The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

November 06, 2009

What the census will get wrong--gerrymandering prisoners

What the census will get wrong
By MARY SANCHEZ
McClatchy Newspapers
Published: Friday, Nov. 6, 2009 - 7:56 am

The 2010 U.S. Census will soon be upon us, and by now you may have heard one of the patriotic pitches to comply.

Every breathing soul must be tallied during the massive federal endeavor, the national headcount taken every decade. The census is central to the functioning of our democracy, we're told. The data are used to distribute $400 billion in government spending, to compile countless reports on educational needs, to plan for economic development and formulate public policy.

More important, census data have a direct bearing on congressional districts and the Electoral College. The information is crucial to help us uphold the constitutional principle of one person, one vote.

So why, then, is the federal government gearing up to distort this vital set of data by how it accounts for the nation's booming prison population? Prisoners are counted, not according to their home address but where they are incarcerated. At a glance, this might not seem like a big deal - until the details of our nation's 2 million inmates are broken down. Rural communities with large prison populations suddenly appear to be bastions of diversity, while those without prisons continue to see their population numbers slide. On average, inmates serve for 34 months before returning to their original communities. They never shop, dine, attend school or otherwise become members of the towns and cities where they are warehoused while paying their debt to society.

One distortion this way of counting population causes is what some activists call "prison-based gerrymandering." Because population figures are used to determine legislative districts, voting power is diluted in some areas and falsely ramped up in others.

The NAACP, no doubt recalling how black people were once considered three-fifths of a person for the purpose of representation, was among the first organizations to call for reform. Because 12 percent of black men in their 20s and 30s are in prison at any one time, urban areas lose out on the strength of those uncounted inmates.

But it's actually rural communities, where prisons are often built, that suffer the most from the distortions. Peter Wagner, a Massachusetts-based advocate for the Prison Policy Initiative, has found 173 counties where more than half of the black population is made up of inmates. Seven state senate districts in New York alone, he argues, would need to be redrawn if inmates were omitted from population figures for the areas where they are doing time.

Local officials in some parts of the country have responsibly attempted to eliminate the distortions. Bravo. The town of Anamosa, Iowa, changed the way it elects city council members after discovering that the population of a state penitentiary created a ward where a candidate got elected on the strength of two write-in votes. His inmate constituency of about 1,300 prisoners was roughly as populous as the town's other wards.

With census-takers already completing the process of verifying addresses for the spring headcount, it's too late for the government to change how it plans to conduct the 2010 Census. Recording the true home address of inmates would be costly (an estimated $250 million), and many prisons don't have the information readily available. What the government can do to help rectify the situation is release the prison data earlier than planned, in time for states to take the information and delete those numbers for redistricting purposes.

Criminals forfeit a lot when they get locked up. They lose the right to vote, in all but two states. They lose daily interaction with loved ones and the chance to engage in meaningful work. What they shouldn't lose is the sense that their presence counts.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star. Readers may write to her at: Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413, or via e-mail at msanchez@kcstar.com.
http://www.sacbee.com/846/story/2309929.html

Posted by lois at 04:05 PM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2009

MA: The Prison Town Advantage. Prisoners who can't vote nevertheless add to the power of the politicians who don't represent them.

The Prison Town Advantage
Inmates who can't vote nevertheless add to the power of the politicians who don't represent them.

Thursday, October 08, 2009
By Maureen Turner
Valley Advocate

To say that Danny Young did not win his seat on the Anamosa, Iowa, City Council by a landslide is an understatement of extreme proportions. Young won that seat in 2006 with just two write-in votes, one of them cast by his wife. The definition of the reluctant politician, Young didn't even vote for himself. There were no other candidates for the seat.

Admittedly, no candidate in Anamosa is going to draw big numbers at the polls, given the city's tiny size. The community covers 2.2 square miles, and has about 5,700 residents. At the time of Young's election, voters elected representatives from four wards, each of which included approximately 1,400 residents, as well as two at-large councilors.

But in Young's Ward 2, fewer than 100 of those residents were eligible to run for the Council seat, or even to vote. That's because the ward is dominated by Anamosa State Penitentiary, a maximum-security prison where about 1,300 men are incarcerated. And in Iowa, as in 47 other U.S. states (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions), incarcerated felons are not allowed to vote.

They are, however, counted by the U.S. Census Bureau for data used to draw congressional, state and municipal legislative districts. That practice can lead to dramatic power imbalances between communities that have prisons and those that do not—as seen in Anamosa, where the fewer than 100 non-prisoners in Young's ward have as much representational clout in city affairs as the 1,400 residents in each of the city's other wards.

While Anamosa presents a particularly dramatic example of the problem, this imbalance exists in communities around the country. The Prison Policy Initiative, an Easthampton-based nonprofit, has released numerous reports in recent years examining the problem in states around the country; this month, PPI is releasing a report, "Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Massachusetts," that looks at the effects here. The report, co-authored by PPI Executive Director Peter Wagner and colleagues Elena Lavarreda and Rose Heyer, finds that five of the state's legislative districts would not even exist in their current configurations if their population counts did not include prison inmates.

This apparently unintended data-gathering quirk, Wagner said, has profoundly detrimental consequences for the distribution of political power—consequences that extend further than one might expect.

Counting disenfranchised prisoners to draw up legislative districts "makes no sense," Wagner said, "and is actually offensive to our notion of democracy."

It also bears, in the words of Boston-based voting rights attorney Brenda Wright, an "uncomfortable resemblance" to the "three-fifths" compromise between Southern and Northern states written into the U.S. Constitution in 1787. That provision declared that a slave would count as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts.

"The slave states benefited in terms of political power, based on a population that couldn't vote," said Wright, who directs the Democracy Program for Demos, a public policy and advocacy organization. More than 220 years later, legislators with prisons in their districts are likewise benefiting from a population that's also denied the vote—while other districts lose.

*

Peter Wagner began studying prison-based gerrymandering while a law student at Western New England College. His first project looked at neighboring New York State, where the effects are especially dramatic. There, Wagner noted in a 2002 report, 91 percent of prison cells are located in the upstate region, whose economy depends heavily on the prison industry. But only 24 percent of prisoners actually come from upstate New York; the majority—66 percent—comes from New York City.

As a result, Wagner said in a recent interview, "the whole center of gravity shifts." For state legislators who have prisons in their districts, the facilities are a boon: the prison population swells local numbers enough to justify the creation of a legislative seat, while the prison creates jobs and spurs related economic activity in a part of the state that sorely needs both. According to PPI, seven legislative districts in upstate New York would not have the minimum population required for a district were it not for their prisoners.

But not everyone wins under this scenario. While upstate legislators may have prisoners in their districts, because those prisoners cannot vote, there's no incentive for the legislators to support policies that could positively affect the urban districts where the majority of prisoners come from. Meanwhile, because the prisoners are not counted in their hometowns, those communities' populations, for the purposes of creating legislative districts, drop.

"Prisoners and their families have negative political clout," Wagner said.

And it's not just prisoners (and the family and neighbors that remain in their hometowns) who feel the effects of this imbalance, Wagner noted. Residents who live in districts without prisons have, in essence, less political influence than those in districts that do have prisons.

"These ... districts get an enhanced say, which hurts every other district in general, and hurts the district where prisoners come from even more," Wagner said.

Meanwhile, prisoners—despite the fact that they contribute to a prison-district legislator's political power—have no political influence over "their" representative. "The way things should work is, if a legislator doesn't represent some of his or her constituents, there's a check in place—the overlooked residents can vote that person out," Wagner said. "But when some of those constituents can't vote, that natural check and balance doesn't work."

As Danny Young, the Anamosa councilman, put it in a 2008 New York Times article: "Do I consider [the prisoners within my ward] my constituents? They don't vote, so, I guess, not really."

*

The Census Bureau's policy of counting prisoners where they're incarcerated is not new, PPI notes.

But the effects of that policy have become more significant in recent years, as the U.S. prison population has swelled, thanks, in large part, to the trend toward mandatory-minimum sentencing and other "tough on crime" legal reforms. According to the federal Department of Justice, in 1998, there were slightly fewer than 1.3 million people in state and federal prisons in the U.S. A decade later, that number had risen to 1.5 million. (During the same time period, the number of people, nationally, in local jails rose from about 500,000 to 800,000. In Massachusetts and other states, people who are behind bars on misdemeanor convictions or while awaiting trial are eligible to vote.)

There are about 11,000 people in Massachusetts state prisons, according to a 2007 report by the Mass. Department of Corrections. The state's one federal prison, Fort Devens, has about 1,300 prisoners, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts had the right to vote (those who chose to did so by absentee ballot). That year, 60 percent of voters—following the lead of then-Acting Gov. Paul Cellucci—approved a ballot question to amend the state constitution to deny voting rights to prisoners locked up on felony convictions. (The Cellucci administration had previously shut down a political action committee formed by a group of state prisoners, successfully arguing in Superior Court that allowing political activity in prisons presented a security threat.)

The result—in Massachusetts and in the 47 other states where incarcerated felons can't vote—is that lawmakers derive political power from "constituents" who are legally denied a voice in the political process. By law, each legislative district in Massachusetts should include 39,682 people, "Importing Constituents" notes. The law does allow some deviation from that figure, to ensure that other goals can be met, such as keeping communities with shared interests together in one district. (For instance, the lines might be drawn to keep members of a racial minority in the same district.)

In Massachusetts, that built-in wiggle room allows a district to deviate from the 39,683, in either direction, by 1,984 people—meaning a district may actually have a maximum of 41,667 residents or a minimum of 37,699.

But five state legislative districts in Massachusetts meet that minimum number only because they contain prisons, the PPI report points out. They include the 37th Middlesex district of Democratic Rep. Jennifer Benson, which would not meet the minimum had the 2000 Census not counted the 3,013 prisoners at Fort Devens and three state prisons (one of which, MCI Lancaster, was closed after the district was drawn). Similarly, the 9th Norfolk district of Republican Rep. Richard Ross only meets that threshold because of the 2,596 people who were in its four state prisons at the time it was drawn.

In addition, the 3rd Suffolk district of Democrat Aaron Michlewitz (previously represented by former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, indicted earlier this year on federal corruption charges) counts more than 1,500 Suffolk County House of Corrections inmates in its population total. Without those inmates, the PPI report found, the district would in fact be more than 8 percent smaller than the state's average district. And the 14th Worcester district, represented by Democrat James O'Day, only meets the minimum because of prisoners at the Worcester County House of Correction.

Locally, the 7th Hampden district of Rep. Tom Petrolati, a Democrat and speaker pro tempore of the House, contains 38,144 people. But 1,660 of those people were counted at the Hampden County House of Corrections in Ludlow; without them, the population would fall to 36,484—again, below the legally required minimum. "The actual population of this district is more than 8 percent smaller than the average district in the state, giving every group of 92 residents in Ludlow and some of the surrounding areas as much political power as 100 residents elsewhere in the state," the PPI researchers wrote.

A number of inmates at the Ludlow jail—those awaiting trial, and those there for misdemeanors—do, in fact, have the right to vote. But for the most part, "they are credited to the wrong district," Wagner said, with the exception of those who also happen to be residents of the 7th Hampden district. The rest must vote by absentee ballot in the district where they previously lived.

"The folks in the Hampden County House of Correction [who have the right to vote] are being represented and are voting in other districts, but their presence in the data used to draw the districts enhances the weight of a vote cast by the actual residents of Rep. Petrolati's district," Wagner went on. "That ends up turning the concepts of 'One Person, One Vote,' and of basing districts on common communities of interest, on their heads."

Four of the five legislators whose districts benefit from the Census practice—Benson, Ross, Michlewitz and O'Day—were not in the Legislature when the districts were last redrawn, in 2001. (Petrolati was, and, in fact, served as chairman of the House's redistricting committee, under then-Speaker Tom Finneran. In 2005, Finneran was indicted on federal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, for allegedly lying about intervening in the redistricting plan to protect certain incumbents. In 2007, he pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, and received 18 months probation and a $25,000 fine. Petrolati, a Finneran lieutenant, was questioned by investigators but not charged. He did not respond to an interview request from the Advocate.)

Benson, the Middlesex legislator, told the Advocate she didn't know about the Census' policy for counting prisoners when she ran for the office, "and was surprised to discover it. ...

"I agree that counting prisoners as residents of the towns in which they are incarcerated is counterproductive and that our democracy is based on one man, one vote. [T]herefore equal representation is essential to upholding this belief," Benson said.

While Massachusetts does not present the extreme cases seen next door in New York, "this small and seemingly benign thing actually affects how our democracy runs," said report co-author Elena Lavarreda. The imbalance of power created by the census policy hurts all Massachusetts districts without prisons, but it especially hurts the urban areas where prisoners disproportionately come from, Lavarreda added.

For instance, while Boston accounts for 9.1 percent of Massachusetts' total population, according to 2008 figures from the Mass. Department of Corrections, 15 percent of new court commitments to state prisons reported home addresses in that city. Springfield, meanwhile, accounts for 2.3 percent of the state's total population, but 9 percent of its state prison population. Holyoke accounts for just 0.6 percent of the state population, but 2 percent of its state prisoners.

"[H]eavily minority urban districts would be entitled to additional representation if prisoners were counted as residents of their home communities for purposes of redistricting," the PPI researchers wrote.

The U.S. Census Bureau will conduct its next decennial population count in 2010. And it will continue its practice of counting prisoners in their prisons, not their hometowns—this despite the advocacy work of PPI, as well as a 2006 report commissioned by the Census Bureau from the National Academies' National Research Council. That report—titled "Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census"— described the bureau's guidelines for determining residency for prisoners and certain other populations as too complicated, and urged the agency to improve that methodology in advance of next year's count.

Those changes, however, have not happened. Rather, the Census Bureau has been entangled in other matters, including a stand-off with Congressional Republicans who stalled the confirmation of President Obama's pick to lead the agency, Robert Groves; problems with the effectiveness of new hand-held computers used by canvassers; and the public relations nightmare caused by the agency's (now-severed) relationship with the controversial community organizing group ACORN.

