#SocialJustice4CensusAllocations please sign our petition: https://www.change.org/p/end-prison-gerrymandering-philadelphia-socialjustice4censusallocations?signed=true
#CollectiveCare #CollectiveVictory #PennsylvaniaNoLongerPrisonGerrymanders #FDPA #CommonCause #pavotercourtwatch #hov1and2stronger #redhenexploring2021 The Legislative Reapportionment Commission (LRC) voted 3 to 2 today in favor of a resolution to reallocate prison data to count incarcerated people in their home communities. According to the resolution, introduced by House Minority Leader Joanna McClinton, the LRC will count most individuals in state prisons as residents of their last known address.
People in PA state prisons who did not live in Pennsylvania before incarceration will not be counted at all for redistricting purposes. Excluded from reallocation are those with no known home address or individuals serving life sentences will be counted in their places of incarceration.
Representative McClinton and Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa were expected yes votes. Both Republican leaders, House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff and Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward, voted no.
Chairman Mark Nordenberg was the positive tie-breaking vote. Before calling the vote, he described his own deliberative process and his conviction that the commission was designed to be independent of legislative influence. Much of what he said was an encouraging sign that this commission will be conducted more independently than commissions in the past, with far greater transparency and more visible public deliberation.
Fair Districts PA was an active participant in a series of regional forums on this issue this past winter and spring. We submitted joint letters with other organizations, helped publicize a petition that we submitted to the LRC yesterday, and supporters gave testimony and submitted dozens of online comments on the LRC comment page. Thank you to all who played an active role in encouraging the LRC to pass this resolution.
This change is an important step toward more equitable representation.
Take a moment to celebrate.
And take heart: our voices together can make change possible.
Fair Districts PA Chair
Another top request to the LRC: resolve to adjust census data to count incarcerated persons in their home communities. One startling takeaway from the census data: more than one third of the population in Forest County is incarcerated. As population shifts, rural prison counts inflate votes in those regions even more dramatically. If you haven’t signed the petition to address this, please do. It will be delivered to the LRC. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/end-prison-gerrymandering-in-pennsylvania?link_id=2&can_id=fbee3628a05de646339348b102b00213&source=email-test-8432&email_referrer=email_1261676&email_subject=mapping-winners-will-be-announced-at-community-mapping-conversation-wednesday
While there are no LRC hearings currently scheduled, it’s possible to submit comments online at any time.
Regional House State Government Committee Hearings on PA congressional maps will all be in-person. Find dates, times and registration links here. Wednesday, August 18, is the registration deadline for the first three, in Grove City on August 24, Bridgeville on August 25, and Uniontown on August 26.
The next few months will shape PA for the next 10 years. Thanks for helping to keep up pressure for fair maps for all of us.
Fair Districts PA Chair
Mass Incarceration And The Census
Prison Gerrymandering Robs Local Communities of Their Votes and Federal Resources. There is a national call to end prison gerrymandering. A process of manipulating our votes and federal resources started by the republican party and their erroneous tough on crime propaganda. Prison gerrymandering manipulates our votes by building prisons, jails and youth residential placement in areas of small populations to inflate the area’s population for the decennial census count.
The census count began in 1790 to count our population. July 1, 1902 The United States Census Bureau was formed under the Commerce Department to produce data about us and our economy. The Census uses the collected data to create political representation and federal allocations based on counting people at their place of residence the day of the census count. The incarcerated community are only considered residents of that voting district on the day of the census count. The incarcerated in most states are not permitted to vote in the district that used them for population count. The incarcerated are not permitted to use the schools, playgrounds or hospitals (unless on their dying beds), allocated in their names by the Census count.
Prison-based gerrymandering exacerbates the negative effects of incarcerated disenfranchisement. In the city of Anamosa, Iowa, a councilman from a prison community was elected to office from a ward which, per the Census, had almost 1,400 residents—about the same as the other three wards in town. But 1,300 of these “residents” were prisoners in the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Once those prisoners were subtracted, the ward had fewer than 60 actual residents. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/4669/
A form of gerrymandering that unfairly skews political representation and federal monies towards the rural, whiter communities where prisons are often built.
While some states are taking steps to end prison gerrymandering altogether, some are doing absolutely nothing. With Census Bureau data being used today for redistricting at all levels of government, prison populations are the key to who wins in many elections.
Prison gerrymandering is a problem because it distorts the representation and creates an unfair paradoxical shift in voting power. Except for only two states, Maine and Vermont, incarcerated individuals are not allowed to vote. However, I’m one of the lucky ones as DC is one of only 15 jurisdictions that have immediate restoration of voting rights upon release from prison.
While the solution seems so simple – states can and should prohibit state, county and municipal legislative districts from using prison populations, in reality, it is not. States need to develop a system within their state to adjust the Census Bureau redistricting data. While some states have been progressive in addressing the problem, others have not. States such as California, Delaware, Maryland, New York, and most recently Washington state, have all successfully passed legislation addressing prison gerrymandering statewide. An act to amend the Delaware Code relating to state government determining district boundaries for incarcerated individuals passed unanimously. Other states such as Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Texas have recognized the need for reform and have recently introduced legislation.
