City Law Director tells City Council they should decide whether to avoid prison-based gerrymandering when drawing city council districts.
by Peter Wagner,
June 10, 2011
The Mansfield News Journal reports
Mansfield to reconfigure wards
City must determine whether to omit nonvoting prisoner population from 5th Ward
by Al Lawrence
MANSFIELD — The city will have to reconfigure ward boundaries as a result of the final population figures from the 2010 U.S. Census….
[Law director Dave Remy] told council before it redraws ward boundaries it must decide if it wants to include the inmate populations at the Mansfield and Richland Correctional institutions. He said the 5,500 inmates in the two institutions account for 60 percent of the population in 5th Ward.
“That’s fifty-five hundred people who are locked up and disenfranchised and could not vote if they want to,” Remy said. “There has been a movement in the state that cities with prisoners should consider taking prisoners out of ward representation.”
He pointed out that Mansfield has the largest prisoner population of any ward in any city in Ohio. Remy said taking inmates out of the reconfiguration formula would not affect federal programs…..
I assume that the City of Lima will again refuse to pad one city council district with the prison population, but no word yet on whether Marion, Marysville, and Youngstown are considering avoiding prison-based gerrymandering.
For more, see our fact sheet Prison-Based Gerrymandering in Ohio Cities.
Bay State Banner reports on creativity needed to end prison-based gerrymandering in Massachusetts now.
by Aleks Kajstura,
June 9, 2011
If Massachusetts wants to stamp out prison-based gerrymandering within its borders a piecemeal approach is required, as reported by this week’s edition of the Bay State Banner.
Last year, New York, Maryland and Delaware passed laws to correct the possible violation of the one person, one vote principle and adjust census data, which the states are using in redrawing legislative districts based on the 2010 Census….
In Massachusetts, the Legislature cannot adopt similar legislation without amending the state constitution, the only one in the country that indisputably requires the census be used in state redistricting.
Still, activists have figured out creative strategies to limit the distortion of voting power and are lobbying the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting to embrace them.
The key to their strategies is the limited flexibility that the U.S. Supreme Court allows in how many people live in each district. That number can vary as much as 5 percent above or below what would be an exactly equal amount in every district.
Two activists [Peter Wagner of the Prison Policy Initiative and Brenda Wright of Demos] have urged the redistricting committee to give legislative districts with prisons up to 5 percent more residents, and those districts where many prisoners last lived up to 5 percent fewer residents….
Wright recommended the Legislature pass a resolution calling for the Census Bureau to change the way it counts prisoners, an adjustment that would come too late to affect the current round of redistricting. She also urged the Legislature to start the long process of amending the constitution in case the federal agency does not take action.
Wagner said it would be better for Massachusetts and the rest of the country if the Census Bureau did change its method of counting prisoners.
“I think the ideal place for a fix to happen is at the Census Bureau,” Wagner said in an interview. “It would be easier on states and local governments if they did it.”
Two Mass. bills pass, and a third one introduced, to free towns from having to use Census counts of incarcerated people to create additional expensive and unnecessary voting precincts.
by Peter Wagner,
June 3, 2011
Two Massachusetts bills I blogged about in April and May passed the legislature yesterday, and a similar bill applying to a third town was introduced last week.
The two passed bills allow the towns of Lancaster (H03440) and Harvard (H03439) to exclude the prison population when complying with state law that requires the creation of additional voting precincts when a town reaches a Census population of 6,200 and again at 8,000.
In Massachusetts, precincts are administrative units that determine where you vote. Although the Census Bureau counts people in prison as residents of the town where the prison is located, incarcerated people are either barred from voting or are required to vote via absentee ballot in their home districts. Therefore, there is no reason to force towns that host prisons to bear the extra administrative costs of creating additional precincts to serve voters who don’t exist.
The third introduced bill, H03468 , applies to Middleton and would exempt that town from having to create a third precinct to accommodate the population counted by the Census Bureau at the Essex County Correctional Center, but none of whom will be standing in line to cast ballots in local precincts.
These three bills should pass and be signed by the governor because they are good for these towns and don’t have any negative effects for the home communities of incarcerated people; but the best solution, of course, would be for the Census Bureau to count incarcerated people in the correct location: at home.
Bill to end prison-based gerrymandering in California passes the Assembly, moves on to consideration by the Senate.
by Aleks Kajstura,
June 1, 2011
California’s bill to end prison-based gerrymandering (AB 420) just passed the Assembly, it now moves on to the Senate.
The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Davis, had previously been approved by the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting. The votes on the bill and discussions of prison-based gerrymandering in California clearly illustrate that this is not a partisan issue. The Los Angeles Sentinel reports that the bill would clarify California electoral law and ensure equal districts regardless of prison populations. Organizations that support the bill include: NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the League of Women Voters, Drug Policy Alliance, Legal Serves for Prisoners with Children, Friends Committee on Legislation, the Prison Policy Initiative, the Greater Sacramento Urban League, the Advancement Project, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, First AME and the California Black Pastors Association.
