by Peter Wagner, August 19, 2010
The Watertown Daily Times prints my letter to the editor where I explain that the state Legislature’s decision to count incarcerated people at home for redistricting purposes has a big upside for St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties that nobody is talking about.
by Peter Wagner, August 18, 2010
The grand total is $0, yes that says “zero.” New York’s new law ending prison-based gerrymandering won’t affect funding.
New York is not changing the way the U.S. Census counts people in prison, rather, it is adjusting the way that data is used in redistricting to comply with the New York Constitution. No federal or state funding formulas will be affected by the decision of a state to adjust their redistricting data because no federal or state funding formula is based on state redistricting data.
Even if the Census Bureau were to, in the future, count incarcerated people at their home addresses, we’ve long explained that virtually every federal and state funding formula is too smart to be fooled by prison populations. Despite assumptions to the contrary, there is very little impact from the prison miscount on funding in general.
If money is not at stake, why did 3 states pledge to count incarcerated people at home for redistricting purposes? Because those states want to ensure that legislative districts are drawn fairly, and that no district gets undue influence just because it contains a large correctional facility.
That is reason enough.
by Peter Wagner, August 17, 2010
The residents of the City of Hudson will benefit from New York State’s new law that will end the practice of prison-based gerrymandering.
Hudson, in Columbia County, has a city council form of government that attempts to comply with the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” requirement by using a system of weighted voting. Rather than redraw districts each decade to ensure that each district has the same population, the city keeps the same wards but changes the number of votes exercised by each City Alderman. By keeping the votes proportional to population, each resident has the same access to government.
The problem for Hudson is that the U.S. Census data used to weight the City Aldermen’s votes is flawed. Instead of counting incarcerated people at their home addresses as required by the state constitution’s definition of residence, the city used data that included the Hudson Correctional Facility as part of the city’s population.
The last Census in 2000 credited 618 incarcerated people to the 3rd Ward in Hudson, giving the actual residents of that district about 35% more clout than they were entitled to, and diluting the votes of residents of the other wards by about as much.
In 2010, the prison population has fallen to about 360, but even relatively small populations can have a large impact on democracy if they are counted in the wrong place. New York’s new law ending prison-based gerrymandering gets a lot of attention for its comparatively small impact on the state senate, but the law’s amendments to the municipal home rule law will ensure that the law is a big advance for democracy upstate.
by Peter Wagner, August 17, 2010
Providence Journal columnist Ed Fitzpatrick, who earlier reviewed Jeff Reichert’s new film Gerrymandering he published a new column this morning that focuses on the film’s segment on prison-based gerrymandering.
He said that my explanation of “the perfect district from the perspective of an elected official would be your house and a large prison, because as long as your spouse is willing to vote for you, you are guaranteed reelection” made him laugh, but he “wrote it off as an Iowa issue.” Then he started to think about the large Adult Correctional Institution in Cranston Rhode Island.
Anamosa is a great example of why prison-based gerrymandering is an unfair practice. But if viewers expect to see elected officials boast of deliberately using the prison populations to receive more representation than elsewhere, you won’t find it in Anamosa where democracy activists and the representative of the prison district worked together to change the form of government to eliminate the prison district. For shameless examples of using prison populations for self-advancement, the best example is in Rhode Island.
To find out who in Rhode Island inspired a search for a place like Anamosa, check out Ed Fitzpatrick’s column. You can also watch the segment of the film below. The film will be out in select theaters nationwide on October 15, and in more cities after that. Stay tuned!
by Lauren Marcous, August 16, 2010
As the release date of the 2010 Census data gets closer, the process of redistricting will begin across Georgia. Like many other states, Georgia redistricting officials rely primarily on the accuracy of Census data to draw fair county commission district boundaries. But despite the Census’ goal of counting everyone once, only once, and in the right place in order to ensure equal representation, the data will fail to meet this standard for 81,000 of Georgia’s residents- those who are behind bars.
The Census Bureau counts people who are imprisoned as residents of the place at which the prison is located, not at their residential addresses. Georgia Annotated Code § 21-2-217(3), however, states that involuntary and temporary movement to a new county does not change a person’s residence. Since incarcerated people do not voluntarily or permanently move to correctional facilities, they are not changing residences. Despite this fact, nearly half of Georgia counties with large prisons continue to base districts on the Census Bureau’s faulty method of counting incarcerated people as residents.
When incarcerated people are counted as residents for the purpose of drawing district boundaries, a class of phantom constituents is created because incarcerated individuals are not part of the local community and they do not have the right to vote. These phantom constituents are used to pad some districts, while all other districts need actual residents to meet population requirements. This skews the democratic process by effectively diluting the voting power of everyone in the county who does not have a prison in their district.
In the 2000 Census, for example, 11% of the population counted in Baldwin County was incarcerated in multiple correctional facilities. Most of the facilities were located in Commissioner District 4. Because Baldwin County included the prison population when drawing its district boundaries, it inadvertently created a district in which 37% of the people were incarcerated, giving the actual residents of District 4 substantially more representation than other residents. (Additionally, 17% of Commissioner District 2 is comprised of incarcerated people from the since closed Scott State Prison.)
Continue reading →
by Peter Wagner, August 13, 2010
The Governor of New York signed the budget on Thursday, and with it the state’s new law to end prison-based gerrymandering.
