Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

In their own words: Organizing legislative testimony from incarcerated people

Incarcerated people around the country are using legislative testimony to speak out about prison conditions and the need for change. Here’s how advocates are helping them do it.

by Emmett Sanders
Last update: July 03, 2024

Sections

Coordinate partners

Educate testifiers

Facilitate testimony

Conclusion

In the United States, millions of incarcerated people are routinely denied the right to speak in legislative hearings on laws and policies that directly impact every aspect of their lives. This denial of one of their most basic rights is also a poor way to make policy decisions because it deprives policymakers of critical insights, like the devastating consequences of long-term solitary confinement. The societal illness of mass incarceration in the U.S. cannot be cured while silencing those who shoulder most of its symptoms and have hard-earned knowledge of what needs to change.

Building power

Advocates nationwide are using remote communications technologies, which have become more widespread since the pandemic, to help people in prisons testify before legislative committee hearings, public commissions, and agencies. Incarcerated people have been central to developing and passing impactful reforms aimed at ending the use of solitary confinement, ending life without parole, reducing mass incarceration, and more. These testimonies are a powerful reminder that incarcerated people are not voiceless; they are silenced. There is a difference. We spoke with advocates behind these efforts in Massachusetts, Washington state, and Connecticut to learn useful strategies for organizing legislative testimony from incarcerated people in their states. In this toolkit, we share key tips from these organizations on how to coordinate the right partners, educate incarcerated people on how to engage the legislative process, and ethically and effectively facilitate remote testimony from people in prisons.

Corey “AL Ameen” Patterson, who permitted us to use his photo here, was incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk in Massachusetts when he testified before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Photo credit: Jean Trounstine

Coordinating partners

The advocates we interviewed told us that identifying and building strong relationships with the right partners was the first step in getting legislative testimony programs for incarcerated people off the ground. Advocates need to bring together partners who can help facilitate access to incarcerated folks, build trust with them, navigate logistical issues, and gain buy-in from Departments of Corrections. Here are some important partners to consider and examples of roles they can play:

• Incarcerated people: People in prison are much more than just the recipients of reform efforts; they are valuable partners and leaders. Their insights into the workings of various prison hierarchies can be crucial in identifying potential obstacles from the Department of Corrections, as well as developing strategies to overcome them. Their knowledge of how written policies are implemented in prisons allows them to provide vital feedback on legislation and identify practical flaws during the drafting process. They are also essential partners in developing strategies to reach and educate incarcerated testifiers and can provide peer-to-peer civic education and empowerment. Authorized prison organizations such as cultural affinity groups can also facilitate peer-to-peer civic education and help folks in prison engage in the legislative process.
• Community-based organizations: Organizations that work at the state or local level and have strong ties to the communities many people in prisons come from are key partners in building bridges between stakeholders. This is particularly important given that unexpected hurdles or restrictions in the testimony process may damage trust or leave people in prison feeling misled. Jazmin Borges, a formerly incarcerated organizer with the Massachusetts Bail Fund, and Families for Justice as Healing, a community-based organization led by impacted people and their families are two prime examples of why these groups are important. Not only did their work on an earlier prison moratorium bill initially pave the way for legislative testimony from incarcerated people in Massachusetts, but they also played a crucial role in rebuilding trust between advocates and incarcerated testifiers when committee hearing participation was unexpectedly cut in half right before the hearing, limiting speakers to just 30 incarcerated people after nearly twice that number had signed up to testify. Their efforts here smoothed the way for people to testify at the following hearing.
• Legal-aid organizations: Organizations that offer legal services to incarcerated people, like Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, Disability Rights-Washington, and Civil Survival, an organization led by formerly incarcerated people, have been central partners in putting together legislative testimony from incarcerated people. Their status has helped to facilitate access to people in prisons to learn what issues are most important to them and to help them prepare to deliver testimony. These allies can help navigate legal issues that arise and are vital in connecting incarcerated people with legislative allies.
• Allies within the legislature: Advocates have relied heavily on strong working relationships with progressive, reform-minded policymakers to help organize and prepare people on the inside to give testimony. They can also help facilitate communication and coordination between partners (in particular between the Department of Corrections and the legislative committee) to help overcome logistical hurdles. Allies within the legislature also bring political legitimacy and political connections to the table, which can help gain buy-in from Departments of Corrections often headed by politically appointed directors. Most importantly, lawmakers generally draft and sponsor the bills on which people in prison will testify.
• Department of Corrections: The Department of Corrections may or may not be an actual “partner” in facilitating legislative testimony from incarcerated people, and in fact may be actively opposed to the process. Nevertheless, very little can happen without gaining some buy-in from prison administrations. Advocates should therefore seek to develop a working relationship with these offices. Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Public Safety Director of Legislative Affairs, for example, has been critical in facilitating the movement of incarcerated people within prisons, organizing access to technology, and helping coordinate simultaneous participation across multiple prisons.

