by Aleks Kajstura, April 25, 2011
The New York Times has issued a strong editorial critical of state lawmakers who are challenging a law that bans prison-based gerrymandering. For more on the lawsuit, see last week’s newsletter and our blog. For our research cited in the editorial, see the New York Campaign page on our website.
by Aleks Kajstura, April 11, 2011
Oneida County, in upstate New York, would like to avoid prison-based gerrymandering when drawing their county Board of Legislators’ districts. Their Senator, however, was one of the nine that filed a law suit that is not only holding up their redistricting process, but threatens to force Oneida, as well as other counties across the state, to draw districts distorted by prison populations.
Robert Brauchle’s State debate over prisoners muddies county’s redistricting talks, published in the Observer-Dispatch, explains the problem:
In Oneida County Legislator David Wood’s district, about two-thirds of his constituents can go grocery shopping, drive a car and vote.
The remaining third are locked in prison cells.
Now, as the county prepares for the upcoming redistricting process to determine the boundaries for the Board of Legislators’ districts, officials are becoming increasingly unnerved about the partisan debate in Albany that will affect where those prisoners are counted.
A law signed by former-Gov. David Paterson in August counts prisoners in their pre-arrest locations during the redistricting process. Previously they had been counted in the location where they were incarcerated.
That change would impact the county Reapportionment Committee’s ongoing redistricting work to address population shifts within the county and to make the population even in each district.
But state Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, along with eight other Senate Republicans, have filed a lawsuit against the Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment and the state Department of Correctional Services to overturn the 2010 redistricting law.
“It’s not like they come here, and everything is self contained,” he said. “There’s a draw on resources and a cost to them being here.”
Until the process in the state Legislature plays out, the roughly 4,500 state prisoners in Oneida County will remain in limbo over whether they should officially be recorded as citizens in their location of incarceration or their pre-arrest homes.
Wood, the county Board of Legislators majority leader, said he would like to see prisoners counted at their pre-arrest locations.
“If we have to count them out of the cells, then we’ll do it that way,” said Wood, R-Rome, who represents a district that includes Mohawk Correctional Facility and Oneida Correctional Facility. “But this is stalling us right now in some bureaucratic time warp that we can’t get out of.”
Ramon Velasquez, of VOCAL, also responds to the law suit in an informative article that gives a first-person account of experiences with prison-based gerrymandering in the state, as well as some background on the issue.
Prison-based gerrymandering is not just a problem in New York; The Star Press highlights a similar example of grappling with the issue in Henry County, Indiana.
by Aleks Kajstura, April 7, 2011
As the Prison Policy Initiative, Demos, Common Cause/NY, and the Brennan Center publish press releases responding to the lawsuit that seeks to return the practice of prison-based gerrymandering to New York, the press coverage is well on its way. Here is a sampling of recent news coverage of the developments:
The BedStuy Patch’s GOP State Senators File Law Suit Against Jeffries’s Prisoner Counting Law provides some background. Assembly Member Hakeem Jeffries is quoted speaking against the suit:
“This lawsuit represents a transparent attempt to breathe life into the prison industrial complex, in order to exploit the continued criminalization of individuals who disproportionally come from low-income, urban communities of color….”
The Watertown Daily Times notes:
Opponents of that 2010 law call it unconstitutional gerrymandering. Supporters say that doing anything otherwise would be unconstitutional gerrymandering.
Interestingly, a majority of the local governments with prisons in the districts represented by the complaining legislators actually exclude the prison populations when redrawing their own districts. These State legislators are working to force their own constituents to engage in prison-based gerrymandering against their will.
And although the law does not change funding distributions – only how prison populations are used in redistricting – the discussion inevitably steers toward money. Assembly Member Hakeem Jeffries, an original co-sponsor of the bill explains why talk of funding would be irrelevant anyway:
by Aleks Kajstura, April 7, 2011
Wisconsin’s Racine County is discussing taking the prison population into account when drawing new districts. If the county includes the prison population in the local district, the district would derive 17% of its population from the prison. The County is considering how to avoid giving the actual residents of District 13 more representation in county government than residents who live in every other one of the County’s supervisor districts. The Journal Times reports:
County Supervisor Ken Lumpkin, whose district includes the Racine Youthful Offender Correctional Facility, 1501 Albert St., is concerned that counting the inmates at the facility unfairly affects his district….
“It’s unfair they are utilized in the census count,” Lumpkin said. “They are not active participants in the community.”
by Aleks Kajstura, April 6, 2011
McAlester’s new City Charter may inadvertently force the City to engage in prison-based gerrymandering. McAlester had previously excluded the prison population located within City limits when drawing wards, this allowed them to give equal representation to all McAlester residents in the City Council. Although the Census Bureau is about to provide Advance Group Quarters Data to make the population adjustment process easier for the next decade, the Ward Commission is interpreting the new City Charter as disallowing any adjustment of the original data provided by the Census.