"The Census is a big bureaucracy, and big bureaucracies are hard to change," said Lavarreda, adding that she believes many individuals within the Bureau do see the problem created by the current policy. With the next census just around the corner, political leaders are increasingly talking about the importance of getting an accurate population count (including in western Mass., where, it's feared, population shifts could result in the loss of a Congressional seat). The Census Bureau's "miscount" of prisoners only adds to those concerns about the count's accuracy, Lavarreda said.

"The Census Bureau is averse to change," added Wright, the Demos attorney. "It's an institution that does very long-term planning for the work it does"; to make any changes to that system "takes a lot of momentum, a lot of impetus."

Last week, the Advocate contacted the Census Bureau's Public Information Office seeking a response to the PPI report. At deadline, the office had yet to respond to that interview request."

By failing to address the prison issue in time for the 2010 count, the Census squandered an important opportunity, PPI contends. But in the absence of reform on the federal level, state and local governments can still address the problem, the organization points out.

While the U.S. Constitution mandates the decennial census, that document only requires that the numbers be used to draw Congressional districts. Over time, states, for the sake of convenience, have come to use the federal census numbers for drawing their own legislative districts, but they are not required to; Massachusetts, for instance, conducted its own census every 10 years from 1855 to 1975. If states conducted their own censuses, PPI suggests, they could ensure that prisoners are counted at their pre-incarceration addresses, and then use those results to draw legislative districts.

"The irony is the legislators who benefit from this [existing policy] is a very small list," Wagner noted. "Everyone else loses in some way—some more than others." Still, he said, there appears to be little momentum in the Legislature for addressing the issue, perhaps because some legislators aren't even aware of its implications.

Fixes can also take place at the local level. In Anamosa, Iowa, citizens addressed the imbalance of power caused by the local state prison through a referendum that changed how city councilors are elected. Starting with next month's election, instead of electing councilors from each of four wards—including Danny Young's, where more than 90 percent of his "constituents" are disenfranchised prisoners—all members will be elected at-large.

Closer to home, the Worcester County city of Gardner opted not to count inmates at North Central Correctional Institution at Gardner when redrawing its City Council districts in 2001 to avoid granting too much political influence to the part of the city where the facility is located.

While PPI applauds efforts like those in Anamosa and Gardner, ultimately, Wagner said, "The ideal place to change this is at the Census Bureau."

The Bureau, he went on, applies a "usual residence rule" to determine where to count a particular individual. In the words of the Census Bureau: "Usual residence has been defined as the place where the person lives and sleeps most of the time"—meaning, for instance, that a person who is on vacation the day of the census would nonetheless be counted at his or her home.

A person's "usual residence," according to the Census Bureau, "is not necessarily the same as the person's voting residence or legal residence." College students who do not live at home, for instance, are counted at their college housing, even if their parents' home is their legal residence.

Like college students counted at their dorms, not their parents' houses, prisoners also "live and sleep most of the time" at their prison, not their previous home. But, PPI points out, there's a key difference. Unlike college students, people in prison are not there voluntarily. "Students are welcome and encouraged to purchase local goods and services and to rent apartments in town," the group noted in a related report. "They can register to vote in the community and may decide to stay after graduation. ... For the duration of their time at the college, the college is the place they willingly live: that's the very definition of residence."

The Census' decision to count prisoners within prison districts, Wright said, is "based on a fiction that prisoners who can't vote and are not a permanent part of the community should be treated as though they are"—at least for the purposes of drawing legislative districts. Interestingly, she noted, in other legal matters, such as marriage and divorce laws, prisoners are considered residents of the communities where they lived before they were locked up. Indeed, before incarcerated felons were denied the vote in 2000, courts had ruled against prisoners who wanted to vote in the towns where their prisons were located, saying instead that they must vote in their home communities, by absentee ballot.

The Prison Policy Initiative suggests some ways the Census Bureau could change how it counts prisoners: it could allow prisoners to respond with their pre-incarceration addresses, or use prison records to determine those addresses. The Bureau has made similar adaptations for other populations in the past, PPI notes.

The U.S. Census Bureau, Wagner noted, needs individual states to rely on its figures for their redistricting efforts; if states started conducting their own counts, it would, no doubt, hurt the federal bureau's funding. Like any business, the Census should view the states as clients, and the states should exercise the client's right to demand a good product—in this case, fair and accurate population figures. "Part of the incentive to fix this," Wagner said, "is the aggrieved party is every single person who does not live immediately adjacent to a prison."
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article_print.cfm?aid=10645

Posted by lois at 06:12 PM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2009

NAACP's president returns to Maine for voter drive in prisons

NAACP's president returns to Maine for voter drive in prisons
BY TREVOR MAXWELL Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel 09/30/2009

Less than a year after he came to Maine to lobby for prison reform and ensure that inmates have an opportunity to vote, the president of the NAACP led a voter registration drive on Tuesday at five of the state's seven correctional facilities for adults.

Benjamin Jealous, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, said more than 100 inmates registered to vote at the Maine State Prison in Warren, and he was waiting for a tally on the other four facilities.

The effort, he said, was the first system-wide voter registration project in the history of America's prisons.

"It was a great day," Jealous said after leaving Warren on Tuesday afternoon. "How you teach someone to live on the inside is more than likely how they are going to live on the outside. This is about helping people to get on a path, to be more productive and involved members of society.

"As somebody with Maine roots, I have always believed this is a place where big problems can be solved," said Jealous, whose father was raised in Maine and graduated from Deering High School in Portland.

Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while they are incarcerated.

The first voter registration drive at the Maine State Prison was held in May 2008, but the organizing inmates and leaders of the Portland chapter of the NAACP said there were no guarantees at the time that future drives would be allowed.

The inmates also were frustrated that it took more than two years to get permission for the project.

Jealous came to Maine in December of 2008, at the request of Portland chapter President Rachel Talbot Ross, and met with prison officials and outgoing state Attorney General Steven Rowe.

Coming out of those talks, the Department of Corrections announced that the NAACP could hold annual voter registration drives at every prison in Maine.

Coinciding with the voting drives, the NAACP conducts membership drives.

"This is fulfilling the commitment that was made," Talbot Ross said on Tuesday. "It has been a great success."

Because of scheduling conflicts at the Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport and the Central Maine Pre-Release Center in Hallowell, organizers were not able to register voters there on Tuesday.

Ross said she will visit inmates there in the coming weeks, before the Nov. 3 general elections. In 48 states, incarcerated felons are not allowed to vote.

And in Virginia and Kentucky, a felony conviction prohibits an individual from ever voting again.

"Maine is a leader in placing no restrictions on the right to vote," said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

The group has supported the efforts of the NAACP in the prisons.

Bellows said a study done in 1996 in Minnesota, as well as other studies, show that offenders who vote are less likely to reoffend.

"Voting rights encourage offenders to become productive members of society," Bellows said. "It enhances their ties to our democratic institutions and their ties to the community."

Posted by lois at 07:07 PM | Comments (0)

September 23, 2009

"Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Convictions" by Lillie Branch-Kennedy, RIHD, VA

The Virginia Defender July - September 2009

Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Convictions
http://defendersfje.tripod.com/id3.html

By Lillie Branch-Kennedy
In 2008, we Americans headed to the polls in record numbers to vote for our president. Nationally, this included many first-time voters with prior felony convictions.

On Nov. 3, 2009, Virginians will head to the polls to vote for governor and many statewide legislators. How far has Virginia come in restoring the rights of persons with felony convictions to enable them to vote this year?

Will you be able to vote and make a difference come November? Will a record number of Virginians with a prior felony participate in the process, or will they continue to be denied and disenfranchised?

Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, proclaims that, prior to the Civil War, African- Americans were almost totally disenfranchised. Even after enactment of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote, many states continued to use various methods to prevent African-Americans from voting, including literacy tests, poll taxes, the disenfranchisement of former inmates, intimidation,
threats and even violence!

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a new beginning for African-American citizens. For the first time, the federal government required states to comply with the 15th Amendment. However, lifetime disenfranchisement of former felons continues today in two states: Virginia and Kentucky!

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “The United States is the only democracy in which some people who have served their sentences can still lose their right to vote. Approximately 4.7 million people in the U.S. cannot vote because of a felony conviction.” Of these 4.7 million people, the Commonwealth of Virginia accounts for 350,000. These convicted felons, most
of whom were convicted of nonviolent offenses, are productive citizens, assets to society, are in our communities, have paid their debts to society, earned a second chance in almost all aspects of their life, yet remain disenfranchised for life. Virginians should be outraged! Currently in Virginia, all persons convicted of a felony, regardless if the felony was a nonviolent or violent offense and received five, or even 40 years ago, must apply through
a lengthy process directly to the governor, who has the sole discretion whether to restore their rights. If the application is denied, the applicant must wait two years to reapply.

Many civil rights organizations and faith based advocacy groups continue to work, both legislatively and through the governor, to remove barriers to voting in Virginia faced by people with felony convictions. During the 2009 General Assembly session, several bills were proposed for the automatic restoration of voting rights.
Unfortunately, all “FAILED.”

Action Call by Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged (RIHD)
and Prisoners and Families for Equal Rights and Justice (PAFERJ)

Contact your state legislators today in support of automatic restoration of civil rights for persons with a felony. Article One, Section Six of the Constitution of Virginia provides that “all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and
attachment to, the community, have the right to suffrage ….” Therefore, we ask that you contact the governor in support of doing away with the expensive bureaucracy of past administrations
and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration for our returning neighbors by simply restoring the voting rights of felons upon their release from prison.

RIHD & PAFERJ provide filing assistance with the Restoration Voting and Civil Rights application every Tuesday and Thursday from 4-7 p.m. Other organizations such as the Virginia Organizing Project, Re-entry Initiative and others provide similar services, both in
Richmond and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. If you or anyone you know continues to be disenfranchised of their civil rights, please contact us20for assistance and/or for service
location in your area. For additional information and how you can help, call or e-mail Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy (RIHD) at (804) 562-2123 or rihd23075@aol.com.

Lillie Branch-Kennedy is the founder and executive director of RIHD and a prisoner rights representative on the Continuations Committee of the Virginia People’s Assembly.

Posted by lois at 12:18 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2009

OK: Prisons can inflate districts' influence

Prisons can inflate districts' influence
by: MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
Sunday, September 20, 2009
For maps to to: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20090920_
11_A1_Onamap449564

On a map of county commissioner districts in Osage County, the border of District 1 zig-zags along rather predictably until it passes north of a state prison near Hominy.

Suddenly, the line veers south to throw a hook around the Dick Conner Correctional Center, capturing the inmate population as "residents" for the district.

For the past nine years, Massachusetts-based researcher Peter Wagner has been trying to prove that many states, including Oklahoma, use prisons for "gerrymandering."

Padding their populations with people who can't vote in local elections, the districts are artificially inflating their own political clout, Wagner says.

"I knew somewhere there had to be a smoking gun, a case so blatant that nobody could deny it," he says. "I found it in Osage County."

'Who cares?'
On Monday, Wagner and a fellow researcher at the Prison Policy Initiative will release a report called "Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Oklahoma."

In an advanced copy obtained by the Tulsa World, Wagner singles out seven state House districts and 16 county commissioner districts for allegedly gerrymandering around prisons.

In other words, if inmates weren't counted as "residents," the districts would be too small to satisfy federal standards for "one person, one vote," Wagner says.

Federal law, along with U.S. Supreme Court precedents, requires districts to be essentially equal in population — deviating no more than 5 percent above or below average.

"The question is always, 'who cares?' " says Wagner, who is the executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, which describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank. "This isn't a problem that's easy to get people excited over.

"But this is about the basic democratic principle of equal representation."

In Alfalfa County, for example, each county commissioner is supposed to represent roughly 2,000 people.

District 3, however, would barely include half that many people without the inmates at the Crabtree Correctional Center, who can't vote.

Wagner concludes that every 54 voters in District 3 have the same political weight as 100 voters in other districts.

"Look at it this way," he says: "If you don't live in a district with a prison, your vote simply doesn't count as much."

'Quickest solution'
Congressional and state Senate districts are too large for prison populations to make much difference, so Wagner confines his analysis to state House and county commission seats.

Even then, prison populations used to seem negligible. The 1980 Census, for example, counted only 4,595 prison inmates in Oklahoma, according to Wagner's report.

By 2000, the Census counted five times that many inmates in Oklahoma — and suddenly, a single prison could boost the population of a state House district by several percentage points.

The prison population now includes more than 24,000 inmates.

"That's why nobody was talking about this problem until recently," Wagner says. "Because, until recently, it wasn't a problem."

For the 2010 Census, Wagner recommends that Oklahoma — and other states — simply ignore prison populations when drawing district maps.

"Basically, pretend they don't exist," he says. "That's the easiest, quickest solution for now."

He might be surprised to know that Osage County Commissioner Clarence Brantley, from the "smoking gun" District 1, agrees with him. At least in principle.

"They don't get to vote in my district," he says, "so prisoners shouldn't be counted as residents."

Unfortunately, Brantley says, it's not that simple.

'On the radar'
Most of Osage County's population is clustered in the southeast corner of District 2, on the outskirts of metropolitan Tulsa.

To encompass an equal population, District 1 sprawls across the entire northern half of the county. As a result, Brantley's district maintains nearly 1,000 miles of county roads, compared to roughly 250 miles of roads in a smaller district.

"Is that fair?" he asks. "The truth is, some of these rural districts are too big to manage."

Stop counting inmates, and they'll have to grow even bigger, he says.

"Frankly," he admits, "I haven't been able to think of a good solution."

State House District 13 faces a similar dilemma with the Jess Dunn Correctional Center and several other prisons.

Without counting inmates, the district would be too small. But even with the inmates, to reach enough people the district stretches from part of Broken Arrow to Warner, 70 miles southeast.

Living so far apart, the constituents often have little in common with each other, says District 13 Rep. Jerry McPeak.

"At one point," McPeak says, "my district is only two miles wide. The shape is ridiculous."

The Legislature will have to redraw district maps after the 2010 Census.

"And let's hope we can bring some logic to the process," McPeak says. But he stops short of saying whether inmates should count or not.

"Honestly," he says, "I haven't thought about it before because it's not an issue that's even been on the radar."

With this week's report, Wagner hopes to change that. He's focusing on Oklahoma partly because the state is usually one of the first to redistrict after each Census, so what happens here could start a trend nationwide.