While the State works to end prison-based gerrymandering in state redistricting, California counties are taking action in local redistricting efforts. Imperial County studied the issue and decided not to include prison populations in its redistricting data. A resolution to prohibit the use of prison populations in redistricting was just recommended by a County Supervisor in Madera County.
I testify at redistricting hearing in Greenfield, Mass. about how the state can avoid prison-based gerrymandering in this round of redistricting.
by Peter Wagner,
June 1, 2011
I testified last night in Greenfield, Mass. before the Joint Special Joint Committee on Redistricting about how the state can avoid prison-based gerrymandering.
The Census Bureau may be counting incarcerated people as if they were residents of the census blocks that contain correctional facilities, and not as residents of their legal addresses, but the state can take the prison populations in to account in order to reduce if not eliminate the harm of prison-based gerrymandering.
In my testimony, I review two examples of how prison-based gerrymandering distorted democracy in state house districts drawn in 2002, and then discuss three things the state can do while drawing the districts to greatly reduce if not eliminate the harm of prison-based gerrymandering. Included in my testimony is a list of the census blocks that contain correctional facilities in the state so those populations can be taken in to account when drawing the lines.
Two weeks ago, Brenda Wright of Demos testified before the committee, and in 3 weeks on June 21, the co-chairs of the joint committee will join with advocates at the Black Community Losing Power: Counting Inmates In the Wrong Place forum in Mattapan, MA at 5:15pm. See you there!
Interviews with local officials in Indiana reveal bi-partisan and wide-spread support for ending prison-based gerrymandering.
by Aleks Kajstura,
May 31, 2011
DePauw University students created a great introductory video to the issue of prison-based gerrymandering. The students’ interviews with local officials in Indiana reveal bi-partisan and wide-spread support for ending prison-based gerrymandering:
As the video shows, prison-based gerrymandering in Indiana’s local governments is often inadvertent and results from confusion about the choices available to counties and municipalities.
Large prison populations can easily skew political power within a city. Terre Haute’s prison population, for example, nearly doubled over the past decade. Unless the council takes that into account when drawing districts, it faces drawing a district where 1/3 of the population are non-residents currently held at the local prisons.
As counties and municipalities across Indiana prepare to redistrict, they should join the over 100 local governments nationwide that avoid prison-based gerrymandering by adjusting their redistricting data.
Justin Levitt leads a discussion about the strategy and rationale of ending prison-based gerrymandering with advocates at the Redrawing the Boundaries: A Midwest Redistricting Discussion in October 2009.
by Peter Wagner,
May 23, 2011
I just discovered video of a presentation that Justin Levitt made at the Redrawing the Boundaries: A Midwest Redistricting Discussion in Chicago in October 2009. He explains the problem of prison-based gerrymandering and then leads a detailed discussion with advocates about the strategy and rationale for reform. Although dated, it’s worth watching.
Questions include:
- How are incarcerated people counted?
- How are college students and the military counted?
- Is there any data on how many prisoners–during the census period–return to their home communities, and as a consequence should be counted in their home communities?
- If a state government elects to alter its prison count, when does that take place?
- What’s the incentive for someone who benefits from a prison population to demand a census recount?
- What are the primary effects of counting incarcerated people where they are incarcerated?
- Does counting incarcerated people differ when it comes to congressional districts–versus state and local districts?
For more with Justin Levitt, see my podcast “Address Unknown” Podcast Episode #1 where we discuss the optimal way to structure a bill to eliminate prison-based gerrymandering.
Common Cause briefing on prison-based gerrymandering in Connecticut draws interest from legislators.
by Aleks Kajstura,
May 18, 2011
Connecticut’s Common Cause held a briefing at the capitol to discuss prison-based gerrymandering in Connecticut.
The CT News Junkie covered the briefing, including some more in-depth reporting:
Bilal Dabir Sekou, associate professor of political science at the University of Hartford, used some statistics to illustrate the effect gerrymandering has on minorities. Black and Latino residents make up just 19 percent of the state’s population but are 72 percent of the inmate population, he said.
According to data from the 2000 Census, 75 percent of state’s prison cells are located in districts that are disproportionately white, he said. Most of the prisons are in five towns: Cheshire, East Lyme, Enfield, Somers, and Suffield, he said. Together, those towns are technically home to just 1 percent of the state’s prisoners, he said.
“Fifteen percent of one district was incarcerated, giving every group of 85 residents near the prison as much political influence as 100 residents as any other district in the state,” he said.
…
Rep. Tim O’Brien, D-New Britain, said that prison-based gerrymandering is a distortion of representation at the Connecticut’s Capitol. He pointed to a disconnect in the state’s laws.
There is a law that requires inmates who are eligible and willing to vote, to do so by absentee ballot in the municipality they came from, he said. But when it comes to population counts for legislative districts they are counted where they are incarcerated, he said.
Jonathan Kantrowitz also blogs about the issue at the CT Post.
Video of the briefing at the capitol is available on Connecticut Network. The briefing includes Connecticut legislators and representatives from Common Cause, Prison Policy initiative, A Better Way Foundation and the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF).
