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.

New York: beyond prison-based gerrymandering

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:

• New York Ends Prison Gerrymandering, by Michelle Chen, ColorLines.

Efforts to draw fair districts in New York State go beyond ending prison-based gerrymandering:

• Balance of power changing in NY, Times Herald-Record editorial (Orange County, NY).

Making sure that those who area allowed to vote know that they can:

• Reforms are boost for representative government, by Erika Wood, The Journal News/LoHud.

And a Pennsylvania paper proposes that the state should follow New York’s example and aim for a standard of “one person, one vote”:

• Prison-based gerrymandering should be abolished, The Daily Review editorial, (Towanda, PA).

NYCLU and Common Cause/NY applaud New York ending prison-based gerrymandering

The NYCLU and Common Clause/NY both applaud passage of the bill that will finally end of prison-based gerrymandering in New York.

by Aleks Kajstura, August 6, 2010

The New York Civil Liberties Union and Common Clause of New York both applaud passage of the bill that will finally end of prison-based gerrymandering in New York.

• NYCLU Applauds State Legislature for Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering: “The strength of your vote shouldn’t depend on if your legislative district contains a prison or not, and the passage of this provision brings fairness to voting in New York.”
• Common Cause/NY Applauds Passage of Measure Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering: “Righting This Historical Wrong Is the First Step Towards Reforming Our State’s Redistricting Process.”

North Country Public Radio identifies the biggest impact of end to prison-based gerrymandering

Impact of ending prison-based gerrymandering in New York's North Country.

by Peter Wagner, August 6, 2010

David Sommerstein on North Country Public Radio discusses the impact of New York’s new law ending prison-based gerrymandering.

Notably, Senator Aubertine explains why, although he’s not a proponent, he voted for the budget bill that included the elimination of prison-based gerrymandering. He explains that state and federal funding will not be affected. He goes on to say that 3,000 incarcerated people in his a district of 300,000 people amounts to “about 1%” and a very little impact.

Of course, the impact will be higher in the 45th Senate district which contains more prisons than any other district.

But the story singles out for “the biggest impact” two North Country counties, St. Lawrence and Jefferson, which were the only ones in the region that included the prison populations when drawing their legislative districts. All other counties in the region rejected the Census counts. St. Lawrence County used to exclude the prison populations but reversed course in a bitter partisan battle after the last Census.

In fact, one county district in St. Lawrence is 25% incarcerated. That’s a problem, says long-time reform advocate, St. Lawrence County Legislator Tedra Cobb. Leaving prisoners out of the districts is simple democracy. Districts should be based on equal numbers of community residents, and the people in the prisons are not a part of St. Lawrence County.

More press releases for New York victory

by Aleks Kajstura, August 4, 2010

The New York State Senate Majority, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice all posted their press releases celebrating the passage of a bill to end prison-based gerrymandering in New York.

• New York State Senate Majority: “Senate Passes Bill Ending Prison Gerrymandering In New York”
• NAACP Legal Defense Fund: “Legal Defense Fund Applauds Legislation Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering in New York”
• Brennan Center for Justice: “New York Passes Landmark Legislation to End Prison-Based Gerrymandering”

Context: New York prison-based gerrymandering bill

Eric Lotke article gives context about the history of prison-based gerrymandering and explanation for what bill passage will mean for the state.

by Aleks Kajstura, August 4, 2010

Eric Lotke just posted a great article about the New York bill that just passed, ending prison-based gerrymandering in that state. He gives a lot of context about the history of prison-based gerrymandering and explanation for what this will mean for the state.

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.

Blogosphere on Delaware’s decision to end prison-based gerrymandering

Colin Asher, Ben Greenberg and Sara Mayeux blog about Delaware's end to prison-based gerrymandering.

by Peter Wagner, July 9, 2010

The exciting news that Delaware has become the second state to pass a law to count incarcerated people at their home addresses for redistricting is generating some great coverage on the blogs. Samples include:

• Colin Asher on Change.org writes: Delaware Ends Prison-Based Gerrymandering
• Ben Greenberg writes on Hungry Blues: Prison-Based Gerrymandering Ends in Delaware
• Sara Mayeux writes on the Prison Law Blog: Delaware Becomes Second State to Address Prison-based Gerrymandering

Progressive States Network hails Delaware victory

Progressive States Network blogs about Delaware victory on prison-based gerrymandering.

by Peter Wagner, July 8, 2010

Cristina Francisco-McGuire at the Progressive States Network blogs that Delaware becomes 2nd state to end prison-based gerrymandering, citing Prison Policy Initiative and Demos press releases and research.

In September, the Progressive States Network published a detailed article that was a great introduction to prison-based gerrymandering and what states can do: Prisoners of the Census: How the incarcerated are counted distorts our politics.

Newsweek covers prison-based gerrymandering

Newsweek uses our research to highlight prison-based gerrymandering in New York.

by Aleks Kajstura, July 1, 2010

“Do Rural Prisons Benefit Locals?,” in the July 1 issue of Newsweek, uses our research to highlight prison-based gerrymandering in New York, putting it in the larger context of economic and demographic shifts in the state.

Although the piece notes that “the New York proposal [to end prison-based gerrymandering], like the new law in Maryland, would affect only legislative redistricting, not state funding for social services,” some politicians are still focused on money rather than democracy.

Predictably, Senator Griffo complains:

“Upstate communities accepted prisons for the economic benefit … but there’s also other impacts, both positive and negative. The fire department, police department, and hospitals all have to respond to the prison and the inmates.”

The Senator is right in part: prisons cost money. The state pays the actual cost of incarceration, although sometimes communities do not recover the indirect costs of hosting a tax-exempt institution. If those communities are not billing the Department of Correction for these services, they should look to recover those costs in-kind, and not by gaming the electoral system.