Are legislative maps hurting prison reforms?

by Peter Wagner, November 12, 2010

Pam Adams has an excellent column in the Journal Star in Peoria Illinois: Are legislative maps hurting prison reforms?

She explains that gerrymandering districts around prisons helps makes reforming the budget-busting prison system more difficult. But unlike New York, Illinois’ districts with large prisons are evenly distributed between Republicans and Democrats. The bi-partisan support for retaining prison-based gerrymandering doesn’t make ending the practice any easier, but if Illinois wants to fair districts to guide the state for the next decade, reform is needed:

“The state has about 50,000 men and women in prison. Though most of the state’s prisons are downstate, most of the state’s prison inmates are from the Chicago area. Most of them will return to the Chicago area in less than two years. Counting prison inmates where they’re confined rather than where they live means Chicago basically exports political power to prison-padded districts downstate.

“We ought to be a bit more grateful to Chicago down here. Especially with a round of legislative redistricting on the horizon and downstate potentially in line to lose yet another Illinois House seat because population hasn’t kept up with the competition.

“Except it’s not fair. Not to the prison inmates who can’t vote. Not to voters in districts that don’t have prisons. Not to basic democratic principles.

“And it definitely doesn’t provide much political incentive to pass reforms that would reduce the more than $1 billion annually the state spends on prisons.”

Read the entire column: Are legislative maps hurting prison reforms?

See also our Organizing Against Prison-Based Gerrymandering in Illinois page for more research, fact sheets and news coverage. Or see Pam Adams earlier column about prison-based gerrymandering: Where should prisoners be counted?.

Gerrymandering: the movie

Gerrymandering, the movie, is coming out in theaters. A whole segment is devoted to PPI’s findings about prison-based gerrymandering.

by Aleks Kajstura, October 14, 2010

Gerrymandering is great!

Gerrymandering, the movie, that is. Jeff Reichert’s new documentary, Gerrymandering has a segment on prison-based gerrymandering featuring the findings of the Prison Policy Initiative, and our Executive Director, Peter Wagner.

Some reviews from critics more impartial than us:

“Riveting.” – Bob Mondello, NPR All Things Considered

“An exceptionally entertaining film.” – Bilge Ebiri, New York Magazine

“Every American voter should see this.” – Paul Constant, The Stranger

“****. If you care about the future of America, see this movie.” – Matt Thomas, NY Examiner

“Cinematic – in the best way – all the way through.” – Howard Feinstein, Screen International

“A film seemingly made for Jon Stewart’s ‘Restoring Sanity’ movement.” – Stan Hall, The Oregonian

The once-obscure issue of prison-based gerrymandering has come a long way over the past decade. Gerrymandering‘s coverage of prison-based gerrymandering even made it’s way into Moviefone’s musings about the nature of documentaries!

Trailer:

In addition to one-time screenings, the movie is going to be officially openes in limited release tomorrow, October 15, 2010. We have a supplemental factsheet [PDF] available for download, if you’re going to see the movie feel free to print some off and hand them out!

What states can do to end prison-based gerrymandering

The problem, the solutions and what can be done today.

by Peter Wagner, October 5, 2010

We’re often asked by state officials what they can do about prison-based gerrymandering in their states and if we can send them some introductory information. We usually send out something like the information below. Additionally, for state-specific information on the problems caused by prison-based gerrymandering, see our report Fixing prison-based gerrymandering after the 2010 Census: A 50 state guide.

The Census count and prison-based gerrymandering:
The problem, the solutions and what can be done today

The Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” cases require state and municipal districts to be redrawn each decade so that each district contains the same number of people and each resident, therefore, has the same access to government. A long-standing flaw in the decennial census, however, systematically counts more than 2 million people in the wrong place and undermines the “one person, one vote” principle. Although people in prison can’t vote and remain residents of their home addresses, the Census Bureau counts people in prison as residents of their prison cells instead. Using this flawed data to draw districts grants the people who live near large prisons extra influence at the expense of voters everywhere else.

The problem at the state level:

• Crediting prisoners from all over the state to the predominately rural districts that contain large prisons enhances the weight of a vote in those districts, diluting all other votes in the state.
• Prisoners are disproportionately Black or Latino, and outside of the Deep South, most prisons are built in disproportionately white areas. Using Black and Latino prisoners to pad the populations of white legislative districts dilutes minority voting strength state-wide.

The problem at the county and municipal level:

Rural county and municipal districts are smaller than state legislative districts, so prison-based gerrymandering can create an even larger problem for people who live near but not immediately adjacent to a large prison. Some examples:

• A true “rotten borough”: In Anamosa Iowa, a man won a city council seat with two write-in votes, neither of which he cast. There were no candidates because 96% of the district was incarcerated in a large prison. The handful of voters in the district had 25 times as much influence on the city council as residents elsewhere in the city.
• “Majority-minority” in name only: In Somerset County, MD, a county commission district that was deliberately drawn as a majority-minority district in order to settle a Voting Rights Act lawsuit has been unable to elect an African-American because a prison population, which cannot vote, was included in the population. The actual African-American resident population in the district is too small to elect an African-American candidate. It would have been possible to draw an effective majority-minority district had the prison population not skewed the data.

