Upstate New York radio asks: Are state prisoners local residents?

by Peter Wagner, March 8, 2004

David Sommerstein has a great piece on North Country Public Radio Prisoners: North Country Residents?. The piece was aired on March 5, the morning of Peter Wagner’s presentation at the Census Bureau symposium and discusses our Feb 16 Fact of the Week contrasting Franklin County’s exclusion of the prisoner population with St. Lawrence County’s decision to include the prison population to shore up underpopulated Republican districts in the county legislature.

You can listen to the program at the above link, or read a transcript we created.

Changing how prisoners are counted will not require a change in how college students are counted

by Peter Wagner, March 1, 2004

Unlike college students, prisoners are not a part of the local community. While some colleges are partially self-reliant communities, prisons are entirely so. Students are welcome and encouraged to come in to town to purchase goods and services and to rent apartments. Students can register to vote in the local community and may decide to stay permanently after graduation.

Prisoners are barred from leaving the facility without official permission. Forty-eight states bar prisoners from voting, and those that allow prisoners to vote require the voting to be done via absentee ballot back home. Finally, parole regulations frequently require prisoners to be returned to their original county of conviction upon release.

While students are a part of the host community, prisoners are not.

For more information on how students are counted, see our new FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section.

If prisoners could vote, they would vote at home, not in the prison town

by Peter Wagner, December 15, 2003

The Census counts prisoners as if they were residents of the prison town, but if prisoners could vote, they would vote at home. This isn’t just a matter of choice, it’s one of law.

Two states (Vermont and Maine) let prisoners vote and, until recently, two additional states (Utah and Massachusetts) did as well. Most prisoners didn’t vote, but when they did, each state required prisoners to vote not at the prison, but at home. An examination of how the four states required prisoners to vote at home is illustrative of how the question of prisoner residence should be treated for purposes of redistricting and representation.

Prior to 1990 Census, prisoners were not explicitly excluded from Census counts

by Peter Wagner, December 8, 2003

The 2000 Census form says to exclude family members incarcerated in correctional facilities.

While the Census’ usual residence rule has evolved over time, some “group quarters” populations such as nursing home residents, prisoners and those inside mental hospitals have, at least since 1850, always been counted at the facility. Whether the local count also excluded these populations — especially that of prisoners — is open to question.

Kansas proves adjusting Census is possible

by Peter Wagner, November 17, 2003

The experience in Kansas shows that it is practical to adjust the Census data to reflect state residents at their home, rather than Census, addresses. If the federal Census does not change how it counts special populations, it is not necessary for a state to entirely abandon the federal census. Kansas switched from its own state census to the federal census with one exception: Kansas does a special census of students and military personnel so it can change how they are counted in the data used for redistricting. Expanding this practice to prisoners should be quite simple.

The Kansas Constitution requires that redistricting be based on Census data adjusted to:

• exclude non-resident students and military personnel and
• transfer in-state students and military personnel back to their home addresses elsewhere in Kansas.

States are not required to use the federal census

by Peter Wagner, November 10, 2003

While states must redistrict on the basis of actual population, the U.S. Constitution does not require states to use the federal census for its own redistricting:

“Although a state is entitled to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives as determined by the federal census, it is not required to use these census figures as a basis for apportioning its own legislature.”

States are therefore free to use their own census or to correct how the federal census counts prisoners.

Bethel Park v. Stans, 449 F.2d 575, 583 (3rd Cir. 1971)

Usual residence rule has been modified for other special populations and can be changed for prisoners too

by Peter Wagner, November 3, 2003

The Census cites its “usual residence rule” as requiring it to count prisoners at the prison. That’s true as far as it goes in regards to prisoners, but the Census and Congress have the power to change this rule, doing so for college students in the 1950s and for military personnel and other groups many times since 1900. Currently, college students living at the college are counted at the college, but prior to the 1950 Census, they were counted at their parent’s home. (Boarding school students younger than college age are still counted at home.)

The Census has been even more inconsistent with overseas military:

With the exception of the 1900 census, the Bureau only began to count overseas military personnel in 1970, allocating them to … their “home of record,” namely the state to which they declared they would return at the end of their service. In 1980, … the Bureau ceased allocating overseas federal employees to particular states. However, the federal employees still considered themselves to be “usual residents” of the United States, and for that reason, among others, the Bureau again reversed its policy in 1990 and allocated federal employees living overseas according to their “home of record.”

The counting of overseas missionaries from the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and applying them back to their home states has likewise been changed, counting the missionaries from 1910 to 1940 but not before or after.

The usual residence rule is not an inflexible constitutional mandate. It is a rule within the power of Congress and the Census to modify based on new situations and needs. The usual residence rule should be modified once again so that the Census can more accurately count our nation’s large and growing prison population where they truly reside: with their home communities.

Franklin v. Massachusetts 505 U.S. 788 (1992). Second Amended Complaint, Utah v Evans, Utah D.C. paragraph 32.

Prisoner counts skew local gender and marriage statistics

by Peter Wagner, October 27, 2003

There are 86 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women in the United States. The ratio will vary between neighborhoods, cities, regions and states from a variety of influences on the statistic. Some are the reflections of women’s longevity, different cultural ideas about marriage, and some are the result of social and economic demographics like the concentration of young people.

The disparity between states is somewhat small, ranging from Alabama and Rhode Island at 79 unmarried men to 100 unmarried women, to Alaska at 114 unmarried men per 100 unmarried women. (Alaska is a very small state that has a lot of industries that rely on imported male workers. The next state is Nevada at 103 unmarried men per 100 unmarried women.)

The county disparity is huge, ranging from 53.8 to 362 unmarried men per 100 unmarried women. The Census collects marital status data because it helps communities plan for social services and future growth. While relatively useful for some purposes on the state level, this data is more difficult to use on the county or town level because the Census includes “special populations” of prisoners and soldiers — which tend to be male — in with the local community rather than at their actual homes.

A repugnant flashback?

by Peter Wagner, October 13, 2003

Unfortunately, counting disenfranchised residents for purposes of mis-representation in the legislature is nothing new.

At the founding of the United States, the white population in the South was much smaller than that in the North. In a huge compromise, the original U.S. Constitution allowed the Southern states to count their Black slaves as 3/5ths of a white person. The slaves couldn’t vote, so the slaveowners got to “represent” this captive population in Congress and the Electoral College.

The result? Thanks to its added population, for 32 of the first 36 years of the country, the President was a slave-holder from the otherwise small state of Virginia. Artificially boosting the political power of the South created a national stalemate that prevented the creation of a democratic solution to the slavery problem. What might have been resolved peacefully in the 1790s became the Civil War in the 1860s.

Today, a similar democratic and economic impasse presents itself in the debate over crime control policy. As the economy constricts and state budgets contract, it is absolutely essential that our political structure be responsive to changing needs of the people.

Would a democratically constituted legislature support expensive prisons over proven-effective drug treatment? Counting our population at their true residences and apportioning political power accordingly would be a great way to find out.