A group of Providence legislators have introduced bills that would change how the state counts inmates at the Adult Correctional Institutions, allocating them toward the towns they lived in before sentencing rather than as residents of Cranston, the home of the state’s prison complex.

“It’s all about fairness,” said Rep. Joseph S. Almeida, D-Providence, primary sponsor of the house version of the plan. “These folks come from districts around the state and will be returning to them upon release.”

[...]

As introduced, the bills wouldn’t affect how the U.S. Census Bureau counts ACI inmates, but it would change how the state uses the numbers. The idea is that each facility that incarcerates people for crimes, including mental institutions, would submit a list of all people they were holding on the day of the census and their last addresses before incarceration.

The secretary of state would then take those lists, subtract the numbers from the populations of the sites of the facilities — in the case of the ACI, Cranston — and then add them to the prisoners’ home towns. Those revised population figures would then be used in deciding how to apportion voters in state and local districts.

Rhode Island has two house districts and one state senate district that contain prisons. And one of those representatives sees an upside to not claiming incarcerated people as constituents:

One of the representatives of a district that could lose population if the bill were passed, Rep. Nicholas A. Mattiello, D-Cranston, the house majority leader, said he didn’t see a problem with it.

“It’s a non-issue,” Mattiello said. “Either way, it’s fine for me.”

[...]

Mattiello said the only major effect he could foresee was that his district might get a bit larger geographically to recoup the lost ACI inmates. As a legislator, he said he didn’t think that would be a problem because the area around the ACI is fairly consistent demographically and wouldn’t create any new issues he would have to confront.

“I’d be happy to have more people who can actually vote for me,” he said.

Read the full article: RI seeks to change how jail inmates counted for residency.

We’ve also released two fact sheets:

• Ending prison-based gerrymandering would aid the African-American vote in Maryland [PDF] by Prison Policy Initiative
• States are Authorized to Adjust Census Data to End Prison-Based Gerrymandering, and Many Already Do [PDF] by Prison Policy Initiative and Demos

and created a new page for the Maryland campaign.

The editorial concluded with the pessimistic prediction that a lawsuit would be necessary to end prison-based gerrymandering, and today’s article takes on the legal and political arguments that are holding up reform.

The whole article is worth reading, but the end is excellent:

Wagner admits some enthusiasm over the bill is partisan. But he says the issue shouldn’t be; [Republican Senator John J.] Bonacic and upstate senators of non-prison districts should want change, too. “John Bonacic may have about 2 percent prisoners in his district, but Betty Little (R-Queensbury) has 5 percent,” Wagner says.

Politics aside, Bonacic believes state prisoners should be counted differently. He’d like prisoners to declare what community they’re from. He also thinks those serving life or long-term sentences should be counted where they’re jailed.

And he’d like the conversation to include other transient groups, such as college students and second homeowners. “If you want to resolve the residence issue, do it for everybody,” Bonacic says.

Wagner says Bonacic’s ideas have merit. He also admits that legislative-based gerrymandering — which Bonacic says he’s challenged for years — is a larger sore spot. Still, Wagner says the prison bill would make things more honest.

Prisoners may be pawns in the current system, but Wagner says their neighbors are the bigger victims.

“My neighbor hits me over the head and robs me, he goes to a jail in another district,” Wagner says. “Now, you’re going to dilute my vote by counting him in another district, too?”

Read the editorial: Our view: Don’t count prisoners with voters. Redraw districts following 2010 Census to reflect true constituency published on Feb 26, 2010.

Or their previous coverage:

• 1/2 of Rome ward’s residents are prisoners
  Group says inmates should be excluded when drawing district boundaries, by Jennifer Fusco Feb 18, 2010
• State prisoners could become unlikely political prize Jan 28, 2010
• Our view: Don’t count prisoners as constituents, editorial, January 6, 2010
• Should prisoners count when drawing legislative districts? by Jennifer Fusco, Jan 2, 2010.

She quotes Prison Policy Initiative Legal Director Aleks Kajstura on why we are working in Minnesota on this issue with the Second Chance Coalition:

“We’re focusing on Minnesota for three reasons…. First, the Minnesota Constitution says that incarceration does not change a residence. Second, Minnesota has such a strong dedication to the principle of drawing equal districts, that only three other states have House districts that are more equal in population. Third, even though Minnesota has fewer people in prison than most states, there are still enough people being counted in the wrong place to violate the principles of democracy.”

Also quoted is Sarah Walker, a founder of the Second Chance Coalition, who explains why the Coalition is taking up the issue:

“There are so many people in prison today that it’s breaking our electoral system, punishing even people who have no involvement with the criminal justice system”

Keesha Gaskins, executive director of the League of Women Voters explains her rational as well:

“This is a democratic issue, with a small ‘d,’ ” she said. “This isn’t a huge partisan issue. It’s about what’s fair for citizens and what’s fair for prisoners.”

The article says that State Sen. Linda Higgins is working on a bill that would fix prison-based gerrymandering in the state.