Communist
15th February 2010, 20:44
_______________________________________
A Dilution of Democracy: Prison-Based Gerrymandering
By Brenda Wright
February 9, 2010
http://www.demos.org/pubs/prison_gerrymand_factsheet.pdf
Every ten years, we conduct a national census that
endeavors to make an accurate count of every single
resident of the country. But in a distortion of this
process, under current practice the Census Bureau counts
incarcerated persons not in the community of their legal
residence, but where they are imprisoned. Because census
data are used to allocate congressional seats and seats
in state and local legislatures, jurisdictions with
large prisons and prison populations become eligible for
greater representation in government on the backs of
people who have no voting rights in the prison community
and are not considered legal residents of the prison
district for any other purpose. At the same time, the
home communities of incarcerated persons - usually more
urban areas - are shortchanged in terms of political
power and representation.
The Census Bureau's current practice was developed two
hundred years ago, before prison populations became
large enough to distort democratic processes. Today,
more people live in U.S. prisons than in our three least
populous states combined. African Americans are
imprisoned at nearly six times the rate of whites, and
Latinos at nearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic
whites.1 Today, this Census practice undermines the goal
of fair representation on which the one-person, one vote
doctrine is founded.
Indeed, the practice represents a striking modern-day
parallel to the Three-Fifths Clause of the original U.S.
Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths of a
person for the purposes of apportionment. During the
pre-Civil War period, counting non-voting slaves as part
of the population base enhanced the South's influence in
Congress at the expense of other parts of the country in
choosing the President and Vice-President, although
southern Members of Congress clearly did not view slaves
as their political constituents. In the same manner,
today's practice results in districts that dilute the
voting power of communities that are largely urban and
comprised of persons of color, and over-represent rural
and suburban, overwhelmingly white legislative districts
where prisons typically are located. For example:
60 percent of Illinois' prisoners are from Cook County
(Chicago), yet 99 percent of them are counted as
residents outside the county.
In Texas, one rural district's population is almost 12
percent prisoners. Eighty-eight residents from that
district, then, have the same representation in the
State House as 100 residents from urban Houston or
Dallas.
Prison-based gerrymandering helped the New York State
Senate add an extra district in the upstate region after
the 2000 Census. Almost 44,000 persons from New York
City - most of them African Americans or Latinos - were
counted as residents of predominantly white upstate
counties. Without using prison populations as padding,
seven upstate senate districts would have to be redrawn,
causing line changes throughout the state.
When districts with prisons receive enhanced
representation, other districts in the state without a
prison see their votes diluted. And this vote dilution
is even larger in the districts with the highest
incarceration rates. Thus, the communities that bear the
most direct costs of crime are also the communities that
are the biggest victims of prison-based gerrymandering.
Inaccurate counts of prison populations also hurt rural
areas by distorting local representation. The relatively
small populations of cities and towns mean that the
placement of a single prison can have a significant
impact on their population. Rural residents who live in
the same community as a prison, but not in its district,
have their voting power severely diluted when local
districts are drawn. In Anamosa, Iowa, a candidate won
election to the City Council with a total of only two
votes - from his wife and a neighbor - because 1,300 of
the 1,400 total persons in his city council district
were inmates of Iowa's largest penitentiary. The Anamosa
City Council districts had equal population on paper,
but in reality, only 58 people were eligible to vote in
the prison district. Those 58 people had the same
representation as each 1,400 people in the rest of the
city.
Fixing the Problem
The optimal solution is for the Census Bureau to change
its outdated practice and begin counting incarcerated
persons as residents of the community where they resided
prior to incarceration, and to which they overwhelmingly
return upon their release. While insufficient time
remains before the 2010 Census to implement that full
solution, we must work to ensure that the 2010 Census is
the last Census to count two million incarcerated people
in the wrong location. In the review and evaluation
process that will begin immediately after the current
census, we must ensure that the Census Bureau puts in
place new policies to count incarcerated persons as
residents of their home communities.
In the meantime, there are steps we can take to
ameliorate the problem. Most importantly, states have
the authority to decide the manner in which they will
use census data for the purposes of allocating state
legislative seats.3 States can correct the census data
by collecting the home addresses of people in prison in
the state and then adjusting the U.S. Census counts
prior to redistricting. Legislation to accomplish this
is pending in New York, Florida, Maryland, and Illinois.
Alternatively, states and counties can remove the prison
populations prior to districting This does not put the
prisoners back into their rightful residential
communities, but it eliminates the large and
unjustifiable vote enhancement created by crediting
their numbers to prison districts. Wisconsin has a bill
that would exclude incarcerated prisons from the census
count for the purposes of apportionment. About 100 rural
counties and towns throughout the U.S. currently do this
for their own districts. State law in Colorado,
Virginia, and New Jersey, as well as an Attorney General
opinion in Mississippi, require or encourage the removal
of prison populations for local redistricting. This
process would be made easier if the Census Bureau agrees
to publish detailed, block-level counts of prison
populations early enough for states and localities to
use for redistricting purposes.
Everyone has a stake in a Census count that is fair,
complete and accurate. Ending prison-based
gerrymandering will benefit urban and rural communities
alike and help realize the ideal of one person, one vote
that is core to American democracy.
