Leadership Skills (CALS) class has graduated! The class of 24 elected officials spent four full days in intensive leadership development, hearing from world-class speakers and facilitators while also making lasting connections and friendships. Click here to learn more, and cheers to the CALS class of 2024!

Our hearts are with the Southern states affected by both Hurricane Helene and Milton. During this challenging time, please know that we stand with you in solidarity and are here to offer support as you continue to lead your communities. 

All the best,
Lindsey G.

Click here to read Southern Pulse- October 2024

The post Southern Pulse Newsletter, October appeared first on CSG South.

Missed Connections: Exploring the Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health 

Social media – initially conceived as a means of creating and enhancing community – can quickly devolve into dangerous echo chambers. These platforms that can sustain meaningful connection can, like any tool, also cause harm. Through presentations, interactive discussions, and evidence-based research, this CSG South Policy Masterclass highlighted strategies and policies implemented by states aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of social media on youth mental health. Participants will engaged in constructive dialogue, shared best practices, and brainstormed actionable solutions to promote digital well-being in today’s hyperconnected world.  

Eighteen participants from 10 Southern states – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia – participated in the Masterclass over three days.  

Presentations included: 

  • Policy Roundtable: State Approaches to Social Media Regulation

The 18 participants were as follows: 

  • Representative Alan Baker, Alabama 
  • Representative Mandi Ballinger, Georgia; Chair, CSG South Human Services & Public Safety Committee 
  • Senator Jim Burgin, North Carolina 
  • Senator Tyler Dees, Arkansas 
  • Representative Vincent Dixie, Tennessee 
  • Senator Hillman Frazier, Mississippi 
  • Representative Denise Garner, Arkansas 
  • Representative Brandon Guffey, South Carolina 
  • Delegate Anitra Hamilton, West Virginia 
  • Representative Scott Holcomb, Georgia 
  • Representative Leigh Hulsey, Alabama 
  • Representative Marilyn Lands, Alabama 
  • Representative Carolyn Logan, North Carolina 
  • Representative Annie McDaniel, South Carolina 
  • Representative Orlando Paden, Mississippi 
  • Representative Felicia Robinson, Florida 
  • Senator Ally Seifried, Oklahoma 
  • Senator Kristen Thompson, Oklahoma 

Click here for photo gallery

The post Missed Connections: Exploring the Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health  appeared first on CSG South.

Dream Machine: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Governing  

The rapid adoption and integration of artificial intelligence (AI) has broad implications for every facet of public and private life. In this burgeoning field, the public policy stakes are high, and the issues are complex. CSG South hosted the Dream Machine: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Governing Policy Masterclass to facilitate an exchange of knowledge and expertise to aid policymakers in striking a balance between fostering innovation and establishing regulatory guardrails.  

Twenty-one participants from 12 Southern states – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia – participated in the Masterclass over three days.  

Throughout the Masterclass, attendees participated in nine learning sessions and a site visit ranging from information on the impacts of AI and data centers on the energy grid, generative AI tools for legislators and staff, deepfakes and election security, workforce development impacts, permitting reform and governmental transparency, AI and transportation, and protecting student and citizen data privacy. Participants reflected on these presentations and the key issues in their states by participating in a legislative roundtable discussion on AI policies and priorities for the 2025 legislative session. Additionally, participants heard a keynote from Ambassador Jovita Neliupšienė, Delegation of the European Union to the United States of America, who shared the EU’s leading work regarding consumer data privacy laws and AI regulatory reforms. 

Participants also traveled to the Arlington campus of the Virginia Tech National Security Institute, where they received briefings on partnering with postsecondary institutions and the private sector to develop the workforce of the future and increase the U.S.’s physical and cyber security. The Learning Sessions throughout the event were as follows: 

  • Learning Session 3 | Innovation and AI in the Commonwealth’s Permit Transparency Portal  Presenter: Matthew Nolan, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Management, Virginia 
  • Learning Session 4 (cont.) | Country R.O.A.D. Take Me Home: How West Virginia’s Using AI to Improve the State Presenter: Hussein Elkhansa, Chief Technology Officer, West Virginia Department of Transportation 
  • Learning Session 5 | AI, Deep Fakes, and Election Security  Presenter: Lindsey Forson, Deputy Executive Director, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), Washington, D.C. 
  • Learning Session 6 | The King and (A)I: Tennessee’s First-in-the-Nation E.L.V.I.S. Act  Presenter: Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, Tennessee 
  • Learning Session 7 | AI, EdTech, and Protecting Student Data Privacy  Presenter: Paige Kowalski, Executive Vice President, Data Quality Campaign, Washington, D.C. 