"I'm trying to spark a conversation," Wagner says. "It's going to be up to the people of Oklahoma to decide where that conversation takes us."

House districts with prisoners
Seven state House districts meet federal minimum population requirements only because they include prisoners as local residents:

HD 13 (parts of Muskogee and Wagoner counties): census population of 3 , 59 includes 1,829 prisoners

HD 18 (parts of Pittsburgh and Mcintosh counties): census population of 3 ,389 includes 2,111 prisoners

HD 22 (Murray county and parts of Garvin, Pontotoc, Mcclain and cleveland counties): census population of 3 ,099 includes 2,569 prisoners

HD 55 (Washita county and parts of Kiowa, caddo and canadian counties): census population of 3 , 72 includes 2,59 prisoners

HD 63 (Tillman county and parts of comanche county): census population of 3 , 8 includes 2,081 prisoners

HD 88 (part of Oklahoma county): census population of 3 ,153 includes 2, 27 prisoners

HD 90 (part of Oklahoma county): census population of 3 ,205 includes 1,753 prisoners

Source: prisonersofthecensus.com

Posted by lois at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2009

ColorLines Review: The Real Cost of Prisons Comix: Vivid comics show the impacts of mass incarceration on communities of color

Issue #52, Sept/Oct 2009
The Real Cost of Prisons Comix
By Jenna M. Lloyd
Vivid comics show the impacts of mass incarceration on communities of color.

September 2, 2009

Locking 2.3 million people behind bars is a vast social project. It takes work to hide the equivalent of a large US city in plain sight. The explanations served up on the nightly news and by tough-on-crime politicians graphically focus on violent crime, despite its decline. More prisons, they say, will create safe and drug free communities.

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix (PM Press), winner of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s PASS Award, asks whether the billions of dollars invested annually in mass incarceration delivers on these promises.

Hidden behind these fear-provoking images, the book documents the steep human costs exacted on individual health and freedom, family unity, and community well being. What else could be done with the social wealth and creativity now trapped into cycles of cage-building and neighborhood abandonment?

Through powerful graphics and a wealth of grim statistics The Real Cost of Prisons Comix depicts how the past 30 years of unprecedented prison growth have reshaped the landscape of our urban and rural communities. By showing the concrete work that goes into building and maintaining the prison-industrial complex—from the peddlers of fear to the parole officer—the book serves as a smart, accessible primer on the politics and economics driving prison expansion. Prisons are filled with people who have dreams, raise children, and belong to communities most will rejoin.

The RCPC shows visceral narratives of their lives and the collision of racism, poverty, sexism to trace the systematic ways in which mass incarceration builds on and exacerbates these powerful inequities. Most importantly, it suggests concrete alternatives that can help rebuild safe, healthy communities.

Shrinking the system becomes as important a harm reduction strategy as needle exchange and drug treatment.

Three accomplished comic artists collaborate with long time activists and draw on the work of dozens of researchers imprisoned people, and advocates, to examine one dimension of mass incarceration. Kevin Pyle’s "Prison Town: Paying the Price" shows how millions of dollars poured into moving people hours away from their homes fails to generate promised economic growth for struggling rural communities.

In "Prisoners and the War on Drugs," Sabrina Jones takes on racial disparities in drug laws and policing practices that result in African American and Latino people comprising 93% of those incarcerated in New York, and that lock up more drug users than dealers.

Susan Willmarth’s "Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women and Their Children" examines how women are the fastest growing group of people being imprisoned. Most women are imprisoned for non-violent crimes, half of them drug offenses. But lifetime bans on welfare, public housing, and student loans for felony drug convictions only exacerbate already serious problems of poverty, racism, abuse, and drugs women face in their daily lives.

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix grew out of a popular education project Lois Ahrens began in 2000. Since the first printing in 2005, over 115,000 copies have been distributed free of charge, and project’s website receives over 30,000 page views each month. One of the great things about this book as an organizing tool is that it includes letters from readers of the comic books—imprisoned people, political organizers, policy makers, teachers, social service providers—which give us a sense of how resonant these comics have been, and all of the ways they have been put to work on the ground.


The economic depression and fiscal crises facing so many states make the alternatives to mass incarceration the book outlines all the more timely. But it’s also a time when the government is pouring even more money into locking up immigrants. Doing away with prisons isn’t just an issue of pure economics, but will also require confronting the racism, economic inequalities, and sexism that work to fuel the futureless future that they represent.

Larson, a man who is imprisoned in Sing Sing, reminds us: “Anyone planning a prison they’re not going to build for ten or fifteen years is planning for a child, planning prison for somebody who’s a child right now.” What dreams are never realized when billions go to jails and prisons instead of to rebuilding our decimated cities? The Real Cost of Prisons Comix gives us a solid place to begin building the healthy, safe, and free futures we want.

Jenna M. Loyd is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Place, Culture and Politics at The Graduate Center, The City University of New York. She is also co-editing a collection, Beyond Walls and Cages, that analyzes the connections between US migration policy and mass incarceration, and activist efforts to the brutalities of both systems. She can be reached at jloyd@gc.cuny.edu.
http://colorlines.com/article.php?ID=598

Posted by lois at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)

August 07, 2009

44 years after landmark act, voting rights still needed. 5.3 Americans still disenfranchised due to felony convictions

44 years after landmark act, voting rights still needed
By Erika Wood
08/06/2009

Today marks the 44th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act. It was passed to reverse Jim Crow laws, which effectively denied African Americans the right to vote for decades.

The Act has accomplished great things. It eliminated poll taxes, literacy tests and other ballot box barriers. Within a few years of its passage, voter registration rates among African Americans doubled, tripled and in some states quadrupled.

Fast forward to the 2008 presidential election and its surge of African-American voter participation. Although the protections of the Act remain vital, according to one recent report, African-American women voters turned out at higher rates in November than any other racial, ethnic or gender group.

44 years after landmark act, voting rights still needed
By Erika Wood
08/06/2009

Today marks the 44th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act. It was passed to reverse Jim Crow laws, which effectively denied African Americans the right to vote for decades.

The Act has accomplished great things. It eliminated poll taxes, literacy tests and other ballot box barriers. Within a few years of its passage, voter registration rates among African Americans doubled, tripled and in some states quadrupled.

Fast forward to the 2008 presidential election and its surge of African-American voter participation. Although the protections of the Act remain vital, according to one recent report, African-American women voters turned out at higher rates in November than any other racial, ethnic or gender group.

But one Jim Crow relic continues to elude the strong arms of the Voting Rights Act. Nationwide, 5.3 million American citizens are denied the right to vote because of a criminal conviction in their past. Four million are people who are out of prison, living in the community. Criminal disenfranchisement laws differ state-to-state. All told, 35 states continue to disenfranchise people released from prison.

Let's be clear, these laws were put in place right alongside poll taxes and literacy tests. In the late 1800s, as part of larger backlash against the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, criminal disenfranchisement laws spread throughout the country. At the same time, states expanded their criminal codes to punish offenses that they believed freed slaves were most likely to commit, including vagrancy, petty larceny and bigamy. This targeted criminalization and criminal disenfranchisement combined to produce the legal loss of voting rights, which effectively suppressed the power of African Americans for decades.

The laws' intended effects continue to this day. Nationwide, 13 percent of African-American men have lost the right to vote because of a criminal conviction. In eight states, more than 15 percent of African Americans cannot vote, and three of those states disenfranchise more than 20 percent of the African-American voting-age population. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 10 of the next generation of African-American men will lose the right to vote at some point in their lifetime.

Despite the clear evidence of discriminatory intent and impact, courts continue to uphold these laws, finding that Congress did not intend to prohibit criminal disenfranchisement when it passed the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest to issue such a ruling.

Luckily, we have three branches of government, and Congress now has the opportunity to declare loud and clear that it is time to consign these laws to the Jim Crow past. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representative John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced the Democracy Restoration Act, a bill that seeks to restore voting rights in federal elections to all Americans who are out of prison, living in the community. The Democracy Restoration Act is the Voting Rights Act of the 21st Century. Congress should move quickly to end voting discrimination once and for all.
http://www.thegrio.com/2009/08/voting-rights-in-the-21st-century.php

Posted by lois at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

July 31, 2009

Rhode Island: Rhode Island Study Shows Probation/Parolee Electoral Participation

Rhode Island: Rhode Island Study Shows Probation/Parolee Electoral Participation

A new analysis released by the Family Life Center of Rhode Island demonstrates a high level of interest in the electoral process by persons on probation or parole. Following a 2006 ballot change in the state law, 6,330 probationers and parolees - representing more than a third of the 17,600 state total - registered to vote during the 2008 election cycle. Of these, 3,001 voted during that time.

The Family Life Center has since initiated a broad outreach campaign to inform the community of the reform and to register people with felony convictions. In addition, the Department of Corrections now acts as a voter registration agency and offers all inmates the opportunity to register following their discharge. The results of the outreach campaign in Rhode Island demonstrate that substantial numbers of people who have come through the criminal justice system have an interest in becoming involved in the electoral process.
More info here....http://www.ri-familylifecenter.org/

Posted by lois at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009

The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 was introduced last week, a measure that would restore voting rights to millions of Americans with felony convictions. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the bills in both chambers of Congress. An estimated 5.3 million citizens cannot vote as a result of felony convictions, and nearly 4 million of those individuals are living and working in their communities. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 would establish a uniform standard restoring voting rights in federal elections to anyone who is not incarcerated.

Posted by lois at 04:45 PM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2009

VA: Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Conviction. History and Restoration Procedures from RIHD

Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Conviction
In 2008, we Americans headed to the polls in record numbers to vote for our president. Nationally, this included many first-time voters with prior felony convictions.

On Nov. 3, 2009, Virginians will head to the polls to vote for governor and many statewide legislators. How far has Virginia come in restoring the rights of persons with felony convictions to enable them to vote this year?

Will you be able to vote and make a difference come November? Will a a record number of Virginians with a prior felony participate in the process, or will they continue to be denied and disenfranchised?

Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, proclaims that, prior to the Civil War, African-Americans were almost totally disenfranchised. Even after enactment of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote, many states continued to use various methods to prevent African-Americans from voting, including literacy tests, poll taxes, the disenfranchisement of former inmates, intimidation, threats and even violence!

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a new beginning for African-American citizens. For the first time, the federal government required states to comply with the 15th Amendment. However, lifetime disenfranchisement of former felons continues today in two states: Virginia and Kentucky!

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “The United States is the only democracy in which some people who have served their sentences can still lose their right to vote. Approximately 4.7 million people in the U.S. cannot vote because of a felony conviction.”

Of these 4.7 million people, the Commonwealth of Virginia accounts for 350,000. These convicted felons, most of whom were convicted of nonviolent offenses, are productive citizens, assets to society, are in our communities, have paid their debts to society, earned a second chance in almost all aspects of their life, yet remain disenfranchised for life. Virginians you should be outraged!

Currently in Virginia, all persons convicted of a felony, regardless if the felony was a nonviolent or violent offense and received five, 10, 20 or even 40 years ago, must apply through a lengthy process directly to the governor, who has the sole discretion whether to restore their rights. If the application is denied, the applicant must wait two years to reapply.

Many civil rights organizations and faith-based advocacy groups continue to work, both legislatively and through the governor, to remove barriers to voting in Virginia faced by people with felony convictions. During the 2009 General Assembly session, several bills were proposed for the automatic restoration of voting rights. Unfortunately, all “FAILED.”

Action Call by Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged (RIHD) and Prisoners and Families for Equal Rights and Justice (PAFERJ)

Contact your state legislators today in support of automatic restoration of civil rights for persons with a felony. Article One, Section Six of the Constitution of Virginia provides that “all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right to suffrage ….” Therefore, we ask that you contact the governor in support of doing away with the expensive bureaucracy of past administrations and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration for our returning neighbors by simply restoring the voting rights of felons upon their release from prison.

RIHD & PAFERJ provide filing assistance with the Restoration Voting and Civil Rights application every Tuesday and Thursday from 4-7 p.m (by appointment and walk-in) at Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church; 1720 Mechanicsville Turnpike; Richmond, Virginia 23223 with pro-bono public notary on premise. Other organizations such as the Virginia Organizing Project, Re-entry Initiative of Lynchburg and others provide similar services, both in Richmond and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Virginia Eligibility Requirements:

Non-violent/**Non-drug Felonies - Short From: Has it been 3 years since conviction, release, paid all fines and restitutions? If your felony convictions did not involve charges for violence or for drug manufacturing or distribution, you may fill out the short application for the restoration of your rights. **Simply "drug possession" is included in short form. To expedite application bring original or copy with government seal criminal record, receipt/proof of paid restitution & fines, parole release (applicable).

Violent / Drug Distribution Felonies - Long Form: Has it been 5 years since conviction, release, paid all fines and restitutions? If you have been convicted of a violent offense, a drug manufacturing or distribution offense, or an election law offense (voter fraud), you must use the longer form below to apply for restoration of rights. "Intent" drug manufacturing/distribution is considered a violent offense. Bring original or copies with government seal of criminal record, receipt/proof of paid restitution & fines, parole release. To expedite application process, no less than three(3) reference letters (e.g. employer, church, friends, community, volunteer work, etc. except family related by blood or marriage)

If you or anyone you know continues to be disenfranchised of their civil rights, need assistance in obtaining any of the required documents, and/or for service location in your area,
please contact us for assistance.

For additional information, schedule appointment, and how you can help, call or e-mail Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy (RIHD) at (804) 562-2123; rihd23075@aol.com

www.rihd.org

Posted by lois at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2009

NAACP CALLS FOR END TO PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING AT NATIONAL CONVENTION

NAACP CALLS FOR END TO PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING AT NATIONAL CONVENTION
by Peter Wagner, July 17, 2009
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/07/17/naacp/ ]

On Tuesday, the delegates to the NAACP's 100th annual convention
approved a resolution calling for an end to prison-based
gerrymandering:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP, on principle, decries
the enumeration of prisoners as local residents as violation of
our nation's fundamental one person one vote ethos of
representational democracy, harkening back to the disgraceful
three fifths era of constitutionally sanctioned slavery; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP calls on the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census to enumerate
prisoners within census blocks where domiciled at their time of
arrest; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NAACP units call upon their
Congressional representatives to effect such a permanent change
to the Census Bureau enumeration procedures.