In the end, the best solution to prison gerrymandering is to count incarcerated people at their home communities. This solution would immediately restore balance to political power and end the electoral harm prison gerrymandering has caused.
Prison gerrymandering is on the radar of political candidates. Please let them know how you feel about ending prison gerrymandering. Please address the manipulation of our incarcerated population aka the coming up off of vulnerable backs. What happened to one person one vote? Water may be the only census allocation the incarcerated have access to. Is the water drinkable for the incarcerated or are they drinking fracked waste? Is there housing in the prison district that the incarcerated can go home to? The argument of jobs will try to take precedence. Ask them to look in the mirror and question what kind of society are we to cage people in need of support, into inhumane living conditions. Manipulation of our votes in all forms of gerrymandering can end if we believe in democracy of the people for the people. #2020CensusMatterMoreNowThanEver As a prison abolitionist I advocate with Fair District Pa. We have several bills to form a redistricting citizens commission pending passage in our state legislature. The redistricting citizen commission would aim to be nonpartisan and create fair representation for one person one vote. We have Fair Districts chapters nationwide. Fair Districts Pa. volunteer Sara Stroman shared that states can apply for The Census Optional Data Product. In Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and Attorney General Josh Shapiro can apply for the Census Optional Data Product to protect redistricting and federal resources allocations of incarcerated people.
Elected officials and members of organizations should also consider passing resolutions calling on the Census Bureau to change how incarcerated people are counted. And in addition to formal resolutions, organizations and individuals should respond to the Census Bureaus’ calls for comments on the residence rules. A change at the Census Bureau is the best and most efficient solution.
Preventing Prison-Based Gerrymandering in Redistricting: What to Watch For
A guide for redistricting advocates, shadow commissions and the media on avoiding prison-based gerrymandering.
by Brenda Wright and Peter Wagner, February 23, 2011
Prison-based gerrymandering is the practice of counting incarcerated persons as “residents” of a prison when drawing legislative districts in order to give extra influence to the districts that contain the prisons. The U.S. Constitution requires that election districts be roughly equal in size, so that everyone is represented equally in the political process. But prison-based gerrymandering distorts our democracy by artificially inflating the population numbers — and thus, the political clout — of districts with prisons, while diluting the political power of all other voters.
That this problem exists at all is largely an accident of two facts: (1) an outdated Census Bureau methodology that counts people in prison as residents of the correctional facilities, not of their legal home addresses; and (2) the skyrocketing rates of incarceration. Hopefully, in the future, the Census Bureau will eliminate the problem by counting incarcerated people as residents of their legal home addresses. Last year, three states — Maryland, Delaware and New York — had the foresight to pass legislation to eliminate prison-based gerrymandering within their borders. These three states now require that districts be based on Census data adjusted to reflect incarcerated people at their home addresses. More than a hundred rural counties and municipalities around the country have historically refused to engage in prison-based gerrymandering; they manually remove prison populations prior to drawing districts for local government. But most states and jurisdictions will still face the problem of prison-based gerrymandering in the upcoming round of redistricting.
When your legislature announces a proposed redistricting plan and invites public comment, you’ll need to act quickly to identify if and exactly how they used prisons to distort democracy in your state, county or city.
When your legislature announces a proposed redistricting plan and invites public comment, you’ll need to act quickly to identify if and exactly how they used prisons to distort democracy in your state, county or city. This guide will tell you what to look for in the data and the state’s proposed plan in order to minimize the harm of prison-based gerrymandering.
(This guide assumes you have a mapping staff or sympathetic technical people on the redistricting body to assist you. Your technical allies can refer to our memo, Using the Census Bureau’s Advanced Group Quarters Table, which explains the timing, value, content and limitations of the Bureau’s prison count data.)
Protecting minority voting strength
Sometimes, a district that seems to have a majority-minority population really doesn’t, because of prison-based gerrymandering. If the minority “population” of the district consists of large number of incarcerated persons – who can’t vote – the district population numbers may be distorted. This creates districts that appear to give minorities the ability to elect the candidate of their choice, but in reality, they cannot. You need to examine any majority-minority district that includes a prison, to ensure that the district really has enough voting-eligible persons of color to create a viable majority with the ability to elect a candidate of choice to office.
Example: In order to settle a Voting Rights Act lawsuit, Somerset County Maryland intended to draw a district where African-Americans could elect a candidate of their choice after the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. But the inclusion of a large prison in the 1st Commission District split the sizable African-American resident voting population between two districts, leaving neither district able to elect a candidate of the African-American community’s choice. While the 1st Commission District appeared to be majority-African-American, in reality the district was not able to function as intended, because many of the purported African-American “residents” of the district were actually behind bars.
Similarly, although to different effect, prison populations sometimes create a false picture of racial and ethnic “diversity” within a district. Pointing out these examples is an effective way to raise the issue of prison-based gerrymandering and can be a powerful fact to raise if, as discussed in the next section, the state has under-populated districts that contain prisons.
