In this interview, Alex, an economist, explains how his field applies to real-world issues, particularly within the criminal justice system. He also details the mission and work of Free Our Vote, a tech non-profit focused on restoring voting rights, which he co-founded with Professor Sukhatme from Georgetown University in 2020. Following is a note-taken version of the interview.

The Economist's Empirical Lens: Unpacking "Natural Experiments"

Alex's core methodology as an economist centers on identifying and analyzing "natural experiments." This isn't about setting up controlled scenarios in a traditional lab sense, but rather leveraging existing variations or "natural randomness" in real-world policy implementations or social phenomena.

• Causal Inference in Practice: The goal of causal inference is to determine if a change in one variable (e.g., a new law, a policy shift) directly causes a change in another (e.g., voting rates, recidivism). In the absence of a perfectly controlled lab, economists like Alex use statistical techniques to isolate the effect of the variable of interest, trying to account for other confounding factors. This often involves comparing groups that are similar in all respects except for the specific "treatment" they received.

• The Challenge of Policy Evaluation: As Alex notes, you can't "impose fines and fees on people indiscriminately" just to study their effects. This ethical constraint forces researchers to look for situations where policies or circumstances naturally vary, allowing for a quasi-experimental design. For example, if two similar counties have different approaches to collecting court debt, an economist might compare outcomes between them, assuming other factors are relatively constant.

• Beyond Finance: Alex emphasizes that being an economist doesn't mean solely focusing on financial markets. His skills in data analysis, statistical modeling, and understanding incentives are broadly applicable. His work in consulting and at Free Our Vote demonstrates how these "randomized control trials or other types of experiments" can be applied to diverse fields, from public policy to social impact.

The Economics of Criminal Justice

Alex's critique of the fines and fees system is rooted in fundamental economic principles, particularly supply and demand and the concept of regulatory capture.

• Fines vs. Fees: It's crucial to distinguish between fines (punishments intended to deter or punish) and fees (charges for services or costs, like court costs or public defender fees). While Alex sees a place for smartly crafted fines, his concern primarily lies with fees, especially indigency fees, which disproportionately burden low-income individuals.

• The Illusion of Capped Fees: The idea of capping indigency fees based on a person's ability to pay, while seemingly equitable, is undermined by the economic reality of the system.

  • Incentives of the Enforcers: Court systems and related agencies are often partly funded by these fees. If legislators cap one type of fee, these agencies face a revenue shortfall. Their incentive is to find other ways to make up the difference, leading to increases in other fees or the imposition of new ones.

  • Regulatory Capture in Action: Alex describes how legislators, seeing court fees as a "giant pool of cash," can be influenced by special interests (or simply their own desire for revenue) to divert these funds for other purposes. This is an example of regulatory capture, where the regulatory body (in this case, the legislature overseeing court funding) acts in the interest of a specific group (themselves, their constituents, or other pet causes) rather than the stated public purpose of the fees (funding the courts). This "siphoning off" of funds then creates a continuous need for courts to increase fees, regardless of the defendants' ability to pay.

  • Inelastic Supply: In a typical market, if prices (fees) become too high, consumers (defendants) can choose not to "supply" their money or exit the market. However, as Alex points out, when someone is arrested or convicted, they are "forced to participate in the market." They cannot simply "exit the market" by refusing to pay; non-payment often leads to further penalties, including re-incarceration or loss of civil rights. This inelastic supply of money from defendants renders traditional economic solutions like price caps ineffective in isolation.

Free Our Vote

Free Our Vote's model is a prime example of applying economic and data science principles to a critical social issue.

• Addressing Data Fragmentation: A significant hurdle in restoring voting rights is the decentralized and inconsistent nature of criminal history data. As Alex explains, each of Florida's 67 counties might store data differently, and there's no central, standardized database. Free Our Vote's use of "web scrapers" and sophisticated coding to collect and standardize this disparate information is a crucial technological innovation.