Educating incarcerated testifiers

Advocates need to make sure potential incarcerated testifiers are armed with knowledge of how the legislative process works and what’s at stake. Here, we look at some methods advocates have used to communicate with people in prisons about legislative testimony and what information is important to communicate, as well as general tips for potential testifiers and the dangers incarcerated people may face for speaking out.

How to communicate information about legislation:

• Tablets: Many state prisons allow for reentry guides and other educational materials to be uploaded to tablets. These same devices could be used to upload information on upcoming bills and materials on the legislative process.
• Peer-to-Peer Education: Look 2 Justice, an advocacy organization in Washington state, uses a curriculum developed and administered by incarcerated people to guide others in prison through each step of the legislative process. ¹
• Mail: Educational materials, newsletters with legislative updates, bill text or summaries, and advice for preparing oral and written testimony can all be sent via institutional mail. The California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission, for instance, conducted a massive mailing campaign to get incarcerated people’s input on redistricting.
• Phone: Advocates can set up collect call blocks or hold open “office hours,” during which incarcerated people can call in with questions about current legislation or speak directly with advocates about upcoming testimony. Make sure to set up blocks of time on multiple days of the week to accommodate phone access times, which can vary widely within a prison or even within a cellhouse.

Key points to communicate to testifiers:

• Basic overview of the legislative process: Make sure people know what steps are involved in the legislative process, including how bills are drafted, sponsored, and introduced; how legislative committees and/or public commissions work; and what is required to pass legislation.
• Basic overview of the testimony process: Ensure that incarcerated people know what to expect when delivering testimony. This includes logistical issues such as how long they should expect to be able to speak and how to address the committee.
• Summaries of bills on the table: Make sure that incarcerated people know exactly what legislation is being discussed, what it does, and what debates are being had around how the language might change during the legislative process.
• Legislative and logistical updates: Keep incarcerated people up-to-date on unexpected legislative or logistical developments such as bill modifications, potential caveats or concessions, or unforeseen limitations on speakers or time.
• Best practices: Make sure people in prison are confident in their ability to draft and deliver compelling testimony by offering them tips and examples of testimony from other incarcerated folks. Organizations like the ACLU and Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts have compiled many useful resources for preparing incarcerated people to draft written and oral testimony. You can see Prisoners' Legal Services tips for testifying by clicking the image to the right.

Reasons not to testify: Risk, power, and the importance of informed consent

Facilitating testimony from incarcerated people requires their full awareness of the risks of testifying. Incarcerated people, unlike the general public, face unique risks when speaking out on prison conditions or sharing their experiences publicly. It is important to be transparent about these risks at every stage and to safeguard their physical, emotional, and legal well-being. Here are a few challenges incarcerated people may face, as well as some suggestions on what to discuss with potential testifiers to help them make a more informed choice:

• Opposing testimony from victim advocacy groups/families of survivors or pushback from the Department of Corrections’ victim services: Some states have powerful survivor’s advocacy groups that strongly oppose any sentencing reforms or new avenues of relief for people in prison. Be sure to inform people ahead of time of this possibility so that they can make an informed decision.
• Opposition from corrections officer unions citing logistical or security issues: As incarcerated people are well aware, “security” is often used as a blanket excuse to deny people in prison their rights when the underlying issue is more about holding on to methods of punishment and control. It may be useful to point out to legislators how corrections officers are also detrimentally affected by poor prison conditions and might benefit from policies that reduce stressors such as prison crowding.
• Opposition from prison administrations: As we’ve mentioned, getting buy-in from prison administrations is a vital but precarious step that may well be met with opposition. This could look like departments limiting the number of speakers due to “security” or logistical concerns, or impeding incarcerated people’s ability to communicate by limiting movement or implementing restrictive policies. To combat these tactics, remember that buy-in comes from the top. Getting legislative allies to apply political pressure can help make things run more smoothly.
• Retaliation from the Department of Corrections: As Chris Blackwell, incarcerated journalist and co-founder of Look 2 Justice, has pointed out, incarcerated people may face retaliation for speaking out. This retaliation can be difficult to prove as it can come in the form of “normal” prison activities such as cell searches, retaliatory transfers, disciplinary reports, or solitary confinement. Make sure people are aware of the possibility of retaliation, as well as what your organization can and cannot do to help them if it happens. Organizations should maintain contact after testimony so that incarcerated people can report retaliation. They should also help bring major retaliation issues to legislative allies, who can apply pressure on the Department of Corrections to investigate these claims.
• Potential impact on open cases: While the right to a fair hearing should never be derailed by engagement in legitimate political activity, this is unfortunately not always the case for incarcerated people who have open cases or upcoming parole hearings. Advise people with active court cases to consult with their lawyer before submitting testimony.

