[EL] Evenwell vs prison gerrymandering

Fri Oct 16 14:08:17 PDT 2015

It turns out that 10 states discount certain populations in their districting calculations – the list may surprise people – see fn. 8 of Texas’s brief<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/14-940_appellee.authcheckdam.pdf>.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC  20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
fax. (202) 842-3490
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023

Cato Supreme Court Review:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review

Watch our 2015 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court Review/Preview:  http://www.cato.org/events/14th-annual-constitution-day

See me defend the right to keep and bear arms on the Colbert Report:  http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340923/july-08-2010/automatics-for-the-people---ilya-shapiro---jackie-hilly

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of John Tanner
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 4:11 PM
To: Brenda Wright
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Evenwell vs prison gerrymandering

RE: Evenwell, I don’t know that anyone has mentioned something of which I was reminded last week.  There have been at least 2 federal cases in which the population of non-local college students was discounted for redistricting purposes.  I recall cases in Hattiesburg and Cleveland, MS.  I don’t have cites and I’m not sure whether they were under one person, one vote, or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.   I remember thinking the cases were wrongly decided, but then I often think cases are wrongly decided.

On Oct 16, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Brenda Wright <bwright at demos.org<mailto:bwright at demos.org>> wrote:

Doug’s post is a bit surprising, but I’m glad it provides the chance to clear up some issues.  First, there is no insult to the Census Bureau in pointing out the problems that result from the way in which the Census currently tabulates incarcerated populations.  Both PPI and Demos are huge admirers of the Census Bureau and the professionalism with which it carries out its important responsibilities.  We have worked for years with the Bureau and its staff to identify and address the inequities caused by the application of the “usual residence” rule to incarcerated populations, about which leaders of the Bureau in the past have themselves expressed awareness and concern.  See, for example, the comment of Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census Bureau Director, that ““[c]urrent census residency rules ignore the reality of prison life” (cited in our amicus brief).  We have applauded the steps the Bureau took during the 2010 Census to at least make it easier for states and localities to identify the incarcerated population in the census count by releasing the Group Quarters data at an earlier point, which came in response to many requests not only from advocates but also states and localities themselves.  Pointing out the need for change in these rules is not an insult to the Census Bureau and I don’t think it has been viewed as such by the staff or leadership with whom we’ve worked cordially and directly over the years.

On other points:  the post cites concerns about burdens on states and localities, but the fact is that some 200 local jurisdictions are already making adjustments to the Census counts on their own because of their own concerns about anomalies and distortions in their districts that result from treating the prisons as “homes” of the incarcerated persons.  There are no other groups similarly situated in terms of their complete physical and legal isolation from the community where they are counted and the lack of any real representation by the elected officials in those locations.  It would help these jurisdictions greatly in making these adjustments if the Bureau were to adjust its rules to tabulate incarcerated persons in their home communities.  None of this has anything to do with scoring “political points.”

Brenda Wright
Vice President, Policy & Legal Strategies
www.demos.org<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr3wUedEIcfTjsd7bRPtPqdS4QQmnbI6QrI9FEIKfL6QrI9FEIKnvdETojjhpd7bzxKl2uHizk5mStu00CXreL00jr6SvhjsvW_9LIFEI6zDHTbFIIEY-yyOOOZR4kRHFGTpsVkffGhBrwqrhdzzt-hspsKyyUyUrKr018uHmD00sdDWob-vZFOH0KgGT2TQ1i7Hr6qLMCnfBiterJbLgrdIK3zhO-r1vF6y0QJzgldbFEw6zfMcuuuq83d3h0J6laMd417UNbaX13UOwhdI9C-EFZ4le5M8Rm>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Johnson
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 11:51 AM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Evenwell vs prison gerrymandering

I think the Project’s response highlights the predicament they find themselves in between these two cases. The Project’s response seems to boil down to requiring every state, school district, city, county, and other jurisdiction that conducts elections by-district to individually evaluate the presence or lack of “strong ties to the community” for each and every resident who is not eligible to vote, then to adjust the population data for their jurisdiction’s redistricting based on those findings.

In my opinion, this is a prohibitively expensive undertaking, prone to arbitrary decision-making depending on the political interests of those in charge of the count. And it goes directly against the significant body of Court precedents seeking clear rules that would both limit judicial involvement in redistricting and that aim to make Court rulings in redistricting cases rule-driven.

So I understand the political usefulness of this argument, but I do not think this wins in court.

Also, I would encourage the Project and Demos to avoid blaming the Census Bureau, as they do in this article. It’s not the Census Bureau’s fault that state prison records on residency for incarcerated felons are so full of errors. When it has the funding to do so, the Bureau has always been fantastic about taking high-quality data from state and local jurisdictions and incorporating it into each decennial census. But the Bureau has been understandably reluctant to utilize data that is as poorly organized, and that has such weak quality controls, as most states’ prisoner residency records. By blaming the messenger, the Project and Demos risk alienating the only entity that has the influence, expertise and national reach needed to fix the problem they want fixed. That’s a high price to pay for scoring a political point or two.