Posted by lois at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2009

PA Report: Census Prisoner Count Dilutes Urban Political Clout

PA Report: Census Prisoner Count Dilutes Urban Political Clout
The Legal Intelligencer
By Amaris Elliott-Engel
June 26, 2009

The voting power of Philadelphians is diluted on the state level because state and federal prisoners are counted by the U.S. Census Bureau where they are incarcerated, instead of the prisoners' home communities in which they lived before they were incarcerated, an advocacy group has concluded.

Eight state House of Representatives districts would not meet federal "one-person, one-vote" standards if nonvoting state prisoners did not count as district residents for purposes of drawing up legislative districts, according to an analysis conducted by Prison Policy Initiative, an advocacy group based in Northampton, Mass.

PPI is pushing for the U.S. Census to change where it counts prisoners. The group has analyzed the effect of counting prisoners on state legislative districting from New York to Nevada. The PPI planned to release its first Pennsylvania-based report, "Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Pennsylvania," today.

Because of the nation's burgeoning prison population, counting prisoners where they are incarcerated is having a greater impact on the equitable division of legislative districts than ever before, the report said.

Because prisoners can't vote, residents who have a right to vote in districts that have a state or federal prison within their borders benefit from greater legislative clout than voting residents in districts without a state prison, the report argued.

The issue may be of great relevance to Philadelphians because more Philadelphians are incarcerated than residents of any other part of the state. The residents of Philadelphia are three times more likely to be incarcerated than other residents of the state, the report said. And 40 percent of the state prisoners are from Philadelphia, while nearly all of the state's prison beds are outside of the city, the report said.

House Districts 147 in Montgomery County, 5 in Crawford and Erie counties, 69 in Somerset and Bedford counties, 73 in Cambria County, 74 in Clearfield County, 81 in Blair, Huntingdon and Mifflin counties, 85 in Union and Snyder counties and 123 in Schuylkill County would not meet federal minimum requirements without the inclusion of prisoners, according to PPI's analysis.House Districts must have 60,498 people, plus or minus 3,025 people, the report said.

Prisoners make up 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent of the eight districts that wouldn't otherwise meet federal population requirements, according to the PPI.

"Eight legislative districts lack sufficient population to meet accepted one-person, one-vote standards without counting disenfranchised prisoners as part of their population base," the report said. "At the same time, heavily minority urban districts would in all likelihood be entitled to additional representation if prisoners were counted as residents of their home communities for purposes of redistricting."

The federal decennial census data is used to reapportion Pennsylvania's legislative districts every 10 years by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission made up of the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and a chairman or chairwoman selected by the four members.

State Statute Violation?

PPI argues that Pennsylvania should adjust where prisoners are counted prior to redistricting to prevent unfair political clout being given to some districts over others.

Peter Wagner, executive director of PPI, said where prisoners are counted is an issue of fair representation for constituents in urban areas from which more prisoners hail.

But Wagner said the issue also should be a matter of democratic concern for constituents in any Pennsylvania legislative district that doesn't have prisoners counting toward the district's population base to meet the minimum population requirements.

Wagner also argues that Pennsylvania's use of Census Bureau data that counts prisoners where they are incarcerated violates the state's voter registration statute.

The statute states: "No individual who is confined in a penal institution shall be deemed a resident of the election district where the institution is located. The individual shall be deemed to reside where the individual was last registered before being confined in the penal institution, or if there was no registration prior to confinement, the individual shall be deemed to reside at the last known address before confinement."

The issue has drawn the interest of at least one state legislator.

State Sen. Anthony H. Williams, D-Phila., said he has been "activated" to look into legislative remedies to the issue because it might have implications for drawing up district lines and the distribution of government monies that are based on population.

Williams, who is the minority chairman of the State Government Committee , said he would consider legislative options and he would converse about the issue with legislative leaders.

"Sometimes problems are solved with conversations," Williams said.

State Rep. Mark B. Cohen, D-Phila., majority caucus chairman, said it's in the city's interest to include prisoners who come from Philadelphia as legal residents in Philadelphia's legislative districts. But Cohen said he thought it was a federal issue that can't be changed on the state level.

Wagner said changing where inmates are counted in the census would affect legislative districting, but he said it shouldn't affect the distribution of government grants because most government grants involve complex formulas that tailor programs to the needs of a specific population.

Counting Heads

Legislators whose districts were cited in the PPI report said the issue of where prisoners are counted for purposes of drawing legislative district lines wasn't one that had been brought to their attention before.

Two of the legislators reached for interviews were of the opinion that inmates should be counted where they are currently living, and two were of the opinion that it didn't really matter to them.

"If you're counting heads you're counting the heads that are there," said state Rep. Gary Haluska, D-Cambria, of District 73. Haluska said inmates may not be able to vote, but there are plenty of other people counted in the U.S. Census who can't vote like children or don't vote like adults who don't register to vote.

When asked if they provided constituent service to inmates incarcerated in their district, the legislators said they typically didn't receive such queries from inmates incarcerated in their districts.

State Rep. Bob Mensch, R-Montgomery, of District 147 said he has never gotten a call from a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford in the three years he has been a legislator.

But Mensch said that he has had to spend time on issues related to the prison.

And the legislator wondered if prisoners were not counted in the U.S. Census for purposes of drawing up legislative districts if it would be fair for him to spend as much time as he does on issues related to SCI Graterford.

"If they are not counted in my base, who would do that work?" Mensch asked. "Am I still supposed to do that work?"

Mensch also said inmates deserve legislative representation.

"They just don't have the same issues other property owners and other residents in the district have," he said.

State Rep. Russell H. Fairchild, R-Union, of District 85 said it doesn't matter to him one way or the other where prisoners are counted. But he wondered how practical it would be to ascertain a prisoner's home district in order to count him or her in that home district when some inmates moved around a lot before being incarcerated.

Fairchild also said he got more correspondence from constituents who are imprisoned in other parts of the state than from prisoners imprisoned within his district.

State Rep. Camille "Bud" George, D-Clearfield, of District 74 said having a prison population within a district wasn't necessarily helpful. George, who has been a legislator for 35 years, said that having a prison within his district could mean losing a part of the district that was favorable to voting for him.

State Rep. John R. Evans, R-Crawford, of the 5th District, state Rep. Carl Walker Metzgar, R-Somerset, of the 69th District, state Rep. Mike Fleck, R-Blair, of the 81st District, and state Rep. Neal P. Goodman, D-Schuylkill, of the 123rd District, could not be reached for comment.

Policy Fix?

Wagner said it would be fairer for the U.S. Census to count prisoners as residents in the place they lived before they entered custody.

Pennsylvania also could adjust the census data on its own and remove prison populations prior to conducting redistricting, Wagner said. He said the Census Bureau could publish a special version of its redistricting data file with block-level counts of prison populations that would assist the state in identifying and removing prison populations.

Nathaniel Persily, a national election law expert and Columbia Law School professor, Gregory Harvey, an election law expert with Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads and G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, said it might not be fair to count prisoners where they are incarcerated. But they said it would be difficult to track where all of the state and federal prisoners lived before they were incarcerated, especially because many didn't have stable addresses prior to incarceration.

Harvey called it a "virtually impractical, bordering on impossible task to redo the census to that degree to establish which census tracks in Philadelphia should be adjusted to take into account prisoners."

Persily and Wagner said the U.S. Census Bureau won't change where it counts prisoners for the next census.

Monica Davis, a U.S. Census Bureau spokeswoman, said the bureau must count prisoners in their place of "usual residence," not their legal or voting residence, because the "usual residence" is where inmates "live and sleep most of the time." Davis said the U.S. Census has used the guiding principle of "usual residence" to conduct censuses since 1790.

Davis said the Census Bureau has studied the feasibility of counting prisoners at their permanent homes of record, but the study found that counting inmates at their permanent home addresses would increase costs to correctional facilities because of the demands of data collection efforts and that collecting such addresses might violate Title 13 protections for personal identification information.

States, however, could easily subtract the inmate population out of the data used to draw legislative districts, Persily said. That is Persily's preferred policy fix because it wouldn't cost the Census Bureau anything and because prisoners would still be captured in census data like health statistics.

PPI couldn't determine from available Department of Corrections data which legislative districts Pennsylvania's prisoners come from. But PPI does say that much of the state's prison population should be credited to urban and black communities instead of white, rural communities in Pennsylvania that are typical home to state prisons.

"The nature of the problem is primarily a moral one," Persily said.

Angus Love, executive director of the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, said legislative districts should be defined by eligible voters, and that inmates shouldn't be counted in the configuration of legislative districts, either in the districts that inmates are imprisoned in or in their home communities.

Madonna said the issue of where prisoners are counted has built up steam over the last five years on the federal level and might become a political debate. •

http://www.politicspa.com/Legal%20Intelligencer.htm

Posted by lois at 05:40 PM | Comments (0)

Review of The Real Cost of Prisons Comix in Feminist Review

Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Real Cost of Prisons Comix
Edited by Lois Ahrens
PM Press

As activists know all too well, crafting a political message and effectively mobilizing an audience is an elusive task. In The Real Cost Of Prisons, Lois Ahrens and her contributors beautifully stage a difficult dialogue—about mass incarceration, mandatory sentencing, and the “war on drugs”—with comics. Comics are an accessible, popular form of education, and most importantly, addictive, and hence become a subversive way to raise awareness. The Real Cost of Prisons Project has distributed 115,000 comics to the incarcerated, affected families, and social justice organizations free of charge. Comics are just one part of the organization’s mission to end mass incarceration; since Lois Ahrens founded organization in 2000 a coalition of artists, activists, and researchers has produced and distributed educational materials about the costs—material and affective—of the prison industrial complex and it’s devastating impact on family preservation, women’s reproductive rights, rural economies, and much more.

“What does it cost to lock up 2.3 million people each day in the world’s biggest prison system?” ask Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore in the introduction to The Real Cost Of Prisons. In addition to the staggering economic costs (the U.S. spends $60 billion per year on prisons) that could otherwise be directed at health care, public education, and other social services, the human costs are immeasurable. In the comic “Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women and Their Children,” illustrated by Susan Willmarth, we learn about the cost of incarceration for women and their children:

*One out of every 109 women in American is incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.
*Half of all women in prison are incarcerated more than 100 miles from their families.
*Seven million children have a parent in prison, on probation, or on parole.
*Seventy-nine percent of all women in New York State’s prisons are Black or Hispanic.

The Real Cost Of Prisons documents the vital efforts of the movement to end mass incarceration, and is an exceptional resource for all activists seeking creative ways to build and sustain a political movement.

Review by Jeanne Vaccaro

Posted by lois at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2009

LETTER TO EDITOR: Sonia Sotomayor v. Jim Crow concerning Hayden v. Pataki

LETTER TO EDITOR: Sonia Sotomayor v. Jim Crow
By | Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Washington Times
Your editorial, "The franchise for felons" (Opinion, Friday), fails to grasp the powerful point Judge Sonia Sotomayor made in her dissent in Hayden v. Pataki, which is this: A simple reading of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that states may not impose voting qualifications that deny the right to vote on account of race.

New York's felony disenfranchisement law, like similar laws throughout the country, does just that. Nationwide, 13 percent of black men are disenfranchised because of a criminal conviction. More than 80 percent of those currently denied the right to vote under New York's law are black and Latino.

No one can deny the long history in our country of states finding creative ways to deny blacks the right to vote. Criminal disenfranchisement laws are part of this ugly history. Many of them were put in place during the Jim Crow era, right alongside poll taxes and literacy tests, to keep blacks from voting.

A careful reading of New York's constitutional history reveals that at the very time the 14th and 15th Amendments forced New York to remove its nefarious property requirements for black voters, the state changed its law from allowing to requiring the disenfranchisement of those convicted of "infamous crimes."

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to put an end to discriminatory voting requirements. Poll taxes and literacy tests have been challenged and eliminated under the law. Judge Sotomayor simply recognized that this remnant of Jim Crow also should have its day in court.

ERIKA L. WOOD
Deputy director
Democracy Program
Brennan Center for Justice
New York University School of Law
New York City
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/02/sonia-sotomayor-v-jim-crow/

Posted by lois at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2009

Judge Sotomayor's dissent on Hayden v. Pataki

* ProgressiveSouth's diary--

Voting experts point to two areas where Judge Sotomayor's rulings have stood out:

FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT: Judge Sotomayor's biggest voting rights case has likely been Hayden v Pataki. In this 2006 case in the 2nd Circuit, ex-felon Joseph "Jazz" Hayden brought a challenge under the Voting Rights Act against New York's law banning ex-felons from voting. Civil rights advocates had mobilized around the case, saying felon disenfranchisement laws showed a clear history of racial discrimination.

The majority dismissed the case, but Judge Sotomayour dissented, saying the issue of discrimination was actually quite simple, as SCOTUSBLOG reports:

[Sotomayor] opined that the issue was actually much simpler than the majority and concurring opinions would suggest: the VRA "applies to all 'voting qualifications,'" and - in her view - the state law "disqualifies a group of people from voting." "These two propositions," she concluded, "should constitute the entirety of our analysis."

From: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735575/-Sotomayor-nomination-sets-up-big-battle-over-voting-rights

Posted by lois at 05:16 PM | Comments (0)

Stealing their right to vote

Stealing their right to vote

Lee Wengraf examines a hidden scandal of American "democracy"--the disenfranchisement of millions of people for no other reason that that they were convicted of a crime.

May 28, 2009

IN NOVEMBER, American voters made history by electing the first African American president, a symbol of the promises long denied to those who fought in the civil rights' movement of the 1960s.

But the dreams of that struggle are far from fulfilled, and one need look no further than the ballot box to see why--an estimated 5.3 million Americans are legally barred from voting for no other reason than that they have been convicted of a felony. Nearly 4 million of these disenfranchised--around three of every four--are out of prison, but are still denied the right to vote, often for decades and sometimes for life.

Maine and Vermont are the only states where all prisoners and former prisoners can vote. Virginia and Kentucky are at the other end of the spectrum, permanently disenfranchising anyone with a felony conviction unless they receive a pardon from the governor. In eight other states--Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming--prisoners convicted of certain crimes (usually murder and sex crimes) are barred for life. Other states restore voting rights upon release from prison, probation and parole, while others impose waiting periods before former prisoners can vote.

