Crime Committee Report e.indd - New York State Senate

In Essex County’s detailed justification for the removal of people in prison, the County offered
the following explanation:
“Persons incarcerated in state and federal correctional
institutions live in a separate environment, do
not participate in the life of Essex County and do
not affect the social and economic character of the
towns.... The inclusion of these federal and state
correctional facilities inmates unfairly dilutes the votes
or voting weight of persons residing in other towns
within Essex County...”
These 13 counties in New York State have joined municipalities across the country, by taking
matters into their own hands to address, on the local level, the redistricting inequities that result
from relying on the Census Bureau’s counting of people in prison. This removal of people
in prison on the local level does not, of course, put incarcerated people back in their census
blocks prior to incarceration. However, from the perspective of these rural counties, counting
people at home and not counting them at all is the same thing. Either way, the data they
use for county districts does not contain the prison populations. About 100 local governments
exclude, for redistricting purposes, the Census Bureau’s prison counts. A few states (Colorado,
Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia) require or encourage local governments to do so, but the
majority of these counties do so on their own.
As awareness in the issue of prison-based gerrymandering has grown, so too has interest in
state-level solutions. Currently, legislation is pending in Florida, Illinois and Maryland that
would determine the home addresses of incarcerated people and count them at their addresses
prior to incarceration. (Senator Shields in Oregon is also expected to re-introduce legislation
in the special session during the week of February 1, 2010.) In Wisconsin, a constitutional
amendment has been introduced that would prohibit the state and local governments from
including prison populations in the redistricting data.
In addition to the above states, in the past, bills to count people in prison at their address
prior to incarceration for state redistricting purposes have been introduced in Texas and Michigan.
States and localities are addressing this issue because of the distorting effect that people in
prison have on the drawing of legislative boundaries and because the population is distinguishable
from other populations, such as students and those serving in the military, that are counted
by the Census Bureau in what are referred to as “Group Quarters” for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, people who have been convicted of a felony and are incarcerated or on parole
cannot vote in New York State, either in the district where the prison is located or using an
absentee ballot at their address prior to incarceration. In contrast, college students and military
personal can participate in elections and register to vote from either their local residence or
by submitting an absentee ballot. In addition, people in prison do not interact with or benefit
from the district where the prison is based. People in prison do not use the schools, hospitals,
or other public facilities in the community where the prison is based The costs of the prisons
are not borne by the community ‘Where the prison is located, but rather by all New York State
taxpayers. Costs that are not covered by the State, such as phone expenses and commissary
bills, are paid for by the families of people in prison.
52
New York State Senate