Hint: It's not urban people.
by Peter Wagner,
February 24, 2010
I find it disturbing to see prison-based gerrymandering portrayed as an urban vs rural issue. Why? Because the practice of padding some legislative districts with large prisons dilutes the votes of everyone who does not live next to a large prison. Rural and urban communities suffer about the same.
True, urban communities should have been credited with their true population, but the way the math works out, they suffer almost the exact same vote dilution as rural communities that do not contain prisons.
Democracy is not a zero sum game, and when the data that democracy depends on is flawed, even those who benefit in one way lose in another. The residents of some state senate districts, for example, get extra representation when their leaders claim incarcerated people as residents; but they often suffer in local government. For example, most of the residents of Rome New York have less access to city government than they should, because half of one city council district is incarcerated people who are not from Rome.
There are additional harms that I’m not going to address fully in this post. For example, padding a district with incarcerated people distorts the priorities of the “benefiting” district, dis-aligning the priorities of the district’s representatives and its actual residents. But like I said, prison-based gerrymandering is not an urban vs. rural issue.
Editorial: if part-time residents can’t be counted at their second homes, consistency requires incarcerated people to be counted at home, not at the prison.
by Aleks Kajstura,
February 19, 2010
In a recent editorial, “In new Census, home is where the vote should be,” the Times Herald-Record (Orange County, NY), examines the issue of prison-based gerrymandering in the larger context of voting and election law in New York State.
If it is not right to let a two-month bungalow colony resident vote in the Town of Bethel or the owner of a year-round vacation home vote in Taghkanic, then it should be even less acceptable to let thousands of people who cannot vote, who do not pay taxes, and who really would rather be somewhere else count toward the population of an Assembly, Senate or House district.
I don’t share the paper’s pessimism that we need litigation to resolve where incarcerated people should be counted, I think we can resolve this problem on the core principle of our democratic process: one person, one vote. Fairness, accuracy and the New York State Constitution demand that incarcerated people not be counted as constituents of politicians far from their home districts.
Note: The New York State Const. Article 2, Section 4 provides that “no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence … while confined in any public prison.”
A prison doubles one city councilor's clout in Rome NY; and he expresses interest in fixing that unfair enhancement of his political influence.
by Peter Wagner,
February 19, 2010
In Rome, New York, half of the 2nd City Council ward is incarcerated, giving the actual residents of the ward twice as much influence as residents from other wards.
The Prison Policy Initiative did the research [PDF], but the exciting part to me is what the councilor from the Second Ward told Jennifer Fusco of the Utica Observer-Dispatch:
As for looking at such a change in Rome, Councilor John Mortise, R-2, said he’s open to the possibility, but wants to learn more about it.
“I don’t foresee a problem, but I’d like to do my research on it,” he said.
Including prison populations in the city council wards was surely not a deliberate attempt to distort democracy. I doubt people noticed the prison at the time or knew that it was possible to do something else. It happened. The problem was exposed and solutions proposed. And now the councilor who benefited the most from the unfairly drawn wards wants to investigate further and fix it. I call that a good day for democracy.
Too often politics are more adversarial than they need to be, but every now and again you see an example where dedication to the idea of democracy trumps dedication to self. And when a society has enough leaders who put the group first, and can set up fair ways for all citizens to make decisions, it should find that solving big problems isn’t so overwhelming after all.
See the story:1/2 of Rome ward’s residents are prisoners: Group says inmates should be excluded when drawing district boundaries by Jennifer Fusco, Utica Observer-Dispatch Feb 18, 2010.
by Elena Lavarreda,
February 18, 2010
Bob Paquette of WFCR Amherst, MA recently conducted a compelling interview with Peter Wagner about the fast-approaching Census count, and the problem posed by counting inmates as residence of their prison cell, rather than the place they came from prior to sentencing.
by Aleks Kajstura,
February 18, 2010
In “Counting prisoners is an issue for us all,” Mary Sanchez, of the Kansas City Star, writes that “elected officials wind up with constituents to whom they don’t have to answer at the ballot box.”
In all but two states, felons in prison can’t vote. So the standard of one person, one vote is distorted by building legislative districts based on head counts of people who can’t cast ballots, and where many only temporarily live via a prison sentence.