In all, 35 states ban the right to vote--in some form or another--to former prisoners even after they are out from behind bars.

People around the country and the world learned about voter disenfranchisement after the 2000 presidential election, when the fiasco in Florida allowed George W. Bush to steal the White House from the actual winner of the election, Al Gore.

Some 57,700 voters without a felony record--54 percent of them Black--along with 8,000 former prisoners who had the right to vote, were illegally purged from the voter rolls before the election.

"Al Gore would have picked up 60,000 additional votes in Florida, home to 1,088,667 ex-felons and 293,396 current felons in the fall of 2000," author Paul Street wrote on ZNet. "This was more than enough to have pre-empted the subsequent melodramas over 'hanging chads,' Jewish votes for Buchanan, butterfly ballots, and the role of Ralph Nader's third-party candidacy."

Even after these disgraceful facts came to light, however, Florida continues to maintain harsh restrictions on voting rights. Some former prisoners must wait 15 years after completing their sentence (during which they can't be convicted of any new crime) to apply for their voting rights to be restored without a hearing. Or they can petition the authorities directly for a review and in-person hearing.

As of the 2004 election, 1,179,687 people in Florida were barred from voting due to felony disenfranchisement; 293,545 of them, or one in every six, were African American. All told, 31 percent of African American men in Florida are disenfranchised.

Michael Hargrett, an African American former prisoner in Florida, knows what it takes to regain the right to vote.

After serving a four-year sentence that ended in 1997, he petitioned the state, with the help of the state ACLU. There were several years of interviews and investigations before he finally received a hearing before the Executive Clemency Board. "They thoroughly vetted me like I was interviewing to be an FBI agent," Hargrett recalled in a Sentencing Project publication.

Felony disenfranchisement mirrors the larger trends in voting and access to democracy--the U.S. denies a greater percentage of its population access to the vote than any other "democracy" in the world. According to Project Vote, the U.S. is the only country that permits permanent disenfranchisement of felons even after completion of their sentences.

But as the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University--author of numerous reports on this subject--has put it:

This disenfranchisement by law of millions of American citizens is only half the story. Across the country, there is persistent confusion among election officials about their state's felony disenfranchisement policies...which leads to the de facto disenfranchisement of untold hundreds of thousands of eligible would-be voters throughout the country.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THESE LAWS disenfranchising former prisoners are nothing short of a vestige of Jim Crow surviving to the modern day. As Erika Wood of the Brennan Center put it in an article for the Politico Web site:

There is no greater scourge on our country's moral standing than our history of slavery and its progeny of Jim Crow, mass imprisonment and disenfranchisement.

And make no mistake, America's felony disenfranchisement laws trace their roots straight back to Jim Crow. They were enacted alongside the notorious poll taxes, grandfather clauses and literacy tests. Targeted criminalization and felony disenfranchisement combined to create the legal loss of voting rights, usually for life, effectively suppressing the African-American vote for decades...

If current incarceration rates continue, three in 10 of the next generation of Black men will lose the right to vote at some point in their lives. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40 percent of Black men may permanently lose their right to vote.

The racism inherent in this system of disenfranchisement echoes the inequality that runs through the entire criminal justice system. With just 5 percent of the world's population, America has nearly 25 percent of the world's reported prison population. And while only 12 percent of the U.S. population is African American, Blacks make up 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison.

There is another, insidious side to prisoner disenfranchisement--the way that political representation and public funding is determined by Census counting methods that do include local prison populations. As Tracy Huling wrote in Mother Jones of the 2000 Census:

The prisoner "share" of the nearly $2 trillion in federal funds tied to population counts distributed nationwide over the next decade will go to the mostly rural hometowns of their keepers. Moreover, even though prisoners in all but a few states can't vote, their numbers can affect how the lines are drawn and how political power is distributed. When the census count is used to draw legislative districts, prisoners will be re-apportioned to the largely rural (and Republican) areas hosting their prisons...

Add to that incentives such as those which private prison companies have offered to potential prison towns: home price guarantees (should the price of homes surrounding prisons be deflated); the building of vocational training institutes next to prisons; and criminal justice scholarships to local universities, to name just a few.

For example, according to the Brennan Center report "Incarcerated People and the Census," the prison-driven population increase drew an additional $120,700 to rural Virginia's Sussex County for primary and secondary education alone. However, urban Henrico County, which hosts no prisons but is home to many residents sent away to them, lost $292,900 in education funds.

In 2005, George W. Bush signed into law a requirement that the U.S. Census Bureau study the feasibility of counting people in prison using their pre-incarceration addresses rather than their prison addresses. Amazingly, the Census Bureau concluded the task would be too complex and unworkable.

Yet according to the Sentencing Project's "Expanding the Vote: State Felony Disenfranchisement Reform, 1997-2008," public policy is out of step with public opinion. It reports that 8 in 10 Americans support voting rights for people who have completed their sentence, and nearly two-thirds support voting rights for people on probation or parole.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOME OF this dissent has grown into sustained opposition, and grassroots organizing and advocacy efforts have translated into voter reforms for felons in 20 states over the past decade.

For example, a group called Justice Maryland launched its "Got Democracy, Maryland?" project, resulting in the restoration of voting rights to about half of those disenfranchised. According to Human Rights Watch, Maryland was one of four states in which Black men comprised more than half of all disenfranchised people.

In early May, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law the Voting Rights Restoration Act, eliminating the requirement that people coming out of the criminal justice system pay any fees, fines and restitution, including surcharges and interest, before being allowed to vote. "We have come to understand we can't create a debtor's prison here," Gregoire said.

Virginia and Kentucky--the two states barring all former prisoners from voting--have now eased restrictions, allowing some former felons to apply for restoration, which then have to be approved by the governor.

And in March, Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. John Conyers announced the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008, which would restore voting rights in federal elections to people with felony convictions who are out of prison.

Prisoners themselves have fought for voting rights from behind bars. In the case of Muntaqim v. Coombe et al, former Black Panther Jalil Abdul Muntaqim sued the New York State prison system. Citing the vastly disproportionate number of African American and Hispanic inmates, Muntaqim wrote that state voting laws violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But a federal appeals court turned down his case, claiming the "absence of findings that disenfranchisement laws were a tool of discrimination."

The crisis in U.S. prisons today--with an exploding prison population of 2.3 million--has been intensified by the economic crisis and unsustainable prison budgets. Nationally, 31 states reported a total budget gap of nearly $30 billion in December 2008, which has helped drive politicians, in spite of their tough-on-crime instincts, towards reforms such as drug treatment centers and other alternatives to incarceration.

Calling U.S. prisons a "national disgrace," Virginia Sen. Jim Webb has called for a National Criminal Justice Commission to investigate prison reform. And in April 2009, New York state made high-profile changes to its infamous Rockefeller drug laws, which had set the tone for decades of harsh, mandatory minimum sentencing.

This climate of change is welcome, but there is much, much further to go. The logic of decades of "law and order" prison-building policies is unparalleled brutality and injustice, which has devastated the lives of millions. Raising the call for equal voting rights for all--behind bars or on the outside--must be a demand of a new civil rights movement that challenges America's incarceration nation.
http://socialistworker.org/print/2009/05/28/stealing-their-right-to-vote

Posted by lois at 12:02 AM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2009

CA: Obama's Budget includes $105 million to finish two federal prisons including one in Mendota

May7, 2009: The $17 billion worth of cuts proposed Thursday accompanied the administration's overall budget package, which expands on a budget outline released in February. For instance, the overall budget includes $105 million to finish two new federal prisons, including a long-stalled facility in the town of Mendota.
---------------------
Obama's budget contains $49.4 million for Mendota federal prison
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A long-delayed federal prison in the economically troubled town of Mendota will be equipped starting next February with the help of $49.4 million in the Obama administration's proposed new budget.

Local residents say it's about time.

"This is something we've been waiting for," Mendota Mayor Robert Silva said in a telephone interview Monday. "This is going to mean a lot for our community."

The funding for Federal Correctional Institution Mendota is part of a $105 million package included within the Bureau of Prisons' proposed fiscal 2010 budget. The $105 million would be split more or less equally between Mendota and another new facility in West Virginia.

Construction is still underway on the 960-acre, 1,152-bed Mendota prison, located several miles west of the Fresno County town. The $49.4 million in so-called activation funding will pay for everything else that's needed.

"(It) would be used to support the hiring of staff, the purchase of furniture and equipment, and obtaining all vehicles necessary to safely patrol and accommodate the needs of a new institution," Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Felicia Ponce said.

The prison would also open next year, though a formal opening date has not yet been set.

With total completion costs now approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, the Mendota prison is far more expensive than originally estimated. It is also smaller. The Bureau of Prisons dropped earlier plans for an accompanying minimum-security camp and associated prison-industry facility.

Stop-and-start funding and a rise in material costs delayed completion and contributed to a final price tag that's 45 percent above original estimates, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office reported last year. Restoring the minimum-security camp and prison-industry facilities would add about $33 million to the total cost, the Bureau of Prisons estimates.

The medium-security Mendota prison that remains will employ roughly 350 workers. While upward of half of the workers may be brought in from other federal facilities, the prison's job potential has attracted many local allies in a town where the current unemployment rate is a staggering 41 percent.

"It's not a total cure-all for the community, but we will benefit," Silva said.

With pay incentives, designed to help the federal facility compete with higher-paying state prison jobs, guard salaries will start at about $44,000 a year, the Bureau of Prisons estimates.

In addition to direct employment benefits, Silva said area vendors will gain business by selling food and supplies to the prison once it opens. The Mendota facility should have an annual operating budget of between $15 million and $25 million, congressional offices have been told.

On Capitol Hill, the Mendota prison has its champions. The city of Mendota this year has paid $10,000 to the lobbying firm DPV Solutions to help secure final funding, lobbying records show.

Two years ago, lawmakers including Reps. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, and Jim Costa, D-Fresno, had to lean on the Bush administration to secure final construction funding. In January, Costa met again with top Bureau of Prisons officials to press for the final activation money.

"This is a step in the right direction," Costa's press secretary, Bret Rumbeck, said of the administration's budget request.

The prison funding still must be approved by Congress, following release of the Obama administration's 2010 budget late last week. Rumbeck said he is not aware of any opposition.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1043204.html

McClatchy Newspapers 2009

Valley towns struggle to break dependency on ag
Published online on Saturday, May. 09, 2009
By Tim Sheehan / The Fresno Bee

MENDOTA -- Less than two miles from downtown, a section of flat-as-a-pancake farmland is giving way to a concrete monolith that eventually will house about 1,200 federal prison inmates.

That's just about the only tangible effort to create nonagriculture jobs in this farming town of about 10,000 people -- and it's nowhere near enough to help employ the thousands who have lost work amid an unprecedented crisis.

For years, Mendota and other west side farm towns have sought to broaden their job base and wean themselves from the vagaries of irrigated agriculture -- the very basis of their existence. But geographically and economically, the deck has been stacked against them.

The new Federal Correctional Institution-Mendota, scheduled to open sometime in 2010, will be staffed by about 314 employees. How many of those jobs will -- or can -- be filled by west side residents?

And it's an even greater challenge now.

A national recession, three years of drought and severe cuts in farm water deliveries this year to the sprawling Westlands Water District have driven Mendota's unemployment rate to 41%. Never has the city's jobless rate been higher, according to state employment data.

The same thing is happening in Firebaugh, San Joaquin and Huron.

"These are strictly agricultural working communities," said Richard Howitt, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Davis. "The effects ripple all the way through the system."

It's not that there isn't any nonfarm commerce. But the merchants, restaurants, insurance and real estate offices and almost every other business rely on farmers or their workers and families spending money on goods and services, Howitt said. Between direct employment on farms and jobs in agriculture-related businesses such as packinghouses and processing plants, nearly every facet of life in these communities depends on farming.

It doesn't help that the cities are isolated in the vast acreages between California's asphalt arteries Interstate 5 and Highway 99.

Unhitching from the plow

In 1996, the nonprofit I-5 Business Development Corridor was created by the cities of Firebaugh, Mendota, Kerman and San Joaquin, the community of Tranquillity and Fresno County to promote economic development.

"We want to bring in other jobs, some other industries or anything that's not related to agriculture," said Danny Wade, one of the group's board members and general manager of the Tranquillity Irrigation District. "We want to be prepared for times when the agriculture economy turns upside down -- like it is now."

Economic diversification "is something we've been talking about out here for many years," said Bob Tharp, owner of Tharp's Farm Supply in Firebaugh. "Sure, it would be good, but how do you do it without money we don't have?

"Everyone around here has something to do with farming," he added. Though not a farmer himself, Tharp and nearly everyone else in Firebaugh and other west side towns depend on farmers and their workers for their livelihoods.

But what's happening now, as west side farmers fallow acreage and hire fewer workers, is something Mendota businessman Alan Hansen has never seen to such a degree.

"I think the only thing that's reasonably close is back in the '30s, after my grandfather started this business," said Hansen, general manager of Sorensen Machine Works and Auto Parts. "But even during the Depression, farming was doing well."

The 84-year-old business is a machine shop, parts house and hardware store that serves both farmers and farmworkers. Hansen said sales now are down perhaps 30% from last year.

"The only reason we're still here is because everything's bought and paid for, and we run very lean," he said. "But it's bad enough that we've had to let someone go, and everyone's job is in jeopardy."

Aside from the prison, the only other source of potential economic development is Interstate 5, Howitt added. "These communities might want to reproduce Modesto's trucking and warehouse industry," he said. "But all of these towns are quite a distance from I-5, and it's much better to do it right along the highway."

The west-side freeway is the key to efforts by the I-5 Business Development Corridor because trucking and warehousing are exactly the types of businesses the group is after.

But a crippled economy has stymied any would-be opportunities. "Our property out here is cheaper compared to other areas of the state," Tranquillity's Wade said. "But industries aren't doing anything to move or expand right now."

The new Federal Correctional Institution-Mendota, scheduled to open sometime in 2010, will be staffed by about 314 employees. How many of those jobs will -- or can -- be filled by west side residents?