Keith Goldberg of the Times Herald-Record (Orange County, NY), which earlier this week editorialized in support of the new law, has an interesting article about their state Senator’s reaction:
And the Associated Press has an article appearing around the state that’s pretty good pointing out that the “last redistricting map included seven Senate districts that met required population criteria – within 10 percent of the largest district – only by counting prisoners,” although we wish it would have been more thorough at dealing with the constitutional issues. When Sen. Nozzolio “called the change ‘a direct assault’ on New York’s Constitution, he conveniently disregarded Article II, § 4, where it says that while incarcerated, a person remains a resident of their home.
by Aleks Kajstura, August 13, 2010
When New York passed a law ending prison-based gerrymandering, the residents of Hudson, NY are among those who will now have the representation in their city government based on the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Hudson, which about 6,500 people call home, uses weighted voting on its city council. This means that each Alderman elected to the council get a number of votes proportional the number of people she represents.
The city is divided into 5 wards, each ward elects 2 Aldermen to the council to represent its residents. Ward 3, however, contains the Hudson Correctional Facility. As a result, the two Aldermen from Ward 3 have more voting power on the council than their actual number of constituents warrants. With this new change in the law, every resident of Hudson will get equal representation in government.
The region’s paper, The Register Star, has a great piece by Lindsay Suchow focusing on how the state-wide law will bring equal representation to Hudson.
“It will put more equal weight on the wards — I think it’s a good move,” [Alderwoman Ellen Thurston, D-Third Ward] said. “When the new census figures are in, we’re going to need to refigure the wards anyway. ”
by Aleks Kajstura, August 12, 2010
Two recent letters to the editor break down the false dichotomy of downstate versus upstate. While most media coverage has focused on how the new bill affects districting in the downstate region, benefits to upstate residents have remained overlooked. This bill does not benefit downstate residents to the detriment of those who live further north, rather, it contains provisions that benefit all of the state’s residents.
Excerpts:
Prisoner count will mean fairer districting
The bill — which does not apply to federal or state funding — requires state, county and municipal districts be drawn based on home addresses. This is a big win for every resident of Elmira who doesn’t live next to the Elmira Correctional Facility in the 3rd City Council District. Padding that district with 1,845 prisoners gives the residents of that district twice the influence over the rest of the city.
The new law will require that the City of Elmira draw its city council districts of actual population. The only prisoners who will be included in the city’s districts will be those who are from Elmira (and thus are still the city’s legal residents). Elmira’s residents will now benefit from the equality in the city council; this benefit more than outweighs the smaller impact on state Senate districts.
Chemung County’s legislative districts will remain unaffected because the county has historically ignored the Elmira Correctional Facility when drawing the county districts. In doing so, Chemung has drawn districts that complied with the state constitution’s definition of residence. Starting next year, the districts of the state Senate, the state Assembly, and the City of Elmira will be drawn the same way.
Seward’s opposition to prison-based gerrymandering law misplaced
Spreading fear about the impact of ending prison-based gerrymandering on Senator Seward’s district distracts from the real benefits to upstate New York. The City of Hudson will no longer be allowed to grant the 3rd Ward extra representation because it contains a prison. Had this bill existed 10 years ago, Greene County would have been sparred a long public debate about whether the County Legislature should base its county districts on the prison populations or whether it should conduct its own adjustments.
The County ultimately did the right thing and rejected the Census Bureau’s prison counts. I can only hope that if Senator Seward proceeds with his lawsuit against the new law, he doesn’t also sue Greene County for leading the way.
by Peter Wagner, August 11, 2010
Saturday’s New York Times has an unfortunately partisan take on the end of prison-based gerrymandering in New York. The article doesn’t mention the benefits to upstate New York from the bill’s passage, and it sets up the facts in a way that inaccurately portray a huge win solely to metro New York. To me, the biggest winners on Tuesday are the residents of Rome New York and other upstate residents. In Rome, the bill means that no longer will voters see the residents of one city councilor district have twice as much influence as others just because their district contains a large prison.
Other upstate cities and counties will also benefit from the new protections against prison-based gerrymandering. Indeed, 13 NY counties already removed prison populations from the redistricting base for local redistricting even before this reform passed; their actions are now protected by state law instead of being subject to potential legal challenge.
At the state level, the benefits are probably more modest than the New York Times presented. There are many types of gerrymandering in New York State. The legislature eliminated one of them. That’s a huge win, but it’s not in itself going to change everything.
While the impact on local government is larger than at the state level, counting many people concentrated at the wrong address has a larger impact than counting them correctly at the many addresses where they actually live. As the Times Herald Record in Orange County New York editorialized on Sunday: “This will have a scattered effect in the city where a few thousand here or there will be added to several districts.”
The New York Times made the numbers sound more dramatic by including Republican-leaning suburbs in its definition of the larger New York City region; but the basic reality is the impact on New York City’s districts likely will be less than the impact on fairness now achieved for local upstate city council and county districts. What will be large is the impact on the handful of local districts upstate that have extremely large prisons. Those local districts will no longer be significantly padded with prisoners, and the winners will be the residents of all other city or county districts in upstate areas that do not contain a prison.
Continue reading →
by Aleks Kajstura, August 9, 2010
Ending prison-based gerrymandering means a return to the concept that representatives should represent those actually part of their communities:
Efforts to draw fair districts in New York State go beyond ending prison-based gerrymandering:
Making sure that those who area allowed to vote know that they can:
And a Pennsylvania paper proposes that the state should follow New York’s example and aim for a standard of “one person, one vote”:
Learn more about the organization behind the Prison Gerrymandering Project.
The transfer of Black and Latino incarcerated people to communities very different than their own is a nationwide problem.
We explain that prison gerrymandering is bad for democracy but federal & state aid are not impacted.
How a prison helped one man get elected with just two votes.