by Peter Wagner, April 14, 2010
The New York Times editorial board has an editorial praising Maryland’s new law requiring that incarcerated people be counted at home for redistricting purposes:
by Peter Wagner, April 14, 2010
Two great pieces today on Change.org about our prison-based gerrymandering work in Maryland and Rhode Island:
by Elena Lavarreda, April 14, 2010
Eric Lotke wrote an outstanding piece today highlighting our recent victory in Maryland, while managing to locate the issue in the ongoing national struggle to fix the Census miscount. His article was featured on the DailyKos, Huffington Post, Campaign for America’s Future and other outlets.
Lotke’s clear demonstration of the long lasting and damaging effect of prison-based gerrymandering on democracy is profound. When discussing discussing the racial and ethnic impact of the Census miscount, he states:
“These numbers are too high for all kinds of reasons — but the impact on redistricting carves it into the bones of our democracy.”
Despite our victory in Maryland, Lotke is right to point out where the Census has faltered and what states can do to make sure they draw fair and equal districts:
Still, the Census Bureau has stubbornly refused to change its rules and count people in prison in the location that they come from and return to. It has conceded for the 2010 census to release its micro data early enough that states and counties who choose to can reassess prison jurisdictions in time for reapportionment. But Maryland sets a new standard by taking matters into its own hands. Technical matters of implementation will need to be worked out (they have ten years!) but the law states a clear legislative intent. Constituents are not exportable commodities.
by Peter Wagner, April 9, 2010
Maureen Turner at The Valley Advocate has written an excellent profile of our work:
I particularly liked how she explained the significance of the Census Bureau’s decision to publish prison counts earlier:
That might not sound like much — a government agency releasing a relatively small amount of its collected data a little earlier than usual. But the consequences will be significant, making it easier for states to ensure that their legislative districts are fair representations of actual populations.
And it wasn’t just those residents who were poorly served by the formula. Because the prisoners were not counted at the homes where they lived before their arrest — and where, it can be assumed, many would return upon their release — those communities also suffered, as their population count, for the purpose of distributing political representation, shrank.
While in an ideal world, Wagner said, the Census would have made a much broader chang e– to counting prisoners at their previous home addresses — such a policy would have had to be created years ago to be ready for the 2010 count. The early release of data, while not a complete fix, is still a welcomed one, he said: “It will solve a lot of people’s problems, and there was still time to do it.”
by Peter Wagner, March 31, 2010
We have new reports on prison-based gerrymandering in Connecticut and California:
Importing Constituents: Incarcerated People and Political Clout in California, by Aleks Kajstura and Peter Wagner, March 2010
Importing Constituents: Incarcerated People and Political Clout in Connecticut, by Peter Wagner and Christian de Ocejo, March 2010
by Peter Wagner, March 31, 2010
There are two must read pieces today:
by Peter Wagner, March 30, 2010
Brenda Wright at Demos has an editorial in today’s American Prospect: The Census and the Cell Block.
by Peter Wagner, March 28, 2010
On Monday, March 29, at 3:30 pm, the Cranston School Department will be faced with an unusual request by one of their residents: registering their child for school. Although this may seem like a regular activity, this registration will come from one of the 4000 incarcerated residents of Cranston. One of their current students, Jolina Correa, was recently told she can not return to Cranston’s third grade next year, because her mom is not a city resident. But according to the U.S. Census and some elected officials in the city, her dad is.
by Peter Wagner, March 24, 2010
The New York Times cites our newest report, Fixing prison-based gerrymandering after the 2010 Census: A 50 state guide in today’s editorial: A Proper Count of Inmates.
by Peter Wagner, March 22, 2010
The 2010 Census will be counting more than 2 million incarcerated people in the wrong place. The laws of most states say that a prison cell is a not a residence, but the Census Bureau assigns incarcerated people to the prison location, not their home addresses. When state and local governments use this data to draw legislative districts, they unconstitutionally enhance the weight of a vote cast in districts that contain prisons and dilute those votes cast in every other district.
Our new 50 state guide, Fixing prison-based gerrymandering after the 2010 Census, introduces the problem, the solutions, and provides state-by-state information on how the prison miscount harms state and local democracy, how each state defines residence for incarcerated people, and the status of reform efforts.
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.
Jail and the Census: A Change That Counts, Easthampton’s Prison Policy Initiative scores a victory for fair political representation