Media guides to redistricting

Two media guides to redistricting: the Brennan Center gives a general overview and ours focuses on counties and local governments with prison populations.

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.

Ohio feels effects of prison-based gerrymandering

Cleveland Free Press article on prison-based gerrymandering takes national perspective on issue facing Ohio.

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.

Politicians Unify Prisoners’ Power – For Themselves!

Bruce Reilly guest blogs about prison-based gerrymandering in Rhode Island.

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.

Prison-based gerrymandering threatens more Wisconsin governments

Cities in Wisconsin face drawing districts with no actual residents, just prison population. More Wis. fact sheets available.

by Aleks Kajstura, March 29, 2011

More potential for prison-based gerrymandering problems was found in local governments across Wisconsin; fact sheets are now available for Crawford County and the cities of Appleton, Kenosha, New Lisbon, Prairie du Chien, Portage, Racine, Stanley and Waukesha.

The cities of Stanley and New Lisbon are both facing the prospect of having an Aldermanic ward with no actual residents. This problem is created because the population of the prisons located in the cities is larger than any one of their wards. Our Wisconsin campaign page has more background on prison-based gerrymandering issues in Wisconsin and a complete list of fact sheets available for the state.

Conn. held hearing on bill to end prison-based gerrymandering

Conn. Legislature's Judicial Committee hears testimony on bill to end prison-based gerrymandering.

by Aleks Kajstura, March 25, 2011

On Monday (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.

Rep. Stallworth, right, with Dale Ho of the NAACP LDF. Photo: Only in Bridgeport

Rep. Charlie L. Stallworth (D-126th Assembly District – Bridgeport) testified about the impact of disproportionate representation has on Bridgeport and other similar communities in Connecticut. Rep. Stallworth notes that when inmates and their families seek support, they reach out to their home communities’ legislators.

The New Haven Register also noted the inconsistency the current redistricting practices have with the way that representatives are actually elected:

In Connecticut, incarcerated felons lose the right to vote but individuals may continue to vote by absentee ballot if they are detained prior to a trial because they have not posted bail or if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor.

Their vote is counted in their home town elections.

Susan Pease, Dean of Arts and Sciences at Central Connecticut State University and a Board Member of Common Cause in Connecticut brought the Committee’s attention to the state’s commitment to equality:

“The history of the Connecticut legislature is, as can be seen in the exhibits out in the hall, the history of striving towards more and more equality in representation…. The benefits were obvious and profound. Immediately, the Connecticut Legislature began to be more responsive to the needs of the state….”

Dale Ho, assistant counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, summarized:

“Each Connecticut resident should be represented equally in the political process, and the power of their voice should not depend upon whether they live near a prison.”

Even legislators with large prisons in their districts saw the inequity of the situation described to them over the course of the day. The CT Mirror reported:

Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, the ranking Republican on the committee, seemed to listen more closely than other legislators. His 7th Senatorial District includes a half-dozen prisons in Enfield, Suffield and Somers.

Kissel said about 8,000 residents of the district are inmates….

Kissel said he is considering supporting legislation that would count the prisoners in the towns where they came from.

“My gut tells me it has some merit,” he said.

Full text of these and other submitted written testimonies is available on our Connecticut campaign page.

MI city de-annexes prison to reduce costs

Rural city annexes prison to get (some) more funds, then reconsiders in face of larger costs.

by Peter Wagner, March 25, 2011

We’ve long argued that the Census Bureau’s prison miscount is about political power, not funding.

An interesting anecdote from Michigan makes the point about how small the financial impact is:

Prior to the 2000 Census, in a 1998 an agreement with Coldwater Township, the city annexed the three Michigan Department of Corrections facilities adjacent to its north boundary. This allowed Coldwater additional revenue sharing funds from the state and some eligibility for more federal funds.

Then, in the fall of 2000, the city’s firefighters union and its supporters pushed and passed a city charter amendment, which requires 1.5 firemen per 1,000 population. With state prison inmates counted in the population, it would have required the city to hire three new fire fighters.

According to then city manager Bill Stewart, Coldwater had received only $29,000 in 1999 from the state for municipal services while new firefighters would cost approximately $56,000 more a year.
So on Nov. 27, the city council voted to “detached” the prisons, and Coldwater Township later passed the same resolution dropping the population by 2,286 prisoners.

The gain to Coldwater City was $12.68 per incarcerated person per year. When all the city had to do was move the border to get the money, it was worth doing. But it’s not a lot of money, and as the article shows, other costs made the annexation unwise.

The real negative impact of the prisons would be on democracy in Branch County, but the county, like most similar counties in Michigan, refuses to use the prison populations when drawing local government districts.

Now if only the Michigan legislature would follow the lead of Maryland, Delaware, New York and their own rural counties and address prison-based gerrymandering in their districts….

See also:

• Census Bureau’s prison count won’t mean funding windfall
• Prison town says census count cost funds

Alaska Republican Party Chairman calls for end to prison-based gerrymandering

Ending prison-based gerrymandering would be good for rural Native populations, says Republican Party Chairman.

by Peter Wagner, March 24, 2011

The Chairman of the Alaska Republican Party has called on the state to end prison-based gerrymandering:

Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, addressed the board via telephone, asking that the board assign Alaskan prisoners incarcerated within and outside of Alaska to their home addresses for the purpose of building new legislative districts.

