U.S. Census and prisons — Rural Georgia coverage

by Dana Ford The UnionRecorder Milledgeville GA May 20 2006, June 5, 2006 Link

The U.S. Census does not count prisoners in their counties of residence. It counts them where the jails and prisons are located. For counties like Baldwin, the way prisoners are counted makes a difference.

According to the 2000 census, Baldwin County has a population of 44,700. Once you adjust for the prison population, however, the county has 39,760 residents. Eleven percent of the population Baldwin County reports are people in jails or prisons, which practically speaking, means 11 percent of the Baldwin County population can not vote.

Low voter turnout and registration rates in Baldwin County can be understood, in part, when it is understood that nearly 11 percent of the population are incarcerated, and therefore, denied the right to vote.

As of May 2006, the Baldwin County Board of Registrars reported that the county has 18,005 registered, active voters. Combined with the 2000 population data for Baldwin, just about 40 percent of residents vote. However, if the percentage is calculated with the county population minus the number of people in jails or prisons, 45 percent of Baldwin residents are active voters.

Prison-Based Gerrymandering — New York Times editorial

by New York Times, May 20, 2006 Link

Prison inmates are barred from voting in 48 states. Even so, state legislatures typically count the inmates as “residents” to pad state legislative districts that sometimes contain too few residents to be legal under federal voting rights law. This unsavory practice exaggerates the political power of the largely rural districts where prisons are built and diminishes the power of the mainly urban districts where inmates come from and where they inevitably return.

Prison-based gerrymandering has helped Republicans in the northern part of New York maintain a perennial majority in the State Senate and exercise an outsized influence in state affairs. A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has pushed this little-known problem into the public eye and could one day be remembered as the beginning of the end of the practice.

The court held that prison inmates did not have the right to vote, as the plaintiffs were contending. But the court expressed interest in the question of whether counting minority inmates in prison as residents there, instead of in their home districts, unfairly diluted the voting power of minority voters in urban districts. The issue was referred to the lower court for consideration, and this in turn has already led to a broader public discussion of the role that inmates play in the political process.

New York State’s Republican leadership dismissed the court’s ruling out of hand and tried to argue that counting inmates as residents of a prison’s district was legal and no different than counting college students at their dormitories. That’s absurd. Students live in dormitories voluntarily — and can actually vote. Inmates cannot vote, and their home districts lose representation when they are counted elsewhere.

Voters who come to understand how this system cheats them are unlikely to keep rewarding the politicians who support it.

Court Asks if Residency Follows Inmates Up the River

by Sam Roberts New York Times, May 13, 2006 Link

For years, New York Republicans have propped up their slim majority in the State Senate partly by seizing on a quirk in the federal census: counting prisoners as residents of the rural districts where they are incarcerated, rather than of the urban neighborhoods where they last lived.

That way, predominantly Republican rural districts wind up with more seats in the state Legislature, since seats are apportioned on the basis of population.

But last week, a federal appeals court in New York hinted that counting prisoners as upstaters might illegally dilute the voting rights of downstaters.

If that legal argument is pursued and upheld, the political implications could be profound. Republicans now have a four-seat margin in the Senate. A shift in only a few seats could give the Democrats, who already control the Assembly, a majority in the Senate, and with it, enormous power over legislative and Congressional redistricting.

Except for a brief hiatus in 1965, Republicans have dominated the Senate since 1939.

States typically use the census to reapportion legislative and Congressional districts. But the impact of this practice is magnified in New York, where most of the inmates come from downstate and are shipped to prisons upstate.

Voting rights advocates estimate that without the inmates, as many as seven upstate Senate districts might have to be redrawn, with downstate picking up some seats.

The issue came up in passing in a lawsuit seeking to give prisoners the right to vote. While the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected that request, it did express interest in the argument that counting inmates upstate dilutes the voting power of minority groups in urban districts, and kicked that matter back to the District Court for consideration.

Eric Hecker, a lawyer who pursued an earlier voting rights case involving inmates, said, “I don’t think there’s any question but that if the prisoners were counted where they lived the legislative districts would be unconstitutional.”

Eric T. Schneiderman, a Manhattan Democrat who is the deputy Senate minority leader, agreed. “The court has clearly remanded to the district judge to consider the voting rights argument — that people who live in districts that are net exporters of prisoners to districts upstate may have a voting rights claim,” he said. “I think it has to be pursued.”

Senator Schneiderman has urged the Census Bureau to change its policy and has introduced legislation that would require the state to use prisoners’ home addresses in apportioning legislative districts.

The 8-to-5 appeals court decision opens a “small window,” said Juan Cartegena, general counsel of the Community Service Society, which joined the appeal.

“It’s an opening that we really don’t know what to do with yet,” he said.

Peter Wagner, executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based research and advocacy group, suggested that wherever the window leads, the mere mention by the court seems meaningful.