Facilitate testimony

You’ve coordinated your partners and identified what information and methods to use to educate potential testifiers. What’s next? Here we discuss what it means to ethically facilitate testimony from incarcerated people, explore some logistical challenges to this facilitation in the form of common arguments, and offer examples and suggestions for potential responses.

Advocacy is leveraging your power to ensure silenced voices are heard — not telling those voices what to say

Helping lay the groundwork for incarcerated people to exercise their voices through legislative testimony is an important recognition of the rights and dignity of people in prisons. However, advocates need to take their lead from incarcerated people and serve as facilitators and connectors rather than as agenda-setters or gatekeepers. Inserting your organization’s agenda or only facilitating testimony that supports your position is morally dubious at best. For instance, Colorado’s Department of Corrections brought in eight incarcerated people to testify on behalf of a bill they supported. Yet, no currently incarcerated person seems to have been called to testify on another bill they opposed. Both bills had benefits for incarcerated people who should have had an opportunity to comment on both equally. Producing prisoners to testify on bills on behalf of the prison systems that hold them captive raises serious questions about issues of consent, coercion, and gatekeeping. This is why organizers in every state we spoke to stress the importance of using surveys, mailers, and in-person group discussions led by incarcerated people to ensure their advocacy follows incarcerated leadership rather than directs it.

Logistical challenges and responses to common arguments

The advocates we interviewed shared several common counter-arguments they have heard from Departments of Corrections, legislators, and other stakeholders. Below, we list some of those arguments, and how advocates can respond to them.

• “The technology doesn’t exist”
  This argument may have been more valid before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s much weaker now. State legislatures in at least 26 states now have some measures for remote participation in the legislative process. Likewise, prisons have drastically expanded their technology for remotely accessing court hearings, medical visits, and other purposes. Video calling capabilities in prisons exploded from just 15 states in 2014 to at least 48 prison systems by 2024, often through the use of tablets². Moreover, in places without the technological infrastructure or with restrictions on remote testimony, people can still submit written testimony or, as people in Connecticut prisons did with the help of Stop Solitary CT and students in a legal clinic at Yale Law, write their testimony and have it read into the record by volunteers.
• “Scheduling is too difficult”
  Legislative hearings often happen on short notice, and incarcerated people have limited time windows to access video calling and other means of participation. Work with legislative allies to see if it’s possible to schedule hearings early in the day to allow for more time, or to split up multiple relevant bills into multiple hearings or days. Ask legislative allies to keep everyone up-to-date on the latest developments. Allies can also work with the Committee to ask them to take testimony from incarcerated people out of order to better help Departments of Corrections arrange and maximize blocks of technological access.
• “We can’t let EVERYONE speak!”
  The advocates we interviewed shared multiple instances where committees or the Department of Corrections unexpectedly limited the number of speakers. While it is important to point out to stakeholders that the public generally faces no such restrictions, these limits may be a reality of remote testimony by incarcerated people. It is important to be upfront with incarcerated people about the potential for unexpected developments that could restrict their participation. Prepare people to not be called and work with them to develop written testimony that can be submitted or read into the record if they are not given a chance to speak. To the extent that it is possible, it can also be helpful to encourage incarcerated people to work together to coordinate testimony and select spokespeople to make particular points. This can help overcome limitations on speakers and avoid repeating testimony. Additionally, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts suggests advocating that incarcerated people who were not afforded a chance to speak, but who supported the speaker, be allowed to sit in the room with the speaker while they testify to show their support.
• “You can’t speak with people in solitary!”
  Though access to incarcerated people may vary between or even within prisons, advocates should try to hear from every demographic on the inside to ensure equal representation. For instance, implementing policy reforms on reproductive health or mental health treatment without consulting incarcerated women or people with mental health needs would miss a valuable opportunity to learn from incarcerated people’s lived experiences. The same is true for people in solitary confinement. Advocates should stress to stakeholders that people who are experiencing these issues are best suited to speak on them. Where physical access is not available, mail can be used to distribute information and collect written testimony.

“Constitutional rights don’t end at the prison gate.”

Ultimately, allowing people to have a say in issues that directly affect their lives is not just the right thing to do, it’s also exceedingly practical. Incarcerated people have firsthand expertise on prison issues that those who make the laws usually never see. Listening to what folks in prison have to say about prison conditions is the bare minimum of recognizing them as full human beings, and can even open the door for incarcerated people to author legislation of their own. The infrastructure is there, the need exists, and incarcerated people know the importance of real justice reform better than anyone. As Charles Longshore, an incarcerated person who authored a bill providing judicial discretion to review and modify long sentences in Washington state noted, “Constitutional rights don’t end at the prison gate. We need to respect those rights.”

• Home
• About
• Publications
• Issues
• Data
• Blog
• Contact
• Careers
• Donate