Advocates, ANC commissioner push Council to let incarcerated residents testify; DOC warns of security and staffing constraints

Chair Brooke Pinto opened the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee hearing on March 18, saying the Insuring Access and Supporting Engagement (EASE) Act would require the Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide devices, internet access, no‑cost mailing and educational materials so incarcerated residents can register, submit written testimony and deliver oral testimony at Council hearings.

Advocates, returning citizens and ANC Commissioner Harold Cunningham told the committee that remote testimony is feasible and necessary for oversight. “All I am asking is that incarcerated residents have the opportunity to have their voices heard,” Commissioner Harold Cunningham said, describing himself as an ANC commissioner and a person who survived decades of incarceration and solitary confinement. Cunningham read letters and testimony from residents who reported denied basic supplies after childbirth, suspended law‑library services and extended lockdowns.

Nut graf: Supporters urged the Council to pass the EASE Act to close a civic participation gap created after the Restore the Vote Act of 2020 restored voting rights, while DOC witnesses said limited secure connectivity, staffing and movement protocols make live testimony as drafted unsafe. The exchange framed the central tension: advocates pressing for direct resident testimony for oversight and DOC pointing to operational constraints.

Witnesses described models in other states. Jessie White, legislative director at Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, said Massachusetts set up a simple process where administrators bring an incarcerated testifier to a computer and call them into the hearing at an allotted time, and that multiple states have safely expanded participation. Multiple advocacy groups — the 2nd Look Project, DC Justice Lab, Free Minds and others — recommended that participation be free, confidential when necessary, allow attorneys or advocates to accompany residents while testifying, and include annual reporting on requests and denials.

DOC deputy director Lenard Johnson, testifying for Director Tom Faust, said the department supports meaningful civic engagement but opposed the bill as written. Johnson told the committee that introducing open or expanded internet functionality in a secure correctional environment “creates significant risk including unauthorized communications, attempts to bypass network monitoring systems, coordination of criminal activity and exposure to digital contraband.” He said current tablet and visitation systems are intentionally restricted, that court/attorney stations are limited (about five in the facilities), and that enabling live testimony for the entire population (about 2,100 residents) would require dedicated rooms, hardware upgrades, additional IT and many more custodial staff for escorted movement and supervision.

Supporters pushed back that DOC has in‑facility spaces and prior experience (virtual courts, attorney visits) that can be adapted. Several witnesses suggested practical mitigations: prioritize anonymous testimony without video, set scheduled windows for hearings, allow in‑unit stations or create a small number of secure, supervised kiosks, and require DOC to supply the staffing and technical plan within a fixed timeframe. PDS (Public Defender Service) recommended a maximum three‑month deadline for DOC compliance and the option for anonymous testimony with only committee staff retaining identifying information.

The committee spent substantial time on logistics: which devices could be used, whether the ANC commissioner’s desk or court‑dedicated stations could be used, and how family visitation monitors differ from secure legal‑visit consoles. Pinto directed staff and agencies to continue technical discussions and follow up about possible pilot options. The hearing closed with the DOC and advocates agreeing to continue work on implementation details; no vote occurred at the hearing.

Ending: The committee deferred decisions about final language and implementation timetables while signaling broad council interest in codifying resident testimony rights and resolving DOC operational concerns before final passage.