A Dilution of Democracy: Prison-Based Gerrymandering
By Brenda Wright
February 9, 2010
http://www.demos.org/pubs/prison_gerrymand_factsheet.pdf
Every ten years, we conduct a national census that
endeavors to make an accurate count of every single
resident of the country. But in a distortion of this
process, under current practice the Census Bureau counts
incarcerated persons not in the community of their legal
residence, but where they are imprisoned. Because census
data are used to allocate congressional seats and seats
in state and local legislatures, jurisdictions with
large prisons and prison populations become eligible for
greater representation in government on the backs of
people who have no voting rights in the prison community
and are not considered legal residents of the prison
district for any other purpose. At the same time, the
home communities of incarcerated persons - usually more
urban areas - are shortchanged in terms of political
power and representation.
The Census Bureau's current practice was developed two
hundred years ago, before prison populations became
large enough to distort democratic processes. Today,
more people live in U.S. prisons than in our three least
populous states combined. African Americans are
imprisoned at nearly six times the rate of whites, and
Latinos at nearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic
whites.1 Today, this Census practice undermines the goal
of fair representation on which the one-person, one vote
doctrine is founded.
Indeed, the practice represents a striking modern-day
parallel to the Three-Fifths Clause of the original U.S.
Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths of a
person for the purposes of apportionment. During the
pre-Civil War period, counting non-voting slaves as part
of the population base enhanced the South's influence in
Congress at the expense of other parts of the country in
choosing the President and Vice-President, although
southern Members of Congress clearly did not view slaves
as their political constituents. In the same manner,
today's practice results in districts that dilute the
voting power of communities that are largely urban and
comprised of persons of color, and over-represent rural
and suburban, overwhelmingly white legislative districts
where prisons typically are located. For example:
60 percent of Illinois' prisoners are from Cook County
(Chicago), yet 99 percent of them are counted as
residents outside the county.
In Texas, one rural district's population is almost 12
percent prisoners. Eighty-eight residents from that
district, then, have the same representation in the
State House as 100 residents from urban Houston or
Dallas.
Prison-based gerrymandering helped the New York State
Senate add an extra district in the upstate region after
the 2000 Census. Almost 44,000 persons from New York
City - most of them African Americans or Latinos - were
counted as residents of predominantly white upstate
counties. Without using prison populations as padding,
seven upstate senate districts would have to be redrawn,
causing line changes throughout the state.
When districts with prisons receive enhanced
representation, other districts in the state without a
prison see their votes diluted. And this vote dilution
is even larger in the districts with the highest
incarceration rates. Thus, the communities that bear the
most direct costs of crime are also the communities that
are the biggest victims of prison-based gerrymandering.
Inaccurate counts of prison populations also hurt rural
areas by distorting local representation. The relatively
small populations of cities and towns mean that the
placement of a single prison can have a significant
impact on their population. Rural residents who live in
the same community as a prison, but not in its district,
have their voting power severely diluted when local
districts are drawn. In Anamosa, Iowa, a candidate won
election to the City Council with a total of only two
votes - from his wife and a neighbor - because 1,300 of
the 1,400 total persons in his city council district
were inmates of Iowa's largest penitentiary. The Anamosa
City Council districts had equal population on paper,
but in reality, only 58 people were eligible to vote in
the prison district. Those 58 people had the same
representation as each 1,400 people in the rest of the
city.
Fixing the Problem
The optimal solution is for the Census Bureau to change
its outdated practice and begin counting incarcerated
persons as residents of the community where they resided
prior to incarceration, and to which they overwhelmingly
return upon their release. While insufficient time
remains before the 2010 Census to implement that full
solution, we must work to ensure that the 2010 Census is
the last Census to count two million incarcerated people
in the wrong location. In the review and evaluation
process that will begin immediately after the current
census, we must ensure that the Census Bureau puts in
place new policies to count incarcerated persons as
residents of their home communities.
In the meantime, there are steps we can take to
ameliorate the problem. Most importantly, states have
the authority to decide the manner in which they will
use census data for the purposes of allocating state
legislative seats.3 States can correct the census data
by collecting the home addresses of people in prison in
the state and then adjusting the U.S. Census counts
prior to redistricting. Legislation to accomplish this
is pending in New York, Florida, Maryland, and Illinois.
Alternatively, states and counties can remove the prison
populations prior to districting This does not put the
prisoners back into their rightful residential
communities, but it eliminates the large and
unjustifiable vote enhancement created by crediting
their numbers to prison districts. Wisconsin has a bill
that would exclude incarcerated prisons from the census
count for the purposes of apportionment. About 100 rural
counties and towns throughout the U.S. currently do this
for their own districts. State law in Colorado,
Virginia, and New Jersey, as well as an Attorney General
opinion in Mississippi, require or encourage the removal
of prison populations for local redistricting. This
process would be made easier if the Census Bureau agrees
to publish detailed, block-level counts of prison
populations early enough for states and localities to
use for redistricting purposes.
Everyone has a stake in a Census count that is fair,
complete and accurate. Ending prison-based
gerrymandering will benefit urban and rural communities
alike and help realize the ideal of one person, one vote
that is core to American democracy.