“I think it is a significant signal that the New York’s reliance on bogus census counts of prisoners creates a serious problem for democracy,” he said. “The court has given us a great opportunity.”

Noting that the same appeals court also ruled that an inmate whose home was in California but is imprisoned in New York does not have standing to sue here, Mr. Wagner added: “He remains a resident of California, much like the 43,760 residents of New York City incarcerated upstate remain residents of New York City.”

Mr. Wagner estimated that while 66 percent of state prisoners come from New York City, 91 percent of them are imprisoned upstate. “In one assembly district,” he wrote, “seven percent of the reported census population is actually prisoners from other parts of the state. The votes of each group of 93 residents in that district are unconstitutionally equated with the weight of 100 voters elsewhere in the state who do not happen to live near a prison.”

The average population of Senate districts is about 306,000. In one rural district, according to Mr. Wagner, not counting the nearly 13,000 or so prisoners as residents would reduce the population to about 286,000, compared with more than 320,000 in some Queens districts.

Just by calling attention to what amounted to a footnote in the advocates’ case, the judges almost seemed to be prodding the plaintiffs, and the lower court, to examine the case against counting prisoners where they are incarcerated in drawing legislative districts.

“That’s the way I read it,” said Michelle M. Aronowitz, the deputy solicitor general, who successfully defended the state.

The advocates argued that because most inmates are black or Hispanic, disenfranchising convicted felons is not only racially discriminatory, but also waters down the voting power of people who live in the same districts that the prisoners hail from or where parolees now live. But the appeals court was uncertain whether the advocates for prisoners and parolees also claimed that ordinary citizens are disenfranchised because of the way inmates are counted for reapportionment.

“Inasmuch as this question was neither considered by the District Court nor briefed by defendants,” the court continued, “we intimate no view on the question and remand to the District Court to consider whether plaintiffs have indeed properly raised the claim, and, if so, to rule on the merits of the claim.”

The Census Bureau has said changing the way it counts would be too difficult.

Senator Schneiderman introduced legislation last year that would make counting for legislative apportionment purposes conform to the New York Constitution, which says that “no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence … while confined in any public prison.”

John McCardle, a spokesman for the Senate Majority Leader, Joseph L. Bruno, an upstate Republican, said yesterday: “What we do with the lines and with reapportionment is based on the law, and this is what the law allows for. I don’t want to equate students with prisoners, but we count both where they are.”

Phantom Constituents Behind Bars — New York Times editorial

by New York Times, May 2, 2006 Link

Demographers and voting rights advocates are rightly pressuring the Census Bureau to begin counting the nation’s 1.4 million prison inmates at their home communities — and not as “residents” of the prisons, the current practice. Counting the inmates at prison inflates the prison community’s population and political influence, while draining political clout from the communities where inmates actually live.

Most Americans aren’t aware that prisoners are counted as part of the population in the electoral district where they serve time — even though they often live hundreds of miles away and are barred from voting in all but two states. But recent evidence shows that voters in nonprison communities become outraged when they learn that nonvoting prison populations in adjacent districts are being leveraged against them. When made aware of the scheme, voters typically demand that the inmates be dropped from the district count so as not to skew local legislative authority. But state legislatures inevitably include inmates in the count when drawing state legislative districts, which shifts political power from the places were inmates actually live to the prison districts.

The Census Bureau balked and raised unconvincing excuses recently when Congress asked it to consider a system that would count inmates at home instead of at prison. But the prison census controversy is a potentially explosive issue whose time has clearly come.

The bureau should get busy on a system for counting inmates where they live as opposed to where they do time.

Counting Noses in Prison — New York Times editorial

by New York Times, April 18, 2006 Link

The Census Bureau tends to stamp its feet and shake its head no when asked to do things differently than it has in the past. It has been running true to form since late last year, when Congress ordered it to study the common-sense idea of counting inmates at their homes rather than at prison.

Prison inmates are denied the vote in all but two states, but are nonetheless counted as “residents” of prisons when the state legislatures draw up election districts based on the census data. This inflates the political power of prison districts, which are often in rural areas of the states, while diminishing the voting strength of the urban districts where the inmates actually live. It also causes some prison districts to collect more than a fair share of federal dollars earmarked for the poor.

Asked by Congress to consider remedies for this problem, the bureau responded with an obtuse and evasive report that supports the bad old status quo. The report sets up a straw man by suggesting that the desired change might require the costly and invasive procedure of interviewing every inmate. All that is really necessary is to treat inmates like everyone else. That means giving them questionnaires that ask, among other things, for their home addresses and interviewing them only when a form is not returned or when some other problem occurs.

The bureau could also ask corrections officials to begin collecting the information it needs. As was suggested recently by the Brennan Center for Justice, such a request would probably have the byproduct of improved record keeping among state corrections bureaus.

Congress should keep hounding the bureau until it stops stonewalling and fixes what is clearly a flaw in the census collection process.