Ruedrich noted in a letter to John Torgerson, board chairman, that the Census Bureau had made a decision to provide prison population data to states for the redrawing of 2011 legislative boundaries.

“This data will allow the board to work with census data that places each Alaskan prisoner in his or her home instead of their prison location for drawing new legislative districts,” Ruedrich said. “This should also increase the state population, since the out of state prison populations will be similarly assigned to their respective home addresses.”

Native policy board, others, will keep close eye on redistricting, by Margaret Bauman, Bristol Bay Times, March 16, 2011

The effort, before the Republican-dominated Redistricting Board, has so far been unsuccessful:

The board spent much of Wednesday afternoon discussing and setting the meeting schedule. But it also took up a request by Ruedrich to reallocate the prison population to their residence addresses. Now inmates are counted in the district in which they are incarcerated.

Ruedrich told the board there is a disproportionate number of Alaska Native prisoners in the system — 35 percent compared to a Native population generally of 15 percent. He suggested many of those people are from rural Alaska so counting them in their home towns and villages would help fill out lagging numbers in rural districts.

The board didn’t act on the request and said it would be too difficult in such a short time to get the residence addresses for thousands of inmates and try to work them into the appropriate district. The board’s attorney, Michael White, also wondered whether it was legal for the board to do it or if a change had to come through the Legislature.

Alaska redistricting board gets to work, by Patti Epler, Alaska Dispatch March 16, 2011

Maryland Redistricting Population Count Released

Maryland releases adjusted redistricting data that counts incarcerated people at home.

by Peter Wagner, March 22, 2011

The Maryland Department of Planning issued this press release:

Maryland Redistricting Population Count Released
Adjusted in accordance with “No Representation Without Population Act” of 2010

BALTIMORE – The Secretaries of the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) and the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) and the executive director of the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) today certified adjusted Census figures for the purposes of redistricting in accordance with the Maryland “No Representation Without Population Act” of 2010.

The Act, approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor last year, requires that prisoners in state or federal prisons are counted for Congressional, State Legislative and local redistricting purposes based on their last known address before incarceration. Information on some 22,000 prisoners was reviewed in the process of implementing the Act. Maryland, like all states, redistricts every 10 years after the decennial census is completed. The U.S. Census Bureau on Feb. 9, 2011 delivered the data to Maryland from the national Census conducted in spring 2010.

Read the rest of the press release from the state, and check out our Maryland campaign page for some of the research, advocacy, and editorial support that led to passage of the first-in-the-nation “No Representation Without Population” Act.

Update: Thanks to Keesha Gaskins at the Brennan Center for Justice for sending along this article:

Feds foil Md. redistricting plan to count inmates by former home

by Steve Kilar, Capital News Service

WASHINGTON — A federal roadblock has stopped Maryland short of counting all prison inmates at their pre-incarceration addresses in order to draw political boundaries.

An appeal for the addresses has been made to the U.S. Department of Justice, said Andrew Ratner, a representative for the Maryland Department of Planning. But because the Baltimore City charter requires approval of a redistricting map by April 1, the department decided to release revised population figures now.

“We couldn’t wait any longer,” Ratner said. “We felt we had to move forward.”

But the new numbers are not adjusted to reflect residents of Maryland’s federal penitentiary in Cumberland — as required by a 2010 Maryland law — because the Federal Bureau of Prisons denied the state’s request for prior residence information.

The headline’s “foil” is a stronger verb than I would have used, but the story is a good introduction to the unnecessary problem created by the Bureau of Prisons, to the innovative solution employed in Maryland, and to the importance of ending prison-based gerrymandering. Read the article Feds foil Md. redistricting plan to count inmates by former home

Upstate New York Legislators Propose Return to Prison-Based Gerrymandering

Do two Reps. think it makes sense to claim thousands of disenfranchised Black and Latino urban men as "constituents" of their white rural districts?

by Peter Wagner, March 19, 2011

Andrew Adams has a piece on OpEdNews questioning why two upstate members of the state Assembly are calling for a repeal of the law ending prison-based gerrymandering. Do these Assemblymembers really think it makes sense to claim thousands of disenfranchised African-American and Latino urban men as their “constituents” of their mostly white rural districts?

The article: Rural New York Legislators Propose Resurrecting Jim Crow

Wisconsin fact sheets updated for coming redistricting

New fact sheets about prison-based gerrymandering in Wisconsin's upcoming redistricting efforts.

by Aleks Kajstura, March 16, 2011

Wisconsin has some new prison-based gerrymandering problems to contend with in its upcoming redistricting effort. We updated our fact sheets on Wisconsin to highlight current and upcoming potential problems.

A new prison can create potential problems that a county may not yet be aware of. For example, the Census Bureau just counted 1025 people incarcerated at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution as residents of New Lisbon in Juneau County. The county is about to redraw its 21 County Board of Supervisors districts, so that each district contains about 1,270 people.

Unless the Juneau County Board decides to reject the Census Bureau’s prison count, the district that includes the New Lisbon Correctional Institution would be 80% prisoners. Every resident near the prison would be given as much say over the future of the county as 5 residents in every other district. Giving a small group of people 5 times as much political power as other residents because they happen to have a prison nearby isn’t just unfair; it violates state and federal law.

This redistricting cycle also provides a great opportunity for counties with existing prison-based district distortions to ensure exclude prison populations and ensure that for the coming decade, everyone has an equal say in county government, whether they live next to a prison or not.