The Census Bureau must sharpen its senses

Ezekiel Edwards

The Census Bureau must sharpen its senses

As America exports democracy loudly abroad, something very undemocratic has been happening quietly in the United States, with particularly alarming results in New York State. Despite the fact that prisoners are disenfranchised in 48 of 50 states (as well as the District of Columbia), the United States Census Bureau counts them as voting residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated for the purposes of determining voting districts (which are based on population size) and the allotment of federal funds. As a result of this approach (referred to as the "usual residence" rule, that people live where they eat and sleep), tens of thousands of city-dwelling African-Americans and Latinos are enabling the existence of otherwise ineligible white voting districts upstate, increasing those districts' allotment of federal funds, and offending the principle of one person, one vote.

If New York were an entirely homogenous region, with no discernible political, social, economic or racial differences from county to county, the Bureau's approach would be far less problematic. But when was the last time you accidentally mistook Brownsville, Brooklyn for the town of Evans along Lake Erie?

Since 1980, fueled largely by the Rockefeller drug laws, New York's incarceration rate has tripled. The number of prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses has grown by 20.5 times in the past 30 years. This increase has required the construction of new prisons (or, conversely, the construction of new prisons has necessitated that they be filled). Since 1982, every prison built in New York has been upstate, so that today upstate prisons hold 91% of all state prisoners. The majority (66%) of the 71,466 prisoners in New York State come from decidedly Democratic, ultra-urban, racially diverse New York City, but most are incarcerated in white rural Republican towns up north.

According to the 2000 Census, over 44,326 New York City residents were counted as upstate residents, whereas only 586 upstate residents were counted in New York City, resulting in a net loss to the five boroughs of 43,740 residents. By deeming these inmates as "residents" of the county that imprisons them, the Census Bureau increases the sizes of various upstate districts --- and hence their political might --- while simultaneously decreasing the size and influence of certain New York City districts. In fact, the prisoners' importance to certain upstate political districts is so great that there are seven state Senate districts in New York that would not qualify as districts without their prison populations.

Adding to the perversity of this phenomenon is the power wielded by two of the senators from those prison-dependent districts, Republicans Dale Volker and Michael Nozzolio. Their districts --- which account for more than 23% of all New York state prisoners --- would be 6.79% and 5.99% under-populated, respectively, minus their inmate population. Not surprisingly, then, both senators are zealous proponents of the lengthy prison sentences prescribed by the draconian Rockefeller drug laws. More troubling is that Senator Volker, a former police officer whose district is home to Attica, Wyoming, Buffalo, Collins, and Wende Correctional Facilities, is the Chairman of the Senate Codes Committee, which is tremendously influential in shaping criminal justice policy in New York State, and Senator Nozzolio, whose district hosts Butler, Five Points, and Auburn Correctional Facilities in addition to the Willard Drug Treatment Center, is Chairman of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee (to which Senator Volker also belongs). If the Rockefeller drug laws (under which 33% of all New York State prisoners have been sentenced) were repealed or seriously reformed, Senators Volker and Nozzolio would be without jobs. This reality is not lost on Senator Volker, who acknowledged that his county has "more cows than people" and that, if forced to choose between enfranchising cows or convicts, he would opt for cows since "they would be more likely to vote for me".

In addition to providing invaluable political support to certain upstate politicians, the inmates are counted by the Census as unemployed residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated, thereby lowering the districts' per capita incomes and hence increasing the amount of federal funds they receive designated for the poor (and simultaneously lessening the federal funds received by the downstate districts to which the inmates actually belong).

It seems highly undemocratic that predominantly African-American and Latino urban inmates can have such a significant political impact on overwhelmingly white rural counties, despite the fact that the inmates are not permitted to vote, "reside" in the county only by force, and whose interests and political views often differ markedly from --- if not collide head-on with --- those of the communities that live beyond the prison walls.

