The Threat to Representation for Children and Non-Citizens: the Potential Impact of Evenwel v. Abbott on Redistricting

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could alter the way virtually all legislative districts in the United States are drawn. Set for hearing on December 8, 2015, the case of Evenwel vs. Abbott questions the use of the population equality standard to draw state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs argued for the use of registered voters or potential voters (defined as voting age citizens) instead of the total population in a given district.

On November 5, 2014, the three judge court upheld the population equality standard for use in Texas, but the Supreme Court set the case for argument instead of simply affirming the appellate court opinion. This means that they plan to review the use of the population equality standard to draw districts, and could rule that the appropriate standard counts voters or potential voters instead of total
population. Presented here is an analysis of the impact the case could have on how districts are drawn and constituents are represented.

The population equality standard has been used by most jurisdictions since at least the 1970 redistricting round, so shifting to a standard of voters or potential voters would be a radical change. It would force substantial shifts in many redistricting plans because while the case concerns state legislatures, it could impact how districts from congressional down to city and county are drawn. The change would also have the effect of diminishing the representation of children (those under 18) and non-citizens.

This report assesses the impact of using an eligible voter equality standard on the current congressional and state legislative districts using the same materials that would have been available at the time redistricting was done.

Go to Social Explorer.

Public Mapping Project, for the drawing of electoral districts

The drawing of electoral districts is among the least transparent processes in democratic governance. All too often, redistricting authorities maintain their power by obstructing public participation. The resulting districts embody the goals of politicians to the detriment of the representational interests of communities and the public at large.

Members of the Public Mapping Project seek to change this power balance by making it possible for the public to draw the boundaries of their communities and to generate redistricting plans for their state and localities -- through their web-browsers. The Public Mapping Project is developing District Builder, an open source software redistricting application designed to give the public transparent, accessible, and easy-to-use on-line mapping tools.

This technological innovation will enable greater public participation where redistricting authorities solicit public input. Where redistricting authorities are not responsive to the representational needs of the public, plans drawn by the public may be used as a yardstick by which to compare a redistricting authority’s plan against. And where the courts must step in when the regular redistricting process breaks down, judges will have a greater menu of options to consider.

Independent Redistricting in Monroe County: A CGR Experiment

The Center for Government Research assumed the role of an independent redistricting commission and created a new map of Monroe County legislative districts based on the 2010 Census population counts. The maps were created with political blinders in place – no data on party enrollment of voters was used. Yet the maps preserved the 16-13 advantage for Republicans by creating 16 Republican-leaning districts. Find out why and browse a scalable map.

2010 Redistricting Data for ALL 50 States plus DC, PR now available in NEW American FactFinder

Each table will provide summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. Click here to watch a tutorial on how to access the Redistricting Data or to learn more about the features and functions of the NEW American FactFinder.
The following States/State Equivalents were released yesterday:
• District of Columbia
• Maine
• New York
• Puerto Rico
State and local data can also be viewed through the 2010 Census State and Local Data Interactive Map Tool.

Fun with Numbers: 9/12/07 edition

I went to the ABC News website to see all the stories of interest that were published on September 12. Some, but not all, were generated by the release of new American Factfinder data released on that date.

Life Expectancy of Americans Climbs to 78 Years, Longest in U.S. History, Government Says.

The number of deaths in the United States rose in 2005 after a sharp decline the year earlier.

Housing Costs Devour a Larger Part of Americans' Income, Forcing Cuts Elsewhere

California lawmakers once again have failed to agree on legislation that would strip them of the powerful role of drawing the state's legislative and congressional districts.
***
Hispanic Business' take on the increasing number of Mexicans.

Prison Populations and Legislative Redistricting

Recently there was an AP article from an advocacy group arguing that State prison populations should not be included as part of local population counts, especially when it comes to redistricting.

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=aef40f48-a62c-48d9-9ecc-310b57d5303f

The basic premise of the group is that these populations should be counted where they COME from, not where they are being housed. Since they are currently counted among group quarters populations, the argument goes, they unfairly provide overrepresentation to places that typically house them (usually more rural areas) when it comes to legislative redistricting.

Several issues arise from this position that I wonder about.

First, on the federal and state level, the flexibility of local officials to choose to either include these special group quarters populations in their counts is ZERO. Federal and state laws specify that these populations (state prisoners) WILL be included in all counts, including those for redistricting purposes for federal and state districts.

Local governments in NY apparently have an OPTION to count them, based on a court case in Jefferson County in the early 1990s. My best understanding of the decision is that the counties may choose whether or not to include them when they draw LOCAL legislative districts. In some counties, such as Oneida County, local laws have been passed addressing this issue - in Oneida County the local law mandates the inclusion of all group quarters populations. Others may choose NOT to use them for redistricting. But in either case, it should ONLY impact local legislative boundaries.

Second, the issue of whether it is appropriate to include prisoners in population counts for redistricting purposes places us, as census professionals, in a precarious position. If we don't include this group quarter, what about others, such as nursing home occupants, mental health facilities, or alcohol treatment centers ? Where do we stop in terms of deciding who IS and ISN'T a TRUE local person ? Many occupants of the above group quarters may actually be placed in those facilities not by there own choosing. So it is more appropriate to count them where they came from or where they are ?

Third, how would we determine where our prisoners are ACTUALLY from ? Is it where they were arrested ? Is it where they lived at the time they were convicted ? Obviously many of those in trouble with the law are very transient. How would anyone confirm a true address which would assign the person in question to a locality ? Is it simply a matter of where they tell you they last lived ?

Fourth, to reassign prison populations back to wherever they came from (assuming that could be done) would deny the rights of the local municipalities that provide support services to our State prisons to adequate representation. Who bears the costs associated with maintaining the water and sewer services, the costs of road maintenance, etc., which service the prisons ? The local municipalities, of course. To deny them the right to count the prisoners would be to deny them the right to population based funds from the federal and state governments which help maintain the areas around the prisons.

Lastly, if the prisons were to fall into disrepair, or start to endanger local communities because they followed unsafe practices, who would bring this issue to task before the state ? If a local water source were to become contaminated and the water at the prison facility were to become undrinkable, who's job would it be to work with the DEC and other water quality personnel to fix the problem ? A representative in some urban district hundreds of miles away, meaning the district from which the prisoner originated ? Not likely...the representative in whose district the prison is located would be much more apt to make an issue of such things. So in some ways, local legislators DO, in fact, represent the interests of the prisoner, as well as the local community.

According to our local Board of Elections, state prisoners have no voting rights. They may, upon release from prison, regain some right to vote. However this is usually something done with assistance from their parole officer.

Local jails have a slightly different angle on democracy. If you are in the local county lockup as a pretrial inmate, you can vote via absentee ballot. Once convicted, regardless of what the conviction is for, you can no longer vote while you are imprisoned. Once released, you are back on the voting rolls, assuming you ever were.