Wes Carter, writing for the McAlester News Capital, explains:
The result of adding inmates to city wards will have drastic effects on the make-up of the city. The prison population at the moment is scheduled to be located in ward 4. Inmates will make up approximately two-thirds of the population. …
When disbursed equally, each city council member will represent 3,333 people. However, Ward 4, which is where both prisons are located, will have 2,000 inmates and 1, 333 citizens in its district. The Ward 4 council member will represent 39 percent of what the other council members represent; however, he will have the same amount of responsibility.…
“It seems this wouldn’t be fair,” said Ward 4 Councilmen Robert Karr. “Prisoners can’t vote so I can’t really represent them.”
Not only would it be hard for an elected official to represent inmates, the smaller voting block would dilute the votes of voters in the other five wards.
“I think it is fair the way we have done it in the past,” said Karr. “Hopefully common sense will prevail.”
The two quoted stories by Mr. Carter were both published in their entirety only in print editions of the McAlester News Capital:
City ward boundaries to be re-drawn after census, March 24, 2011
Feds: Prison populations not required in McAlester ward re-districting, March 30, 2011
by Aleks Kajstura, April 4, 2011
According to a recent article by Molly Davis, for the Associated Press, Mississippi counties are currently redistricting their local governments, and trying to avoid prison-based gerrymandering.
In Mississippi, prisons are concentrated in the Delta, an area with a significant black population. It is unclear whether most counties are following the state attorney general’s instructions to exclude inmates in redistricting or the census’ policy of including them in the count, but such decisions affect whether counties are in compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
In Mississippi, prison-based gerrymandering takes on a new twist:
Rep. Tommy Reynolds, D-Water Valley, who chairs the House Elections Committee, said that including prison populations in county redistricting tallies actually helps to preserve voting strength in those districts.
This argument provides the basis for criticism of “prison-based gerrymandering” in the northeastern United States, where the problem tends to inflate the population of the largely white communities where the prisons are located, at the expense of the low-income city neighborhoods where many of the inmates come from.
In Mississippi counties such as Leflore and Sunflower, which have prisons as well as a significant black population, Rhodes said the problem is more complicated.
He said that drawing a district that includes a large number of non-voting black prisoners could artificially inflate the black population, creating a phantom minority-majority district while actually “cracking” the voting black population, or dividing them into separate districts, thus diluting their real voting strength. Rhodes said that such action would appear to comply with the Voting Rights Act on paper, but in reality would put counties at risk for a lawsuit.
“They could be taken to court for excluding (prisoners) in redistricting plans, but if they include them they have to draw them in such a way that they don’t include them in a marginal minority district,” he said.
Mike Sayer, of Southern Echo, summarizes:
“When a large prison population is included in a district it can create the illusion of a majority-minority district,” said Sayer. “If most of those who are incarcerated are minorities and unable to vote then you may have a majority-minority district on paper, but perhaps not in reality.”
Although some lawmakers assume that “Mississippi would risk losing federal dollars by excluding the prison population from those calculations,” no federal (or state) aid is based on redistricting data. Therefore, a county that excludes prison populations from their district totals faces no risk of losing state or federal aid.
Mississippi counties that follow the advice of the Attorney General and exclude prison populations from local redistricting data can easily solve complex gerrymandering problems and draw districts that are closer to the principles of “one person, one vote.”
by Aleks Kajstura, March 30, 2011
On March 21, state and national leaders testified before the Connecticut General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Judiciary at a hearing on HB6606, An Act Concerning the Determination of the Residence of Incarcerated Persons for Purposes of Legislative Redistricting. Video of the testimony is available now:
Julia Knight, a senior Ethics, Politics & Economics major at Yale university:
And as previously posted, Rep. Charlie L. Stallworth (D-126th Assembly District – Bridgeport):
An archived video of the hearing is available through the Connecticut Network, it includes other testimony on HB6606 as well as other bills heard that day. Submitted written testimony is also available on our Connecticut campaign page.
by Aleks Kajstura, March 29, 2011
In anticipation of upcoming redistricting efforts across the country, the Brennan Center recently published A Media Guide to Redistricting. It gives a great general overview of redistricting and gerrymandering of various kinds, and includes a short section on prison-based gerrymandering.
Our own Primer for reporters on redistricting
& prison-based gerrymandering focuses on counties and other local governments that face redistricting with large prison populations.
by Aleks Kajstura, March 29, 2011
The Cleveland Free Press recently published an article on prison-based gerrymandering by Mansfield Frazier. Although Mr. Frazier would be happy to know that his concerns about losing federal funding based on Census Bureau prison population counts is unwarranted, his bigger concern is valid: Prisons in Ohio distort democracy in the state.