Solutions

• Ask the U.S. Census Bureau to count incarcerated people at home in the next Census, and work to improve state correctional data systems to facilitate that change.
• Use state correctional data to adjust the federal Census for redistricting purposes so that districts are based on data that counts incarcerated people at their home addresses.
• As an interim solution, refuse to pad the populations of legislative districts that contain prisons. Adjust the census data used for redistricting so that all incarcerated people are considered to be residents of unknown locations, and are not included in any individual district.

What states are doing:

• New York, Maryland and Delaware have recently passed legislation to ensure that districts are drawn based on data that counts incarcerated people at home. There is a long history of states making adjustments to the census in other contexts as well.
• The legislative or executive branches in several states (Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey, Mississippi) require or encourage local governments to modify the census and refuse to use prison populations as padding. Additionally, more than 100 rural counties and municipalities around the country make these adjustments on their own.

Cost

Costs are minimal at most because existing infrastructure generally exists at Departments of Corrections and in the redistricting and planning agencies. Furthermore, the Census Bureau has already changed its data publication schedule to make it easier to identify prison populations in its redistricting data. Finally, the most efficient and cost-effective solution has no cost at all to the states: ask the Census Bureau to count prisoners at home.

Conclusion:

The principle of “one person, one vote” requires that legislative districts be drawn so that each contains the same number of people counted in the correct location. The Prison Policy Initiative would be happy to help states determine the most appropriate next steps considering the state constitution, redistricting timelines and available state corrections data.

“An End to Prison Gerrymandering”

New York Times editorial cites our research and hails New York's new law ending prison-based gerrymandering.

by Peter Wagner, August 22, 2010

The New York Times cites our research on prison-based gerrymandering in the New York Senate, in upstate counties, and in Rome, New York in an editorial in Monday’s paper, An End to Prison Gerrymandering.

The editorial hails New York State’s new law to end prison-based gerrymandering and says it should be emulated around the country.

How much money is New York City going to gain from new law counting prisoners at home?

None. The new law applies to state and local redistricting, not funding.

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.

Rhode Island legislator boasts of prison-based gerrymandering

Ed Fitzpatrick finds that prison-based gerrymandering is not unique to Iowa. Another clear example is right in his home state.

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!

Benefits to New York State’s upstate (and downstate) residents

Two recent letters to the editor break down the false dichotomy of downstate versus upstate.

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.

Democracy reform is not a partisan horse race

Saturday's New York Times has an unfortunately partisan take on the end of prison-based gerrymandering that misses the largest benefits of the new law.

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.

New York to correct miscount of incarcerated people

New law caps decade-long effort to improve fairness and accuracy of data used for state and local redistricting.

August 3, 2010

New law caps decade-long effort to improve fairness and accuracy of data used for state and local redistricting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Peter Wagner, Prison Policy Initiative, (413) 527-0845, (413) 923-8478
Tim Rusch, Demos, 212 389-1407
Brenda Wright, Demos, 617 913-1967

August 3, 2010 – Today, the New York State Senate passed legislation ensuring that incarcerated persons will be counted as residents of their home communities when state and local legislative districts are redrawn in New York next year. The measure, already passed by the Assembly, was included in the budget package that now awaits Governor Paterson’s signature.

The state legislature and some counties and municipalities have previously counted incarcerated people as residents of the prison location, inflating the local population counts used for legislative districts. Padding legislative districts with prison populations artificially enhances the weight of a vote cast in those districts at the expense of all districts that do not contain a prison.

The bill now on Governor Paterson’s desk would use data from the department of corrections to identify the home addresses of incarcerated persons and include them in the population counts for those areas prior to redistricting. Because the bill does not change the core Census data, no federal funding based on Census data would be affected. The bill will affect state senate, state assembly, county and municipal districting in the state that will begin in 2011.

Lasting effects of prison-based gerrymandering in Maryland

WYPR reports on how the people incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Institute in Maryland's Somerset County are used to skew the democratic process.

by Aleks Kajstura, July 22, 2010

WYPR reports on how the people incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Institute in Maryland’s Somerset County are used to skew the democratic process in the county and in the state. Although Maryland already passed a law that will require districts to be based on actual, not prison, populations, the districts currently remain as they were drawn many years ago.

No grand plot has been plot has been alleged. But somehow a 33-hundred inmate prison was built in the middle of a five-thousand-person district that was created through a 1986 legal settlement to boost prospects for a black candidate. And it may just be a coincidence that remaining the African-American population in the district is mostly made up of UMES students, who typically don’t vote in county elections, either.

In any case, no local action been taken to correct the imbalance that has allowed the First District seat to be held for 20 years by James Ring, an elderly white man who benefited from a shrunken electorate that musters fewer than 500 total votes.

Maryland was the first state to pass a law to require incarcerated people to be counted at their actual home addresses for redistricting purposes. The WYPR story focuses on the elections that will be held before that change takes place.