And a lack of funds has forced the organization to lay off its executive director this month, Wade added. Mendota's Silva holds out hope for the eventual construction of State Route 180 as a four-lane, east-west freeway linking I-5 and Highway 99.

"There's federal money and [Fresno County] Measure C money, so it's going to get done someday," Silva said. "Freeway 180 would be a straight shot from Mendota to I-5 and Fresno, and I believe we're going to have warehousing along the way."

There are other signs of progress, as well. A solar-energy company, Cleantech America Inc., is ready to begin construction on a 40-acre, 5-megawatt "solar farm" in Mendota. The company has pledged money to train solar installers and will eventually create 65 installation and maintenance jobs, and as many as 100 manufacturing jobs.

And Mendota has prepared to accommodate hoped-for industrial growth by improving its infrastructure in recent years.

"You can invite people in," Silva said, "but without the infrastructure. you're not going to get anywhere."

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1392168.html

Posted by lois at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2009

WA: Voting Rights Restored to people with felony convictions

Voting rights restored to former felons in Washington state
by Elizabeth Hovde, Oregonian columnist
Tuesday May 05, 2009

Cheers to Washington state lawmakers for following Oregon and numerous other states in allowing former felons to vote.

Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire recently signed legislation allowing ex-convicts to get their voting rights restored once they've served their prison sentences and community supervision. The law takes effect July 26.

Currently, ex-cons have not been eligible to vote until hard-to-track and hard-to-pay court costs and restitution have been paid. A press release from Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed's office says those costs "carry an annual interest rate of 12 percent and some ex-cons are essentially barred from voting for life because they can't pay off the obligation." Some have likened the old system to a poll tax of sorts on the poor. It is.

Reed, a Republican, strongly backed the measure. Not only will it make the administration of elections easier (it's laborious and confusing determining who can and cannot vote based on lingering monetary obligations), it will help ex-convicts do exactly what the rest of society needs them to do: reintegrate into society. That's hard to do when you feel like a second-class citizen or when you can't engage in the political process in the most elemental of ways.

The bill rightly allows a crime victim or county clerk to request that a judge revoke a former felon's restoration of voting privileges if he or she does not keep up with restitution or other financial commitments.

Laws regarding voting rights for former felons vary from state to state, making voter registration somewhat confusing for those who have served time. In Washington and Oregon the law is now simple: If you aren't incarcerated, you can register to vote and be a part of the election process.

Voting is important. It helps people feel connected to their communities. And feeling connected is exactly what ex-cons need to help them steer clear of crime and lead constructive lives after prison.
http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/05/voting_rights_restored_to_form.html

Posted by lois at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)

Stitch by Stitch: Unraveling the Crazy Quilt of Laws that Locks Millions of Americans out of the Electoral System

Stitch by Stitch: Unraveling the Crazy Quilt of Laws that Locks Millions of Americans out of the Electoral System
May 6th, 2009
By Erika Wood- Brennan Center for Justice
The Hill

On Monday, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed into law the Voting Rights Restoration Act, a new law that eliminates the requirement that people coming out of the criminal justice system pay all fees, fines and restitution, including hefty surcharges and accrued interest, before being allowed to vote. The right to vote in Washington will no longer hinge on one’s ability to pay. With this new law, Washington becomes the twentieth state in the last decade to ease voting restrictions on people with criminal histories who are out of prison and living in the community.

But there remain more than five million American citizens who are disenfranchised because of a criminal conviction in their past. Nearly four million of these citizens are out of prison – living in the community, working, raising families, and paying taxes alongside the rest of us but still denied the right to vote, often for decades and sometimes for life.

State felony disenfranchisement laws form what some advocates have termed a “crazy quilt” across the country. Maine and Vermont do not withdraw the franchise based on criminal convictions; prisoners may vote there. Virginia and Kentucky are the last two remaining states that permanently disenfranchise all people with felony convictions unless they receive individual, discretionary clemency from the governor. The rest of the states run the gamut in between, but a total of 35 states continue to disenfranchise people after release from prison.

The right to vote forms the core of American democracy. Once a privilege reserved for a few white men, Americans have fought hard to make it a right guaranteed to all. Generations have marched through the streets, onto battlefields, and into courthouses to expand the franchise beyond the privileged few. Our modern democracy stands for nothing if not the fundamental tenet that each citizen is entitled to one vote, and each vote counts the same regardless of who casts it. Voting is the essence of political equality, and it is that equality that forms the very foundation upon which the legitimacy of our government relies.

Removing four million Americans from the electorate creates an undeniable inequity – an entire population of second-class citizens. Their lives are governed by leaders whom they have no role in choosing — from the President to members of their local school board. With each crack in the foundation, our democracy weakens.

There is a growing national chorus calling for reform of these laws, including many law enforcement and criminal justice leaders, and prominent clergy and religious organizations, all of whom understand that bringing people back into the political process makes them stakeholders in the community and helps steer them from future crimes.

Despite the recent progress in the states, millions of American citizens remain disenfranchised. And because of documented widespread and persistent confusion among elections officials across the country, untold hundreds of thousands of eligible voters believe they cannot vote because of a criminal conviction in their past.

Congress now has the opportunity to restore democracy, and there is a movement underway to do just that. The Democracy Restoration Act, soon to be introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representative John Conyers (D-MI), would automatically restore the right to vote in federal elections upon release from prison. People on probation would never lose the right to vote. This law would make every adult American citizen living in the community eligible to vote. The last blanket barrier to the franchise would topple.

http://blog.thehill.com/2009/05/06/stitch-by-stitch-unraveling-the-crazy-quilt-of-laws-that-locks-millions-of-americans-out-of-the-electoral-system/

Posted by lois at 04:44 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2009

Before Census, a Debate Over Prisoners Critics Say Current Method of Counting Inmates Distorts Rural, Urban Tallies

Before Census, a Debate Over Prisoners
Critics Say Current Method of Counting Inmates Distorts Rural, Urban Tallies

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 26, 2009

NEW YORK -- Elizabeth O'C. Little, a Republican state senator, represents a rural Upstate district larger in square miles than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. But more than 13,500 of her constituents are not living there by choice, they could not vote for her if they wanted to, and most will leave the first chance they get.

Those unwilling constituents are incarcerated in one of 13 prisons -- 12 state and one federal -- that have given her district the nickname "Little Siberia." Without the prisoners, the district, which stretches to the Canadian border, may not have the minimum population required to earn a seat in the state Senate.

And while the inmates live behind bars, there is a recurring question as to whether prison is where they actually "reside."

In Little's opinion, the inmates reside in her 45th District, and her district is where they should be counted as residents during the 2010 Census.

"I think the inmates, like everyone, should be counted at their place of residence on that particular day," Little said. She said the inmates are no different than other temporary residents -- students living in dormitories, or developmentally disabled people in a center -- living away from their permanent addresses but counted where they reside on Census Day, April 1, 2010.

But for some civil liberties groups and the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative, which has analyzed the last census numbers, counting inmates in prisons distorts population numbers in New York and several other states. Rural areas are shown to be more populous than they are, these critics say, while urban areas -- which produce most of the inmates -- are routinely under-counted.

States and counties rely on population numbers from the census to draw their legislative districts. In New York and some other states, Republicans continue to have clout in legislatures because they are elected from safely conservative, rural districts even as those areas lose people. The exception to that population decline: inmates, whose numbers have grown because of tough mandatory sentencing laws.

"It's systemic distortion," said Peter Wagner, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Prison Policy Initiative. "You have a disproportionately black and Hispanic male population that is counted in the wrong spot."

In Albany, Alice Green, founder and executive director of the Center for Law and Justice, which works on criminal justice issues, said that "when I saw the huge number of African Americans in some of these counties, I was shocked."

"In Upstate New York in some of the counties, the [black] people in prison outnumber the free African Americans," said Green, who is from an Adirondack mining town and earned her doctorate in criminal justice in Albany. Because the prisoners cannot vote but are counted as constituents, she said, "they are not represented, and they are totally exploited."

"The people elected in those districts with high prison populations are more conservative and support more mass incarcerations and the existence of prisons," Green said. "They use the numbers to get elected, but they don't represent [the prisoners'] interests."

The question of how to properly count prisoners has been a long-standing concern for the NAACP. "It's been troubling us for quite some time," said Hilary O. Shelton, a vice president and director of the Washington office.

"Over 40 percent of America's prison population is African American, and we make up 13 percent of the American population," he said. "Virtually all of these prisons are outside the inner cities where most African Americans live."

The Census Bureau has no plans to change the way it counts prisoners in 2010. Spokesman Robert Bernstein said, "We're following the concept of 'usual residence' -- where the person lives and sleeps most of the time."

Under the concept, as explained on the bureau's Web site, people who are temporarily away from their usual residence on Census Day -- vacationers or business travelers, for example -- will be counted as residents wherever they live "most of the time." People "without a usual residence . . . will be counted where they are staying on Census Day."

One problem with that method of counting, critics say, is that most prisoners do not stay in the area after their release. "More often than not, they go back to the community they came from," Shelton said.

An alternative would be to count prisoners at their last known address -- an approach favored by the NAACP and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I).

"The city supports a change in the residency rule for prisoners in the 2010 Census from the address of the institution where they are incarcerated to the last known permanent residence prior to incarceration," said Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg. "This would allow for a more fair allocation of political representation and dollars for New York City, which has a substantial prison inmate population in institutions outside of its boundaries."

Little, a law-and-order Republican who voted against the recent overhaul of the state's drug laws, thinks counting the prisoners as residents of her district makes sense. "Actually, it was the influences at home that got them into trouble in the first place, so maybe they'd be better off someplace else," she said in a phone interview.

She said the prisons in four of the six counties in her district have a big economic impact -- including on the water supply, the sewers and the roads traveled by prison workers and visiting relatives.

Whether temporary residents "are in a dormitory, a nursing home, student housing or a prison, they are using the infrastructure," Little said.

Besides, she said, the reason her district has so many prisons is "because no one else wanted them."

There is a practical side to the arguments, as well. A New York Senate district is supposed to have 306,000 people, though that number is allowed to vary by 5 percent. According to the state's 2002 Census task force and the Prison Policy Initiative, the 45th District had 299,603 residents, within the 5 percent margin.

However, without the 13,500 prisoners, the 45th would need to be redrawn to remain a separate district. Other New York districts similarly have large numbers of prisoners, including the 59th, which includes Wyoming County, where Attica maximum security prison is located. The 59th District is home to about 9,000 prisoners, according to the 2000 Census.

Wagner, of the Prison Policy Initiative, found in a recent analysis that seven Upstate districts would not meet the population requirement without including inmates.

At a minimum, he said, the Census Bureau should disclose where the prisons are located in their tally. "This is one of the things that gives that region extra influence," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501403.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by lois at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

April 06, 2009

WA: Debt shouldn’t prevent restoration of voting rights

Debt shouldn’t prevent restoration of voting rights
THE NEWS TRIBUNE Editorial
Published: 03/24/09

Buying the right to vote is so contrary to the idea of democracy that many Washingtonians would be surprised to find out that it’s happening in their state.

Current state law enforces a double standard in restoring the voting rights of felons who’ve been released from state supervision. The ones with means to pay their court fines in full can vote; the ones who can only afford to pay down their debts bit by bit may have to wait years before they are deemed worthy of helping elect a mayor or approve a school bond.

Such disparate treatment effectively makes the right to vote depend on the contents of a released felons’ wallet. The state Supreme Court has upheld the policy as constitutional, but constitutional doesn’t mean fair. There is a good reason why most other states have less onerous restrictions, and it’s because a person’s bankroll should not determine their access to such a fundamental right as voting.

Fortunately, the Legislature may be inclined to finally remove debt as a barrier to the ballot box.

The effort is getting a boost from Secretary of State Sam Reed. He’s publicly supporting a House bill – and offering another compelling argument for disconnecting felons’ voting rights from their ability to pay.

For Reed, the issue is primarily a practical one. His office has been working since 2006 to clean up voter registration rolls. It has removed scores of dead, duplicate and incarcerated voters. But when it comes to ex-cons, Reed has no ready way to determine whether they belong on the voter rolls or not – short of checking each court file. No single court or Department of Corrections database tracks released felons’ outstanding financial obligations.

Back in 2002, the DOC estimated that more than 46,000 felons are barred from voting solely because they haven’t paid their fines – a number that is nearly impossible to confirm or track since the state has no central repository of that information.

State elections officials are concerned that the lack of reliable information, paired with a patchwork of laws that govern how voting rights are restored, make it more likely that eligible voters will be denied their right to vote and that ineligible voters will remain on the registration rolls.

They say they see no way to preserve the current two-pronged approach and ensure the accuracy of voter records. “If other solutions that more closely resemble current law were available, the secretary of state would be introducing such legislation,” a statement from the office says.

Lawmakers not persuaded that tying felons’ ballots to their bank accounts amounts to a modern-day poll tax should hear Reed out. The plight of felons barred from voting may not resonate universally, but ensuring clean elections certainly matters to most Washingtonians.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/686191.html

Posted by lois at 09:36 PM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2009

Real Cost of Prisons Comix wins National Council on Crime and Delinquency PASS Award

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Announces
The 2008 PASS Award Winners
Oakland, CA, March 20, 2009

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency is pleased to announce the 2008 Winners of its respected PASS Awards (Prevention for a Safer Society). NCCD honors the media’s success and vital role in illuminating the people and programs that uncover the root causes of crime and those that promise to protect our most precious resource—our youth—against involvement in crime.

A critical link in successful policies related to youth and justice is the education of the public. The media is uniquely positioned to be this link, and we gratefully acknowledge their efforts to fulfill that responsibility. Each year the PASS Awards honor media professionals in the fields of print, literature, broadcast media, television, and film in recognition of thoughtful and factual coverage of the issues. Special consideration is given to those stories that highlight solutions to criminal and juvenile justice and child welfare problems.

NCCD is the nation's oldest private organization working to attain responsive and effective criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems. For over 100 years, NCCD has been committed to promoting criminal justice strategies that are fair, humane, cost-effective, and uncompromising in public safety. The issues that have defined NCCD since its inception are the need for a separate and humane justice system for children, alternatives to incarceration, and the fundamental connection between social justice and public safety.