Our research on Ohio found that for the past decade Ohio House District 85 (in Ross, Pickaway and Fayette counties), was based on population data where 8.92% of the reported residents were actually prison populations. These disenfranchised prisoners are overwhelmingly from homes outside the district, meaning that the actual population of the district is very small. Every group of 91 residents in District 85 gets as much of a say over state affairs as 100 people living nearly everywhere else in the state.
by Bruce Reilly, March 29, 2011
For those of you in my home state, Prison-Based Gerrymandering might be well known, along with my comrades in New York, Delaware, or Maryland. For the rest, please take this small state example and reach out for us to help you tackle your own location.
Over a year has passed since the first attempts to educate RI policy makers on the issue of Prison-Based Gerrymandering. The 2010 Census data shows that the imprisoned “residents” of Cranston have grown by 6%. Considering overall RI population growth is the lowest in America (0.4%), 26 times lower than the national average, it is time to count prisoners in their communities or continue the path of seriously imbalanced power.
A hearing was held in the Senate Judiciary on a bill that would count prisoners in their communities rather than cellblocks. Peter Wagner, from Prison Policy Initiative, has been a technical resource on this issue around the country, including successful legislative changes in New York, Delaware, and Maryland last year. He noted that RI Dept. of Corrections has excellent data, and the U.S. Census Bureau officially adjusted their statistics this year so that the prisons can be more easily identified.
See the RI population numbers by prison, in Google Maps.
John Marion of Common Cause noted how every district loses by ceding power to those that contain the prisoners. It is not about finances, but about the number of people one needs to represent. He also pointed out that, under RI law, people do not lose their residence based on many things including going away to college, military service, or prison. When Senator Hodgson inquired about the possibility of voters awaiting trial losing their residence by this, Steve Brown (ACLU) pointed out that someone awaiting trial would not be able to register as a resident of Cranston unless they were actually from there. The Absentee Ballot would correspond with their “home address.” Likewise, prisoners are not allowed to register their children in Cranston schools nor benefit from being a Cranston resident in any tangible way.
Tish DiPrete spoke on behalf of the Urban League about the overall lack of representation in urban areas, as they are traditionally undercounted already. People move around quite often, and any city politician should know that many of their registered voters (who will indeed vote) have moved across town. Considering the overall population numbers are reduced, and growth is low, urban representation needs to be repatriated.
A perfect example is how 27% of northern Smith Hill is vacant properties, the district will have to expand in order to have the adequate number of residents. The ProJo recently published the populations of each current district, and whether they have too few, or too many, residents. As the article points out, expanding territory into new towns creates a whole other set of commitments and demands.
Current House District 15 has 1,081 extra people, while also having 1,736 incarcerated non-voters padding the district.
Current House District 16 has 374 extra people, while also having 1,821 incarcerated non-voters padding the district. This is currently Rep. Peter Palumbo’s district which clearly has the fewest vote-eligible people in Rhode Island. Because of our consolidated prisons, RI ends up with one of the most affected districts in the nation due to prison-based gerrymandering.
In 1970, the ACI population represented 4% of a House district. That number climbed to 6% in 1980, then 19% in 1990. In 2000 the number rose to 23%, and now it is at 25%.
Consider the Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls House District 56. It has 360 incarcerated “residents” (2010 Census), up from 324 in year 2000. Yet anyone who has been following the Wyatt saga (if not, search “Wyatt” on this site) knows this population has been over 700 during the past decade, and possibly only the death of a detainee has halved the number. Incidentally, CF District 56 is up 984 people. Shedding the Wyatt would make its expansion a matter of blocks, rather than neighborhoods.
What of the Senate implications, you ask? They are half as blatant, considering there are half as many districts. Currently, all 3557 Cranston prisoners are counted as residents of Senate District 27. This reduces every other Senate district in RI only 87% as powerful as the padded district. D 27 is currently over by 444 residents, and would be ceding some ground… but it should be ceding 4000 people, and the neighborhoods they hail from.
And finally, there is Cranston City Ward 6, which is nearly 25% prisoners. This means that for every three people in line to speak with the Ward 6 Councilor, there are four in line to see the others. Each one with a demand.
For a conversation on the situation in RI, listen to this podcast between myself and Peter Wagner.
Its not a Democrat/Republican thing, its a “One Man, One Vote” thing. And if you’re not into that, it says a bit about your feelings on the U.S. Constitution and the canon of law.
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.
Pam Adams explains how in her downstate Illinois column.
We explain that prison gerrymandering is bad for democracy but federal & state aid are not impacted.