Example: District 2B in Western Maryland drawn after the 2000 Census appears to be 15% African-American. But nearly all of that African-American population actually consists of incarcerated residents from other parts of the state who are unable to vote or to interact with the community in any way. The actual population of the district is overwhelmingly white.
Example: In 2002, the New York State Senate deliberately underpopulated districts in the upstate region while overpopulating districts in the downstate region. This problem ran parallel to the fact that the Census Bureau credited downstate residents to upstate census counts, and together served to dilute minority voting rights. For example, one of those upstate districts was the 59th Senate District, drawn to contain 294,256 people instead of the 306,072 that each district should have contained. Using Census data, the state reported that the district contained 6,273 African Americans, but three quarters of this population was incarcerated residents of other parts of the state. The legislature used the prison population to disguise the fact that the district had the smallest African-American population of any senate district in the state and they deliberately underpopulated that district to give it extra influence.
Keeping prison-based gerrymandering from making other malapportionment issues worse
Any districts having large prisons should be scrutinized to avoid underpopulation of such districts compared to ideal district size, because including prison population magnifies the underpopulation of the district.
Advocates should examine what percentage of each district is actually incarcerated, and how that interacts with the existing population deviations in the proposed districts. Keep in mind that in the strange world of redistricting, “underpopulated” districts have more political power than “overpopulated” districts, because in underpopulated districts, fewer people get the same opportunity to elect a representative as a larger number of people crowded into an “overpopulated” district. For that reason, a district that nominally falls within the 5% deviation rule applicable to state and local districts, but would fall outside that deviation without the prison population, should raise a red flag, and should be examined carefully to determine if the deviation should be reduced. Apart from that specific situation, any districts having large prisons should be scrutinized to avoid underpopulation of such districts compared to ideal district size, because including prison population magnifies the underpopulation of the district.
Note that the inverse is also a concern, even if we don’t have precise block-level data about the pre-incarceration home residence of people in prison who are currently being counted as “residents” of prisons. For example, you can use the fact that incarcerated people should have been counted at home to argue against extreme overpopulation of urban districts where incarcerated people disproportionately come from.
Limiting the vote enhancement in districts with prisons
Advocates should consider whether, if insufficient time remains to collect the home addresses of incarcerated people for this round of redistricting, the legislature can be persuaded to declare all incarcerated people to live at “unknown addresses” and not include them in the individual districts that contain prisons. (See Interview with Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice for more on why “unknown addresses” is superior to the Census Bureau’s status quo. )
If the legislature will not consider removing the prison populations from individual districts, advocates should examine ways to limit the magnitude of the vote enhancement to each district that contains a prison. Advocates should determine what percentage of each proposed district is actually incarcerated, and consider whether it is possible to configure the districts so that multiple large prisons are not concentrated in an individual district, thereby lessening the size of the vote enhancement in the prison districts. Similarly, if a single block contains a massive prison, advocates should consider whether the block could be split in two, so that the prison population can be placed in two different districts, thereby lessening the vote enhancement in any one district.
- The Public Mapping Project is an open source redistricting package intended for shadow redistricting commissions and advocates. The software is building in support for advocates who wish to use alternative datasets, including Census data adjusted to remove prison populations, in their plans.
- Using the Census Bureau’s Advanced Group Quarters Table
- Data about prison-based gerrymandering, links to the database of historical (2005-2010) correctional statistics, and where, in May, we will post shapefiles with the Census Bureau’s group quarters data table and adjusted redistricting data that removes the prison populations and annotations of the blocks that contain correctional facilities with facility names, types, and more detailed demographic data.
Ending prison gerrymandering in your community, your state and in the nation
“Voters who come to understand how this system cheats them are unlikely to keep rewarding the politicians who support it.”
Prison-Based Gerrymandering, New York Times editorial, May 20, 2006
State and local governments can end prison gerrymandering on their own, even though the Census Bureau still counts incarcerated people in the wrong place. Already California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington State, and more than 200 cities and counties have taken action to end prison gerrymandering for their own residents. You need to make sure that your leaders seize the opportunity.
If you live in one of the states listed below, you can join an established campaign:
Don’t see your state on the list? More state campaigns are expected to form shortly, but you don’t need to wait. You can get the facts about your state and start your own campaign.
Campaigns centered on rural counties and cities that contain large prisons, where a single large prison can be a large part if not the majority of a district, tend to form quickly and achieve victory even more quickly than state campaigns, so they are not always listed on their respective state pages.
Learn more about your state at https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/action.html
Completed campaigns: States that have ended prison gerrymandering
If you live in one of the states listed below, your state has already passed legislation ending prison gerrymandering and select materials from the campaign can be found for each:
Also please circulate Pa Voter Court Watch end prison gerrymandering petition: http://chng.it/QDybDbhCFs
Pa. Gov. Tom Wolf and A.G. Josh Shapiro can apply for and implement the Census Optional Data Product, restoring democracy, by stopping this illegal manipulation of our votes and federal resources.