The 21 participants included:  

  • Representative Leigh Hulsey, Alabama 
  • Ms. Laura Howell, General Counsel for the Alabama Office of Information Technology 
  • Representative Denise Garner, Arkansas 
  • Ms. Kimberly Davis, Statewide Program Manager for the Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services 
  • Mr. Zachary Roger, Assistant to the Senate President Pro Tempore of the Arkansas General Assembly 
  • Representative Scott Holcomb, Georgia 
  • Mr. Patrick Love, Attorney Analyst for the Georgia Senate Office of Policy and Legislative Analysis 
  • Representative Derek Lewis, Kentucky 
  • Representative Barbara Freiberg, Louisiana 
  • Ms. Julia George Moore, General Counsel for the Office of the Lieutenant Governor/Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 
  • Senator Rod Hickman, Mississippi 
  • Representative Renee Reuter, Missouri 
  • Senator Jim Burgin, North Carolina  
  • Representative Carolyn Logan, North Carolina 
  • Representative Daniel Pae, Oklahoma 
  • Representative Arturo Alonso Sandoval, Oklahoma 
  • Ms. Abby Berquist, Research and Budget Analyst for the South Carolina House Ways and Means Committee 
  • Delegate Bonita Anthony, Virginia  
  • Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, Virginia  
  • Mr. Luke Priddy, Chief of Staff to the Virginia Senate General Laws and Technology Committee Chairman Adam Ebbin  
  • Delegate Daniel Linville, West Virginia 

Click here for photo gallery

The post Dream Machine: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Governing   appeared first on CSG South.

Bridging Communities and Correctional Systems: Q&A with CSG Justice Center Advisory Board Member Commissioner Nicholas Deml

The CSG Justice Center Advisory Board establishes the policy and project priorities of the organization. The board features a cross-section of leaders who shape criminal justice policy in various parts of the country.

CSG Justice Center Advisory Board member Nicholas J. Deml is the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, where he leads the agency responsible for anyone who is detained and sentenced or given community supervision in Vermont. He is an active member of the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA) and serves as chair of CLA’s Restrictive Housing Committee. Prior to joining the Department of Corrections, Commissioner Deml served as a clandestine service intelligence officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He also served as an attorney and as an aide to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary – Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. And he was a member of the national security staff in the Office of the Assistant Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.      

Editor’s note: Answers have been edited for length and clarity.   

What inspired you to join the CSG Justice Center Advisory Board? What unique perspective do you feel you bring to the board?

When I became commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections in 2021, I joined the system as an outsider with no background in corrections. This fresh perspective was incredibly valuable—it helped me objectively assess our practices, strengthen the things that worked, and eliminate those that didn’t. The CSG Justice Center does this on a national scale, actively shaping the future of justice systems through innovative and evidence-based practices. I was drawn to the CSG Justice Center Advisory Board to help further this important work, and I believe Vermont has a unique and important role to play in this space.

What was a defining moment that solidified your commitment to improving the criminal justice system?

Early in my career while I was serving as an aide to Senator Dick Durbin, I was fortunate to help prepare the first-ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement in the Senate Judiciary Committee. To set the ground for this important topic, we replicated a solitary confinement cell and displayed it in the committee room. This visceral display was coupled with witnesses who shared their experiences of being wrongfully incarcerated and subjected to years of solitary confinement. It was in this moment that I fully realized the moral obligation incumbent on all of us to humanize the justice system and committed myself to advancing that cause.

What do you see as the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system today, and how can the CSG Justice Center help solve them?

Correctional systems are seen as completely separate from our communities, but the biggest challenges facing these systems today mirror those outside the walls. These challenges—staffing shortages, the rise in substance use disorders, lack of housing and social services—span both prisons and our neighborhoods. To truly solve these issues, we need to find ways to bridge our communities and our correctional systems. The CSG Justice Center brings these worlds together and provides expert guidance on building elegant and effective solutions to these challenges.

What have been some of the positive impacts of the CSG Justice Center’s Justice Reinvestment work in Vermont?

[Editor’s note: Between 2007 and 2008, Vermont first used the Justice Reinvestment approach to address the state’s rising prison population, reduce corrections spending, and reinvest savings in strategies to improve public safety. As a result, Vermont passed Justice Reinvestment legislation in 2008. In 2019, state leaders again used a Justice Reinvestment approach with technical assistance from the CSG Justice Center. The late Senator Dick Sears played a pivotal role in this effort, bringing stakeholders from across Vermont together to work on it. This round of Justice Reinvestment resulted in the passage of a criminal justice bill in 2020 aimed at reducing Vermont’s high recidivism rates and launching a focused effort to examine racial disparities in sentencing and in Vermont’s prisons.]

No effort in Vermont’s modern history has been as transformative and impactful for the justice system as Justice Reinvestment I and II. Through Justice Reinvestment, Vermont established presumptive parole, expanded data collection to better identify racial disparities in sentencing, and improved our field supervision processes to decrease reincarceration for minor technical violations. These initiatives led to a 30 percent decrease in the incarcerated population in Vermont since 2019—a remarkable achievement—and will continue to have lasting impacts in Vermont for years to come.

Credits: Photos by Stephan Hoerold via Canva

The post Bridging Communities and Correctional Systems: Q&A with CSG Justice Center Advisory Board Member Commissioner Nicholas Deml appeared first on CSG Justice Center.