Rep. Frazier’s bill would allow limited review of permanent background disqualifications

Representative Frazier introduced House File 3174 as a narrowly targeted change that would allow some people with permanent background-study disqualifications to request a set-aside review from the Department of Human Services, arguing the change preserves protections for vulnerable Minnesotans while creating a path for rehabilitated individuals to return to care and social-service jobs.

Megan Forbes, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, told the committee the bill responds to a system that can permanently bar people from meaningful work even after decades of demonstrated rehabilitation. “This bill simply allows the right to appeal in certain circumstances,” Forbes said, describing eligibility criteria the bill would use, including time since conviction, pardons or expungements and a review standard already used for other disqualifications.

Thomas Powell, who said he was convicted at 19 and has been free of subsequent offenses for decades, described being forced to leave multiple social-service jobs because his conviction is on the permanent-disqualification list. “I support this bill because people should be judged on their merit and have a fair opportunity to work when there is no longer a risk of harm,” Powell said.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses on who would make final decisions and whether outcomes could vary depending on the reviewer. Representative Barker asked whether different reviewers might reach inconsistent results; Forbes and Frazier said the bill relies on the existing DHS set-aside process and statutory factors to guide individualized risk assessments. Members also asked which crimes would remain permanently disqualifying; Forbes said the bill would not apply to murder or crimes involving children and that the statutory list would still control eligibility.

The committee approved a technical amendment that keeps the review with DHS rather than moving it to the Office of Administrative Hearings, and then laid the amended bill over for possible inclusion. The sponsor and chair said they would provide materials and continue conversations about the statutory list and administrative procedures.

Next steps: HF3174, as amended, was laid over for possible inclusion and may be revised based on follow-up questions about statutory guardrails and implementation procedures.