-        Douglas Johnson, Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont McKenna College
Douglas.johnson at cmc.edu<mailto:Douglas.johnson at cmc.edu>
310-200-2058

“The NY Times column on Evenwel and prison gerrymandering hinges on superficial contradictions”<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIi4xASyMM_tdMQsLndTdETojjhpsKMrhKMCCyOU-YrhKMCCyOVtYSztxdd5AQsKe6Vk9WJadglrpRU02rJIWY01dIrpZ5dN_HYC-OCyMqeuLsKCOOzPWabbbbTkhjmKCHtBPBgY-F6lK1FJcSedTV5NBOWabybxKVI07V_SDaI3Zc43WAu00Uime7e3C4jp-C2_D_qsGMbAaJMJZ0kxWSNCHY9BPVkDjCXiXQ6PrbwUQsLCMnWhEwdboQ5jiWq81EPY37DDCy0PgQgbhBiI3h0h-ciOKMg-cE4jr2pIYKTIJSq>
Posted on October 16, 2015 7:10 am<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSd6Qm67XFK6zBWVKVJ6X2qqbbBS3qdS4QQmn7TzqdS4QQmnbLCQrI9FEICzBNMTaxflFhG2HreL00jtJDnw09JzrfEFKfZvATSkQm3hPRXBQSmkuvhhpppuWyaqRQRrIKsG7DR8OJMddICNNK_8KcKnhhshsdTdw0_f-QVlwvFwwvkzM072iNMVMsMyrfQMnY_XjBm1sxlK5LE2AfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwSrps76zBYS2_id41Fr6wGqnjh0d6vwoYYYQg6q6y1qcGlwq82fNymlS27NB0yrojdU4rSLWW6> by Rick Hasen<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIi3wUgdEIcfTjsd7bRPtPqdS4QQmnbI6QrI9FEIKfL6QrI9FEIKnvdETojjhpd7bzxKl2uHizk5mStu00CXreL00jr6SvhjsvW_9LIFEI6zDHTbFIIEY-yyOOOZR4kRHFGTpsVkffGhBrwqrodzzt-hspsKyyUyUrKr01-vZFOH0_j10-F7w0e4JrCjH4VASvFwLV_SDaI2V2Hsbvg58uJIpG_2ps-l9QVKQKZ1ISOUed7bVI5-Aq83iSd1kQKCy0qc_0NVVVEwcQd42QpkH0Qg4vz4IHI4fza14SMCrwHxnI4wy>
The Prison Gerrymandering Project<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6jqb33ZQT3hOZsTsSztxdd5BOX1J6X2qqbbzXNJ6X2qqbbBTPqdS4QQmjhOUUrBgDGQER1lJDnw09KSPHM04SNJDQkT7-LOrXaqb1EVWZOWrbaffEEIIILth5dqWqJSnel3PWApmU6CTPoUTvAn6nbEEK8K6XCM0iQpkH3UQGXcDZLxhKD00sxVyC9ThvN6-8LVVDU6ffbMbjMSvFwLV_SDaI2V2Hsbvg58uJIpG_2ps-l9QVKQKZ1ISOUed7bVI5-Aq83iSd1kQKCy0qc_0NVVVEwcQd42QpkH0Qg4vz4IHI4fza14SMCrdvAz> responds to Adam Liptak<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSczhJ5xx-WrxEVuKrKrhKMCCyOVtwSztxdd5BNZUSztxdd5BOXVJ6X2qqb9EVssdOEjRqkqwGSPHM04TrpRU02roSPWarz_nVdZBd5wQsZuVtdBB7DQkmmmnKEyCJtdmXbDaxVZicHs3jrxIsrLObzbBQkn4n3tPo0a1qsBvFO-9ThvN6-8IUTj5GDODaRcSNXt2Zj42-N8JG_2t2WKByVyIiFvieOxipukOYE5PdpOwhbNAh9PEnJJfU76PZc5_f-QVlwn8lrxrW0F3RJzdnUjbDOFeDdSBTEdCSn1NEVvdwLQzh0qmNEaCBQQg3hDU6fffd41CxEwmzaBo6y0zYoBBtwxYpg8CS4PoQNWoGkZIb5r>:
The Evenwel plaintiffs seek to entirely exclude all non-citizens from redistricting counts, regardless of their residence in, and strong ties to, the community in which they are counted. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the Cranston case have made a careful, fact-based determination of where people incarcerated at the facility actually reside, be it in Ward 6, elsewhere in Cranston or outside of the city and want the city’s districts to treat those groups separately.
Simply put, Cranston does not have the authority to fix prison gerrymandering problems outside its jurisdictional boundaries, and so plaintiffs have not sought to force them to do so.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr3xASyMM_tdMQsLndTdETojjhpsKMrhKMCCyOU-YrhKMCCyOVtYSztxdd5AQsKe6Vk9WJadglrpRU02rJIWY01dIrpZ5dN_HYC-OCyMqeuLsKCOOzPWabbbbTkhjmKCHtBPBgY-F6lK1FIsr76XYyUOVt55N5MTsS03gZroPl-4OVYGjFPtFtW3u2qKMM-l9OwXn3Zc5_f-QVlwrfQMnY_XjBm1sxlK5LE2AfmScRvxcKvaAWsTqnuwSrps76zBYS2_id41Fr6wGqnjh0d6vwoYYYQg6q6y1qcGlwq82fNymlS27NB0yrojdx9H_N2Hi>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151016/31c75ba6/attachment.html>