For more information on NCCD, please visit our website at www.nccd-crc.org

FILM
Ice T Presents “25 to Life” Deloss Pickett, Michael Dallum
“At the Death House Door” Steve James, Peter Gilbert

LITERATURE
American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment by Sasha Abramsky

Chasing Justice by Kerry Max Cook, Sandra Kaye Pressey, Kerry Justice Cook, Peter Hubbard

From the Bottom of the Heap: The Autobiography of Black Panther Robert Hillary King by Robert Hillary King and Andrea Gibbons

I’ll Fly Away: Further Testimonies from the Women of York Prison by Walley Lamb

Letters From the Dhamma Brothers by Jenny Phillips, Pariyatti Press, Ron Cavanaugh

Maximum Security: The True Meaning of Freedom by Alan Gompers

Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration by Paul Wright, Tara Herivel and Dianne Wachtel

Stanley Tookie Williams Street Peace Series by Stanley Tookie Williams and Barbara Becnel

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix by Lois Ahrens, Kevin Pyle, Sabrina Jones, Susan Willmarth, Ellen Miller-Mack and Craig Gilmore

MAGAZINE
San Jose Mercury News
“A Painful Choice for Moms in Prison” Edwin Garcia, Karen Borchers, Miller-McCune
“Is This the Future of the War on Drugs?” by Vince Beiser,John Mecklin

NEWSPAPER
East Valley Tribune “Reasonable Doubt” by Ryan Gabrielson, Paul Giblin, Patti Epler
Long Beach Press-Telegram “Lots of Answers, but No Easy Fixes” byWendy Thomas Russell andTracy Manzer
Seattle Weekly “Neverminded” by Laura Onstot and Mike Seely
The Daily Review “Educate to Break Cradle-to-Prison Pipeline” by Tammerlin Drummond
The Sacramento Bee “Unprotected” Marjie Lundstrom, Sam Stanton, Autumn Cruz, Mitchell Brooks
The Village Voice “Teen Murders at Rikers Jail” by Graham Rayman, Tony Ortega
The Washington Post “Rehabilitating Juvenile Offenders” by Robert Pierre, Carol Morello Westword
“Stand and Deliver” byAdam Cayton-Holland, Patricia Calhoun, Anthony Camera

RADIO
American Radioworks -“Gangster Confidential" Michael Montgomery and Catherine Winter
KALW Radio “Prisons in Crisis: A State of Emergency in California” JoAnn Mar, Alyne Ellis
KQED/Forum “Prisoner Health” by Scott Shafer, Nick Vidinsky andDan Zoll

TELEVISION/ VIDEO
HBO - “The Wire, Season 5” by David Simon, Nina Kostroff Noble, Ed Burns, Joe Chappelle.Karen L.Thorson
SoCal Connected/KCET -“Inside Locke High” Angela Shelley andAlexandria Gales, Brett Wood, Michael Bloecher,Bret Marcus
NBC/Wolf Films “Law and Order: SVU - Confession” Dick Wolf, Neal Baer, Ted Kotcheff, Peter Jankowski, Arthur Forney, Judith McCreary

WEB
AlterNet -“Meet Gus Puryear” by Silja J.A. Talvi and Jan Frel
City Limits -“A Ballot’s Breadth Away from Rejoining Society” by Karen Loew, Curtis Stephen, Rosie McCobb
City Limits “Debating How to Police a Challenging Population” Karen Loew, Tram Whitehurst

Posted by lois at 09:30 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2009

OR: Prison Communities: Representation is Not Created Equal Bill would end gerrymandering in sparsely populated communities

Prison Communities: Representation is Not Created Equal
Bill would end gerrymandering in sparsely populated communities
By Brian Stimson of The Skanner

Rep. Chip Shields hopes to bring fairness to the way prisoners are counted in Oregon.
Currently, prisoners are counted as residents of the correctional institution in which they are serving time, inflating population statistics of the mostly rural communities in which prisons exist. This population count inaccurately skews congressional representation in sparsely populated areas, says Shields.
This bill would rectify that inconsistency as Oregon prepares to undergo a congressional and legislative redistricting process.
Shields’ bill would require the Department of Corrections to list an offender’s residence as the address they were living when they were arrested.

This requirement would more accurately reflect congressional and legislative representation across the state.
“They don’t count them as residents of their home communities,” Shields said. “They count them as residents of communities in which they are incarcerated. This gives more political power to citizens that happen to live next to a correctional institution.”
While a person is incarcerated, they do not have voting rights in Oregon. Once an offender is released from prison in this state, their voting rights are then restored. Shields said many people released from prison return to their home communities – as dictated by state law.
The Oregon House Rules Committee held its first public hearing on the bill Monday, where Shields testified that he has received bipartisan support on a bill that is aimed at restoring fairness. He is also personally affected by the bill – of the top three home zip codes for offenders, two of those zip codes are in Shields’ district.
Republican Rep. Bob Jenson said he found the bill to be the “antithesis of fairness.”
“The overwhelming majority of people who are incarcerated come out of the most populace part of the state,” he said. “Particularly Multnomah County.”
Jenson said he opposed the bill because it could cost the Republican Party seats in the House – possibly his own.
“It would increase the division between the two parties in this chamber by one vote. One person,” he said. “This would obviously cause me great concern.”
Jenson represents Pendleton, Ore., home to the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, a 1,600-bed prison that is the city’s fourth largest employer.
This issue is not just a regional one. The Prison Policy Initiative has documented the Census Bureau’s counting of prisoners as members of a community. They found that in New York in the 1990s, two out of every three people to move to upstate New York was a prisoner. They say this has created districts that would otherwise be illegal under federal law.
During the Rules Committee testimony, Mike Gower, assistant director of operations for the Department of Corrections, said the language defining a residence could be difficult.
“Determining permanent residence is very difficult,” he said. “Few inmates are incarcerated from and returned to the same address. An inmate may be living in rental property … and many inmates are homeless at the time of their arrest.”
He said released offenders must return to their county of arrest unless they require a waiver to live elsewhere. About 52 percent of released offenders have no home to go to and must be provided with emergency housing. Gower’s concern was mainly about language in the bill that required the department to establish a “permanent” address for inmates – despite the fact that inmates have addresses assigned to them upon intake into the system.
Janice Thompson, the executive director of Democracy Reform Oregon, said the system is unfair to voters, and House Bill 2930 would restore fairness to the system.
“It counts people where they can vote,” she said. “You don’t count people where they can’t vote.”
She said she has researched other states and found that in some prison communities, there is a huge imbalance in city or county level representation.
“In (Anamosa) Iowa, there’s a prison in one ward where about 50 voters are represented by one city council member, compared to 1,500 in another,” she said.
Rep. Chris Edwards, a Democrat who represents a district encompassing west Eugene, said he thought the implications on local races was interesting.
“As somebody whose district will be the recipient of a prison soon, I hadn’t thought about the local level and how much difference that could make in a county commission race where we have 5 county commissioners and X number of (prisoners) concentrated in one area,” he said. “The effect would certainly be more profound. Not just a shift in one area of the state to another, but actually people that potentially never resided in the county at all. It seems even more obtuse to me.”
http://www.theskanner.com/index.php?action=artd&artid=8749

Posted by lois at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2009

OR: Bill introduced to count prisoners as part of their home communities

Statesman Journal
2009 Legislature
Bill would change way inmates are counted
March 17, 2009

Marion County's population would shrink for purposes of redrawing state legislative and federal congressional districts under a bill that the House Rules Committee took up Monday.

House Bill 2930 would require inmates to be counted as part of the
communities they came from before they ended up in state prison.

Under current practice, they are considered residents of the counties where they are imprisoned.

The Salem area has four of Oregon's 14 prisons and work camps, housing just less than 4,000 of the 13,750 inmates systemwide.

A 20-year-old law requires inmates to return to their home counties once they are released from prison.

Rep. Chip Shields, D-Portland, the bill's chief sponsor, said his proposalis consistent with that law.

The committee took no immediate action.

Department of Corrections officials raised questions about its wording,which would require the agency to spend money; Shields said amendments might resolve those issues.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090317/LEGISLATURE/903170328

Posted by lois at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2009

Voting Rights Elude Some People in FL With Felony Convictions

NY Times
By GARY FINEOUT
Published: March 11, 2009

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.— Florida’s procedures for restoring voting rights to convicted felons are so cumbersome, bureaucratic and confusing that some ex-convicts are being denied their rights, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Most election officials throughout the state are unsure about who can win back their voting rights, the report found.

Florida is among a handful of states that do not permit automatic restoration of rights once someone has been released from prison. In 2007, Gov. Charlie Crist pushed through new procedures to speed up the process for most felons seeking voting rights. The new process does not apply to murderers and sex offenders.

More than 138,000 people had their rights restored between April 2007 and March 2009, but the A.C.L.U. said it was concerned that thousands of additional voters might not know what to do because of widespread confusion over the new eligibility rules.

The group got conflicting answers when it surveyed the offices of all 67 election supervisors in the state. Employees in six county elections offices, for example, told callers, wrongly, that someone convicted of a misdemeanor was ineligible to vote. The survey also showed that nearly half incorrectly asserted that felons needed to produce paperwork showing they had their rights restored in order to register.

“It’s very hard for anyone to know what’s going on,” said Muslima Lewis, a senior lawyer for the A.C.L.U. of Florida, who wrote the report. “The rules are convoluted and hard to understand.”

Taiwan Daniels, 28, who lives in Broward County, lost his rights after he was convicted on a cocaine charge when he was 16. He spent a year trying to get his rights restored before he succeeded in October, and called the process more “discouraging than encouraging.”

The A.C.L.U. is calling on Florida to automatically restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of former prisoners in the state. The report also recommends waiving a requirement that a convicted felon first pay off court-ordered restitution.

Mr. Crist said Wednesday that “more can be done” to improve the process. But he said Florida was “on the right path.”

“I think we have done more in the past two years to restore the rights of former felons than we have done in the rest of the history of Florida,” Mr. Crist said.

Florida’s effort to keep felons from voting has been a flashpoint in recent years. Thousands were purged from the state’s voting rolls before the 2000 presidential election, even though there were questions about the accuracy of the list of ineligible voters.

The state scrapped plans for another purge in 2004 after newspapers pointed out flaws with the list, including that the list had virtually no Hispanics on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/12inmates.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Florida%20and%20Voting&st=cse

Posted by lois at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2009

VA: Voting rights for people with non-violent felony convictions dies without even a vote

Voting rights resolution dies in House committee
Del. Onzlee Ware sponsored a bill to help restore voting rights to nonviolent felons.

By Michael Sluss

RICHMOND -- Without discussion or debate, a House of Delegates committee on Friday hurriedly voted down a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the General Assembly to pass a law restoring the voting rights of nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences.

"I thought they should have heard the bill," said Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke, the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 628. "I don't have a problem with them voting against me ... but, especially with something as important as the right to vote, I think we should have spent more time on it."

Ware's resolution would amend the state constitution so that the legislature could set conditions for the restoration of voting and other civil rights for nonviolent felons who have fulfilled their sentencing obligations. Legislation similar to Ware's (Senate Joint Resolution 273) has been endorsed by a Senate committee and will come up for a floor vote next week.

Convicted felons now must appeal to the governor to have their rights restored, a process that civil rights advocates consider arbitrary and cumbersome.

Virginia and Kentucky are the only states that permanently bar convicted felons from voting unless their rights are restored by the governor, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The House Privileges and Elections Committee defeated Ware's resolution on a 12-10 vote without letting Ware present the legislation and without hearing from people who wanted to testify. The committee was rushing to finish its agenda and adjourn its final scheduled meeting before the House's deadline for completing work on its own bills in this session.

Del. Joseph Morrissey, D-Henrico County, tried to hold off a vote so that the committee could hear testimony on the bill. But the committee's chairman, Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg, said, "We don't have time for that.

"There was a full hearing held on this resolution at subcommittee," Cole said.

Cole was referring to a seven-member subcommittee that met last month and endorsed Ware's bill on a 4-3 vote. Friday's vote in the full committee broke mostly along party lines, and ended a long meeting in which the committee handled an array of bills dealing with election reforms, gubernatorial appointments and constitutional amendments.

Ware said he did not blame the committee's Republican majority for giving his bill short shrift. He noted that Democrats on the panel helped drag out debates on other bills, leaving little time to discuss his resolution.

Cole later took the House floor to respond to complaints about the committee's handling of bills.

"I tried my best to get through the docket," Cole said. "It's kind of a balancing act between trying to give the bill a fair hearing and trying to get through as many bills as you want. We're not like Washington where we're a full-time legislature and we can take our leisure and make sure we have several hearings on bills."

But advocates for restoring felons' rights were not happy with the committee's action.

"I thought it was rather flip," said Adisa Muse, the director of the Virginia Voter Restoration Project. "It's rather cynical. We're dealing with a serious issue that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of Virginians."

The issue of restoring felons' voting rights became a political hot potato during last year's presidential election. Republican John McCain's campaign charged that Gov. Tim Kaine was restoring felons' rights at an accelerated clip to influence the Virginia vote, an allegation that Kaine's aides dismissed as a smear tactic.

Ware said his proposed constitutional change would remove the governor from the process, addressing any concerns that politics factor into decisions about restoring rights.

"If ever there was a time to do it, this is the time," Ware said.

Posted by lois at 03:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 07, 2009

The Census: Phantom Constituents

February 6, 2009, 5:55 pm
The Census: Phantom Constituents
By Brent Staples
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/

There are many ways to hijack political power. One of them is to draw state or city legislative districts around large prisons — and pretend that the inmates are legitimate constituents.

Which, of course, they are not. Prison inmates are stripped of the right to vote in all but two states. They often live hundreds of miles from the prison town — where they may never even see the local streets. Once released, they are hustled onto buses and driven halfway across the state to their actual homes.

Why, then, does the census bureau count inmates as “residents” of their prisons? Force of habit, maybe. But it is way past time to bring the practice to an end.

It made almost no difference when the national prison population was minuscule. But with the prison population at 1.4 million and climbing, this misallocation is having a huge and distorting impact on the political landscape.

By counting inmates at prison instead of at home, the bureau allows unscrupulous legislatures to create phantom districts that sometimes contain more inmates than actual constituents. Politicians from these bogus districts can be elected with shockingly small numbers of votes. Once in office, they reward friends, punish enemies, and generally wield as much power as legislators from legitimate districts with many more real constituents.