The Common Cause press release:
Common Cause in Connecticut Urges State to End Prison Based Gerrymandering
As Connecticut prepares for the once a decade legislative redistricting and reapportionment, Common Cause in Connecticut called on political leadership to end Prison Based Gerrymandering, the problem caused by the counting incarcerated people in Connecticut as residents of the correctional facility not their home addresses. During the last Census in 2000, the U.S counted almost 20,000 people in state or federal prison cells in the state. Without using prisoners as padding, 7 state house districts would not meet federal minimum population requirements and would need to be redrawn.
“Prison-based gerrymandering distorts the democratic process and dilutes minority voting rights,” said Dale Ho, Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “Towns that have large prison populations, like Enfield, have decided not to treat prisoners as members of the local community when drawing local election district lines. The state as a whole should follow their example, and should stop using prison populations to arbitrarily and irrationally inflate the voting power of a handful of districts to the detriment of all other Connecticut citizens.”
“When I was incarcerated, I was prohibited by law from claiming that town as my residence,” said Kenny Jackson, Family Reentry of Bridgeport, “I shouldn’t have been counted there as if I was a resident.”
Connecticut should follow the lead of Maryland, Delaware and New York and abolish prison based gerrymandering. All three states passed legislation requiring the state to collect home address for incarcerated persons. The home address data will be used to adjust Census data for redistricting purposes so that districts will be based on everyone’s actual place of residence.
Peter Wagner, Executive Director of the Prison Policy Initiative said “The lines being drawn now will be in place for the next decade. The General Assembly needs to act quickly to ensure that all residents – regardless of whether they live next to a prison – are given the same voice.”
The Prison Policy Initiative’s analysis of the districts drawn after the 2000 Census found that:
-
15% of one district was incarcerated, giving every group of 85 residents near the prison as much political influence as 100 residents in any other district in the state.
-
The majority of the state’s prison cells are in the 5 towns of Cheshire, East Lyme, Enfield, Somers and Suffield that together are home for just 1% of the state’s prisoners.
-
In a state where African-Americans are almost 13 times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and Latinos are incarcerated 7.5 times as often as whites, crediting people in prison to the districts that contain the prisons has negative effects on minority representation. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, 75% of the state’s prison cells are in legislative districts that are disproportionately White.
Reapportionment and Redistricting signal that decisions will soon be made about how many Representatives each State gets and even who will be your next Representatives and how likely they are to stay in power. And this is all happening without your vote, “All communities suffer when a small portion of Connecticut residents are granted more than their fair share of representation while the rest of Connecticut voters effectively have their votes diluted,” Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director of Common Cause in Connecticut said, “Giving a few communities extra representation just because they happen to have a correctional facility is not fair to the rest of Connecticut’s citizens.”
###
Demos testifies in support of avoiding prison-based gerrymandering in Massachusetts as legislative districts are redrawn.
by Aleks Kajstura,
May 18, 2011
Massachusetts is in the midst of redrawing legislative districts for the next decade. Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos, testified about prison-based gerrymandering before the Before the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting of the Massachusetts General Court. The extensive and thorough testimony included this summary of the problem:
Because of the rise in incarceration rates, the practice of allocating incarcerated persons to prison districts substantially skews redistricting. As shown by research conducted by the Prison Policy Initiative, without using prison populations as padding, five Massachusetts House districts would not have met minimum constitutional population requirements after the 2000 Census.
Kevin Peterson provides more background on redistricting issues facing Massachusetts in a recent CommonWealth Magazine article.
Bills are filed to keep two towns from having to add expensive precincts due to prison populations being counted in the towns.
by Peter Wagner,
May 17, 2011
Last month, I reported:
Prisoners can’t vote, but will cost Mass. town extra funds for elections
Lynne Klaft reports in the Worcester Telegram that an increase in the prison population in the town of Lancaster Massachusetts is going to require creating a new election precinct for them, even though they can’t vote.
In Massachusetts, precincts are administrative units that determine where you vote, and Chapter 54 Section 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws defines certain maximum sizes for the precincts. In general, precincts can not have more than 4,000 people living in them. The 2,406 people incarcerated in two prisons put the town population at 8,055, or 55 people over the threshold for having two precincts.
Unless the law is quickly changed, the town must create a third precinct, hire more poll workers, purchase more equipment and other expenses. Our work to end prison-based gerrymandering focuses on the drawing of election districts like those in Gardner, not the impact of laws that regulate how crowded a precinct should be. But the story, New precinct needed for nonvoting population is yet another interesting example of how the Census Bureau’s decision to count incarcerated people as residents of the prison location creates additional burdens on the electoral systems and processes of the localities that host correctional facilities.
Special legislation to exempt Lancaster from the requirement to add another precinct has been filed as H03440. But Lancaster isn’t the only Massachusetts town facing the problem of having to create an extra precinct to because non-resident non-voters were counted as residents of a prison. As the similar bill H03439 explains, Harvard is in a similar position where the federal prison population is going to require the town to create an unnecessary second precinct.
These bills should pass because they are good for these towns and don’t have any negative effects for the home communities of incarcerated people, but the best solution, of course, would be for the Census Bureau to count incarcerated people in the correct location: at home.