Recently, the Census Bureau announced that it will release data on group quarters, which include prisons, earlier than usual – in May 2011. This new data will give state and local governments the choice to account for their prison populations when drawing district lines for the next decade.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, chairman of the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census & National Archives, led the charge for the change. …
“The impact of this decision is enormous. States and local governments will now have the opportunity to do the right thing and prevent the overrepresentation of areas where prisons are located,” according to Clay.
The operative words are “have the opportunity.” States don’t have to do anything after the prison counts by the census are released in May 2011.
But they ought to do what upholds democracy.
We have to stop framing census reform as a zero-sum game of funding. It's a democracy issue about the state constitution, and its an issue where almost everyone has something to gain from reform. Partisan and regional conflict makes for great press, but it's not going to build a better society.
by Peter Wagner,
February 16, 2010
Professor Jamie Baker Roskie asks on the Land Use Prof Blog if there is a solution to the urban/rural and black/white split over how the Census Bureau should count incarcerated people. Introduced to the issue by an NPR story that (with the help of partisans in both places) sets the issue as a fight over limited resources, she asks if “some happy medium can be found”.
It’s a great question, and the answer is easy:
We have to stop framing census reform as a zero-sum game of funding. It’s a democracy issue about the state constitution, and its an issue where almost everyone has something to gain from reform. Partisan and regional conflict makes for great press, but it’s not going to build a better society.
See my comment on her post for my full explanation.
Except on Census day, prison district politicians do not believe that incarcerated people are residents of their districts.
by Peter Wagner,
February 15, 2010
With the Census almost here, some politicians have drawn their attention to defending the Census Bureau’s practice of counting incarcerated people as residents of correctional facilities in their districts. The politicians’ aim is to claim as many people in the area as residents of their district. Claiming more people — even if they can’t vote and are legal residents of other parts of the state — can be a benefit at redistricting time. Having an artificially high population allows them to create districts with fewer real constituents to be accountable to.
The politicians’ defense of the Census rule for prison counting doesn’t hold water. One argument they make goes like this: Sometimes people in prison use the local hospitals, so we should be able to claim them as residents. But people who are passing through town and staying in local hotels temporarily use the local hospitals too.
As with every other group the Census counts, what matters is whether people in prison are considered residents of the community that contains the prison. Except for incarcerated people, the residence rule the Census uses consistently results in counting people at their homes.
I’ve frequently written about the New York State Constitution’s definition of residence, which explicitly says that confinement in a public prison does not change a person’s residence. Despite the official constitutional definition, I’ve also looked to see whether county officials actually consider incarcerated people to be residents of their communities. And the result?
When the Census is not underway and the news cameras are not around, no politician treats the people in local prison cells as residents or constituents.
Continue reading →
Justin Levitt at the Brennan Center for Justice says the Census Bureau's new prison count data is a big step forward for democracy.
by Peter Wagner,
February 14, 2010
Justin Levitt at the Brennan Center for Justice has a great new article explaining the importance for redistricting of the Census Bureau’s change in how the prison count data will be published:
Rep Clay says Census Bureau is giving state and local governments an opportunity to stand up for fairness and justice.
by Peter Wagner,
February 13, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 12, 2010
MEDIA CONTACT:
STEVEN ENGELHARDT (314) 504-4029
Says Decision Will Improve Accuracy, Restore Fairness, Reverse a Historic Injustice
WASHINGTON — Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D) Missouri, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census & National Archives has negotiated a ground-breaking agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau that will change how census counts of prisoners are reported to state and local governments. The policy change, which moves up the date when counts of incarcerated populations are reported, could potentially result in increased urban and suburban representation in state legislatures and local governments.
“I want to commend U.S. Census Director Dr. Robert Groves and his staff for acting to improve accuracy, restore fairness and reverse historic patterns of injustice that have been applied to prisoners for many years,” said Chairman Clay. “The impact of this decision is enormous. States and local governments will now have the opportunity to do the right thing and prevent the overrepresentation of areas where prisons are located.”
Continue reading →
by Peter Wagner,
February 13, 2010
The Census Bureau’s decision to change how census counts of prisoners are reported to state and local governments is getting a lot of press. Samples include:
Prisons, Redistricting and the Census New York Times editorial, February 11, 2010 - States get new leeway to tally prisoners in census, by Hope Yen, Associated Press, February 11, 2010
- New Option for the States on Inmates in the Census, by Sam Roberts, New York Times, February 11, 2010
- Reformers Score a Census Victory…by Skipping Prisoners? by Matt Kelley, Change.org, February 11, 2010
Prisons, Redistricting and the Census