• Complex Eligibility Rules: State laws governing voting rights for people with past convictions are incredibly complex and vary widely. These laws often change, adding another layer of complexity. Free Our Vote's ability to interpret and apply these nuanced legal frameworks to vast datasets allows them to accurately identify eligible voters.

• Targeted Outreach and Efficiency: Traditional voter outreach can be inefficient. By identifying precisely who is eligible, Free Our Vote enables partner organizations (like the ACLU) to conduct highly targeted outreach through mailers, phone banking, and other direct communication channels. This maximizes the impact of limited resources.

• Strategic Debt Relief: The organization's approach to paying off fines and fees in Florida demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of economic incentives. By sorting data from smallest to largest outstanding debt, they could re-enfranchise the maximum number of people with a given budget. Furthermore, their negotiation with county clerks to pay "50 cents on the dollar" for uncollected debt shows a keen awareness of the clerks' financial incentives—receiving any money for debt that would likely never be fully collected is a net gain for them. This effectively doubled the impact of Free Our Vote's funds.

• Beyond Voting Rights: Expungement: Expanding into expungement services highlights Free Our Vote's commitment to holistic "dignity" for individuals with past convictions. Clearing records helps people overcome significant barriers to housing, employment, and education, promoting their reintegration into society. The large-scale randomized trial in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, further underscores their commitment to empirical evaluation of their interventions.

Florida's Disenfranchisement

Florida serves as a stark example of how political and financial motivations can undermine democratic processes.

• The 2018 Referendum and Legislative Undermining: The overwhelming voter support (67%) for Amendment 4 in 2018 clearly demonstrated the public's desire to restore voting rights. However, the subsequent legislative action that redefined "completion of sentence" to include payment of all fines and fees was a deliberate act to circumvent the will of the voters. This move effectively re-established a modern-day poll tax, disproportionately impacting low-income individuals and communities of color.

• State's Inefficiency as a Feature, Not a Bug: Alex's observation that the state claimed it would cost "tens of millions of dollars and almost a decade" to do what Free Our Vote achieved in "four months with like no money" is telling. This inefficiency isn't necessarily due to incompetence but can be a deliberate political strategy to maintain disenfranchisement. If the state doesn't know who is eligible, it creates a chilling effect, deterring individuals from attempting to vote for fear of prosecution.

• Racial Disparities: The historical and ongoing impact of felony disenfranchisement laws on Black Americans in Florida is a critical component of this discussion. These laws, as Alex alludes to and historical context confirms, have often been used as tools to suppress the vote of specific demographic groups.

The Philosophy of Punishment

Alex's perspective on monetary sanctions aligns with certain economic theories of crime and punishment.

• Gary Becker's Economic Approach to Crime: Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate economist, famously applied economic principles to understanding criminal behavior. His work suggests that individuals make rational decisions, weighing the expected benefits of a crime against the expected costs (including the probability and severity of punishment). From this perspective, fines can be an efficient form of punishment because they impose a cost on the offender without the societal costs associated with incarceration (e.g., building and staffing prisons, loss of productive labor).

• Substitutes for Incarceration: Alex embraces Becker's idea that fines and incarceration can be "substitutes." For many offenses, a fine might be a more efficient and less socially disruptive punishment than imprisonment.

• Nuance in Application: However, Alex acknowledges the limitations. For severe crimes, or when an individual poses a threat to public safety, incarceration is necessary. The "income thing" is also critical: if fines are too low for the wealthy, they lose their deterrent effect.

• The Role of Community Service: Expanding community service is a common reform proposal that aligns with a desire to reduce incarceration rates. It offers a rehabilitative and socially productive alternative to imprisonment, particularly for less severe offenses or youthful offenders.

• Reforming Bail: Cash bail, which often keeps low-income individuals incarcerated pretrial simply because they cannot afford release, is a significant point of concern for civil liberties advocates. Alex's suggestion of allowing credit card payments for bail is a practical reform that could mitigate some of the negative impacts of the current system.