The unjust ramifications of this population-tallying scheme have finally gotten the attention of the federal government, which has asked the Census Bureau to issue a report this month on the feasibility of changing its current use of the "usual residence" rule in light of situations like New York's. It is time that the Census Bureau comes to its own senses and alter the manner in which it counts prisoners, so that when the next census is conducted in 2010, Senator Volker can no longer claim an incarcerated, disenfranchised Latino Democrat from Brooklyn as a resident of his district near the Canadian border (oh, wait, then he would no longer have a district!).

Comments

It strikes me that there are two possible solutions to this problem. The more radical remedy would be to allow prison inmates to vote, as they do in Maine and Vermont. Then we'd see how much they like Senator Volker.

The more moderate (and maybe more politically possible?) solution would be to stop counting inmates as upstate residents, instead recognizing their residence as the last place they lived before being incarcerated.

Which of these do you think would be more effective at rectifying this anti-democratic situation, and which one should advocates be pushing for?

The solutions outlined by activist girl, above, may be doable by chnages in state law. Efforts affecting the operation of the US Census Bureau may be unrealistic until there is a change in control of Congress and or executive in DC.

Allowing incarcertated people (and released convicted felons) to vote has a lot of appeal to me. How can we get such proposals on the agenda in Albany? How can candidates for state office be approacbed about them?

In November 2005 Congress directed the Census Bureau to study the feasibility of using "home of record" information to count people in prison back in their home communities. Later this month, February 2006, the Bureau must report back to Congress on the feasibility of enumerating people in prison at their home addresses -- basically whether and how it can be done. Regardless of what the Bureau reports this month, the agency should devote more time and resources to conducting further testing to determine how to enumerate people in prison back home -- either using address information in official files or allowing people to fill out census forms listing their pre-incarceration home addresses. Each year 650,000 people return to their home communities, that's close to half of the current state and federal prison population of 1.4 million. With prison sentences averaging about 3 years, the vast majority of people will be released within a few years after the census is taken. As a matter of fairness (apportionment, redistricting and distribution of funds) and accuracy (population size and demographics), it makes sense to count people in prison at their home addresses. Hopefully the Census Bureau will identify ways to operationalize that goal. For more information on the prison count policy, folks should read these reports by the Brennan Center:
http://www.brennancenter.org/resources/cji/index.html

My idea would be to combine activist girl's two suggestions: permit inmates to vote in national, state, and local elections, and either allow inmates to declare their own legal address (and hence which district they would vote in) or define their residency by their last known address. It would be peculiar to allow inmates to vote while abiding by the Census Bureau's current practice of counting inmates as residents of the district in which they are incarcerated, since inmates are so completely removed --- physically, socially, economically --- from those districts' communities. It would be like allowing someone from Syracuse vacationing in Montauk for a few months to vote in Long Islands local elections. It seems more logical to consider inmates as residents (and hence voters) of their home districts (and that way their opinions of Senator Volker would be moot, as his district would disappear).

Convicted felons can vote in New York, although they encounter numerous unnecessary bureacratic obstacles when they try to restore their right to vote. People on parole, however, cannot.

I'm not sure how to get Albany to start debating seriously the issue of inmate enfranchisment (outside of a purely theoretical framework), since it is almost a nationwide policy to bar inmates from participating in the political process. Although the demographics are very different, it would be interesting to hear what discussions surrounding this topic have taken place in Maine and Vermont, the only two states that do not deprive their prison populations of their right to vote.

Allowing prisoners to vote and where prisoners should be counted in the Census are two important, but different, questions. If prisoners could vote in New York (and jail inmates awaiting trial can) they would have to do so via absentee ballot back home. The New York State Constitution requires that. In Maine and Vermont, prisoners vote at their home addresses via absentee ballot. The same was true in Massachusetts and Utah before those states recently took away prisoners' right to vote. So whether prisoners can vote won't change the problem the census rule creates for redistricting: the prisoners would still be non-residents padding out the districts where they do not reside.

Yesterday, the Prison Policy Initiative posted a new report Why the Census Bureau can and must start collecting the home addresses of incarcerated people. The report, submitted to the Census Bureau last Friday, discusses the potential reforms in detail.