It’s called prison-based gerrymandering. It violates the principle of one person, one vote. And it brings to mind the slave-era United States, when enslaved persons were denied the vote and counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning representation in Congress.

The obvious solution is for the census bureau to begin counting inmates at their homes instead of from their prison cells. But the bureau has so far failed to do this, despite increasing pressure from advocates, community groups and politicians. In New York, Democratic lawmakers are fuming about the way upstate Republicans parlayed the prison population into a political advantage.

Not surprisingly, Democratic lawmakers want a change. They have demanded that the census bureau collect the home addresses of all incarcerated persons in the 2010 census.

The problem has a significant civil rights aspect, given that people of color are overrepresented in the prison population. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has picked up the cause and says that it will lobby the federal government to have residents counted in the places where they live at the time of arrest.

The distortions caused by prison gerrymandering are clearly apparent at the state level, where inmates are sometimes used to pad thinly populated legislative districts that would otherwise be illegal under federal law. But the same issue crops up within counties, towns and cities.

Consider, for example, the city of Anamosa, Iowa, where city a councilman from a prison community was elected to office on the strength of just two votes (both write ins) back 2006. According to the census, Anamosa’s Ward 2 had almost 1,400 residents — about the same as the other three wards in town. But 1,300 of Ward 2’s “residents’’ were actually inmates of the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Once the inmates were subtracted, ward 2 turned out to have fewer than 60 actual residents.

Anamosa’s voters have passed a referendum that requires City Council members to be elected at large. But this small-town saga has thrown a spotlight onto this problem. As we have already seen, prison gerrymandering undercuts the power of populous areas and exaggerates the power of regions that are thinly settled.

Peter Wagner, executive director of an advocacy group called Prison Policy Initiative writes that the practice of counting inmates at prison has a variety of side effects.

According to a report by this group:

Most states distribute sales taxes with portions going directly to the state general revenues, portions returning to the point-of-sale, and portions going to municipalities or other local governments on the basis of population. Thus, communities that host a prison receive an additional, unearned portion of the state sales tax.

Note: this amounts to double dipping by the prison districts, which are already amply supported by state tax dollars devoted to building, maintaining and staffing the prisons.

The report continues:

Other affected fund distributions include U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Appalachian Regional Commission which makes $60 million available annually to impoverished Appalachian communities based on a formula that includes total population of each county. Such formulas inadvertently reward communities that build prisons by giving them a larger share of the funds intended for their region. Typical of the distortions that the Census creates, the communities that pay the largest price are not the urban communities that most people in prison call home; rather, they are similarly situated rural communities that lack the advantage of a population artificially inflated by a prison.

The Census Bureau was made acutely aware of this problem in 2007, when a report it commissioned said that counting inmates at prison distorted the political process and raised legitimate concerns about the fairness of the census itself. The report, by the National Research Council, acknowledged that the system would be difficult to change, but urged the bureau to seeks ways to do it.

The report also proposed an interim solution: the bureau could issue statistical portraits of the prison population — so that the inmates could be subtracted from the count when legislative districts are drawn up.

Whatever the solution, the census bureau needs to get cracking. The country has put up with too much prison gerrymandering for too long.

Posted by lois at 05:57 PM | Comments (0)

February 05, 2009

WA: State Rep. works to change law that prohibits people who owe fines but are not in prison or parole from voting

Eye On Olympia
Darneille takes another run at broadening felons’ rights to vote upon release from prison…
February 1 Comments (0)
Two years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that even after felons are released from prison, the state can bar them from voting until they pay off all their court-ordered fines and fees.

For poor people with big bills and few options for employment, this can effectively mean a lifetime loss of the right to vote.

State Rep. Jeannie Darneille wants to change the law. Getting out of prison and off probation, she says, should be enough to restore a person’s right to vote.

“It’s not real freedom if you’re excluded from any say in decisions that govern your life,” she said in a press reelase. “Basing anyone’s voting right on how quickly they can pay a financial debt is unfair and un-American.”

The bill is HB 1517.

Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat, has pushed similar bills for the past eight years. But her colleagues were reluctant to endorse earlier plans that would have allowed voting by people still on probation. Among those backing the new version: Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican.

In July 2007, the state’s high court upheld the law banning voting until felons have completed all the terms of their sentences, including payments.

“Convicted felons…no longer possess that fundamental right as a direct result of their decisions to commit a felony,” wrote Justice Mary Fairhurst. In a dissent, Justice Tom Chambers blasted the law, saying it restricts voting “to those rich enough to buy it.”

Fellow dissenter Gerry Alexander, the state’s longtime chief justice, said it’s wrong to require people who’ve served their time to “pay to play” and vote.

Among the plaintiffs in that case: Beverly DuBois, convicted in Stevens County of growing and delivering marijuana in 2002.
ttp://www.spokesman.com/blogs/olympia/2009/feb/01/darneille-takes-another-run-broadening-felons-rights-vote-upon-release-prison/

Posted by lois at 02:13 PM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2009

NAACP to hold voter registration drives at Maine prisons

January 16, 2009 -
NAACP to hold voter registration drives at Maine prisons
Starting this year, the civil rights group will bring more education about voting to prisoners.

By ELBERT AULL
Portland Press Herald

PORTLAND, Maine — The NAACP will hold annual voter registration drives at every prison in Maine under a recently negotiated agreement with the state Department of Corrections.

The agreement sets Aug. 6 - the anniversary of a landmark law that expanded voting rights - as the annual kickoff for a week of registration events at state-run correctional facilities. A little more than a month ago, national NAACP President Benjamin Jealous visited the state to lobby for changes at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

The agreement will expand the civil rights group's efforts to bring more voter education to prisons in Maine, where state law allows every inmate to vote. The organization held drives at three of the six state correctional facilities last year.

''Clearly, it was not enough. This is the kind of piece that needs to have a repetitive, educational component,'' Rachel Talbot Ross, president of the Portland NAACP chapter, said Thursday.

Associate Corrections Commissioner Denise Lord said the agreement will take effect this year.

Lord said the civil rights group will hold an annual drive on Aug. 6 at the state prison and bring the event to the other five state-run facilities over the next week or so.

The events will be held at no cost to the state, she said.

The date is the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed tactics designed to prevent blacks from registering to vote in many southern states.

The NAACP held a voter-education workshop at the state prison in May and registered 200 inmates. Prisoners also met representatives from the state's Democratic, Republican and Green Independent parties during the event.

Organizers considered the workshop a success, but were frustrated that it took so long to arrange.

The Portland NAACP said it spent more than two years trying to persuade prison officials to allow the chapter to hold a voter-education and registration drive there.

Ross said the back-and-forth over the registration drive was one of the reasons she requested a visit from Jealous, who met with prison officials last month. NAACP leaders hope to finalize a broader cooperation agreement with state prison officials next month, Ross said.

Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while incarcerated.

Inmates in Maine cast absentee ballots in the towns where they lived before prison. The state does not track the number of prisoners who vote, said Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn.

Those who are working to expand inmates' voting rights in other parts of the country say registration events like those sponsored by the NAACP are too often taken for granted by prison officials.

Allowing inmates to vote is only one step to keep them connected with society, said Charles Sullivan, co-founder of Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, a Washington, D.C.-based reform organization.

''The second step - the actual voting - is very, very challenging,'' Sullivan said.

Prisoners in Washington, D.C., may vote as long as they are not serving felony sentences, but turnout figures for eligible inmates have historically been low, he said.

''It's hard to get voter education'' in correctional facilities, Sullivan said. ''I think we've got to make this a priority.''

Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
http://www.correctionsone.com/news/1775898-NAACP-to-hold-voter-registration-drives-at-Maine-prisons

Posted by lois at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2008

THREE TIMELY ACTIONS THAT COULD HELP END PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING

THREE TIMELY ACTIONS THAT COULD HELP END PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING
by Peter Wagner, December 12, 2008

The next Census will be taken 14 months after our next President is
sworn in. Counting the entire population, just once and in the right
place, is an incredibly complex undertaking with profound
implications for American democracy. It must be done right. The
Census is so important, the framers of the Constitution required it
in the opening paragraphs. The data collected in April 2010 will form
the basis of federal, state and local legislative districts for the
next decade.

But a long standing flaw in the Census undermines the basic
democratic principle of one person one vote. The Census Bureau counts
people in prison as residents of the prison's town, not their home
addresses. The Bureau intends to count these 2.5 million people -- a
population larger than our 4 smallest states combined -- in the
wrong place. The result will be a systematic inflation of the
political power of districts with prisons while diminishing the vote
of everyone else.

Since the importance of the Census Bureau's prison miscount was
discovered shortly before the 2000 Census, advocates, lawmakers and
social scientists have been urging the Census Bureau to update its
methodology and change how it counts people in prison.

The Census Bureau could have spent the middle part of this decade
investigating the optimal way to collect and process the home
addresses of incarcerated people. That planning time was instead
spent stonewalling critics and ignoring proposals focused on
incremental improvements.

The Bureau's failure to take concrete steps towards counting people
in prison correctly makes it difficult for the new administration to
insist that people in prison be counted where they actually live, not
where they are temporarily confined. But the Census Bureau doesn't
have an excuse for not implementing the interim proposals that would
greatly reduce the harm caused by the prison miscount in this Census
and make a more complete fix in the future possible.

There are three things that an Obama administration should do to help
end prison-based gerrymandering:

1. INSTRUCT THE CENSUS BUREAU TO USE DIRECT ENUMERATION NOT
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO COUNT PEOPLE IN PRISON.

Ultimately, the Census Bureau should be counting people in prison as
residents of their home communities, but the current administration
is taking small steps in the wrong direction. Some states keep home
address information in their official prison records, but in many
cases collecting home address information is best done by using
individual Census forms to collect this information directly from
incarcerated people.

After the 2000 Census, the National Research Council deemed the
quality of the data collected from correctional facilities to be
"poor" and blamed the Bureau's higher than expected reliance on
administrative records. However, rather than expand the use of direct
enumeration on special forms in prisons, the Census Bureau is
planning to eliminate them. Relying solely on administrative records
to count people in prison will further reduce data quality and make
several important advances impossible.

Three recent National Research Council reports have urged direct
counts of people in prison. All three reports believed that direct
enumeration would be more accurate than administrative records, and
all three reports encouraged the use of a special form that asked for
an alternative address. The first two reports made this
recommendation to facilitate de-duplication where data is
accidentally processed twice; and the third did so as part of a
multi-step proposal to modernize how all populations are counted.

Collecting this alternative address information -- if only for
internal testing, tracking and quality purposes -- would be an
important step towards counting people in prison at alternative
addresses in the next Census.

2. USE THE 2010 CENSUS TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY THAT PEOPLE IN
PRISON SHOULD BE COUNTED IN THE FUTURE.

The Census regularly conducts research during one Census in order to
improve the next. Currently, the Census Bureau is ignoring its own
experts at the National Research Council who recommended that the
Bureau conduct a major research and testing program during the 2010
Census to determine the best way to assign the correct address to
people who are incarcerated on April 1. The Bureau should be testing
how to phrase the question, what kinds of administrative data it
should accept, and how to best digitize the results. Instead, the
Bureau is planning to let this opportunity slide, which could push a
major test to 2020 and ending the prison miscount to 2030.

3. CHANGE HOW THE DATA IS PUBLISHED SO THAT PRISON POPULATIONS NEED
NOT DISTORT DEMOCRACY.

While it may be too late to change where people in prison are
counted, if action is taken quickly, an Obama administration can
change how the data is published and used. Publishing block-level
counts of prison populations at the prison addresses would make it
easier for legislatures to remove the prison populations at
districting time.

Currently, the "PL94-171" data published by the Bureau for
redistricting purposes does not identify which populations are
confined in a correctional facility, often mixing custodial and
civilian populations in a single census block. When states and
counties want to draw fair districts that do not include the prison
population, they have three choices: try and match up Department of
Corrections data; wait for publication of the Census Bureau's
"Summary File 1" data which contains a correctional count; or
just guess.

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have it
even worse, because they can't wait for the publication of the
prison counts in Summary File 1. Further, because they must publish
race and ethnicity data for each district, they find it difficult to
reconcile the partially incompatible racial and ethnic
classifications in the two data sets.

Interest in drawing districts without prison populations is clear.
Dozens of counties around the country already do these adjustments.
They parse the data themselves, but it's labor intensive and
invites error. Nevertheless, as knowledge of the problem grows, more
counties and even states are expressing interest. The Census Bureau
is uniquely suited to provide this information, and doing so would
have only the smallest of burdens on Census Bureau operations.

Publishing an alternative version of the redistricting data that
contained just the prison population at prison addresses would only
require the publication of existing data in a different format
several months earlier than the Bureau would have done otherwise. Of
the 8 million Census blocks in Census 2000, less than 6,000 contained
a correctional facility. Producing the four race/age/ethnicity
redistricting tables for the population in correctional facilities in
these blocks would be a minimal burden with wide-ranging and
long-lasting benefits.

Conclusion

The Census Bureau has been on notice for a decade that its outdated
method of counting people in prison needs to be changed. Prison-based
gerrymandering should already be history, but instead the Bureau is
seeking to repeat and amplify the errors of the past. But if
President-elect Obama acts fast, he can lessen the harm caused by the
prison miscount and ensure that the 2010 Census is the last one to
credit 2.5 million people to the wrong place.
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2008/12/12/threeactions/ ]

Posted by lois at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2008

NY Times Editorial: That’s Two for Me

November 12, 2008
Editorial
That’s Two for Me

We’ve all heard of close elections. But consider the strange (and outrageous) case of the 2006 City Council election in Anamosa, Iowa.

According to census figures, Anamosa’s Ward 2 has nearly 1,400 residents, about the same as the town’s other three wards. The problem is that 1,300 of the ward’s “residents” are inmates of the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Minus the prisoners, Ward 2 has only 58 actual residents. A councilman won his election to represent the ward with two write-in votes: one from his wife and one from a neighbor.

While Anamosa’s case is extreme, the phenomenon is not. It is called prison-based gerrymandering when politicians draw legislative districts around prisons and count inmates — who are denied the vote in all but two states — as residents.

At the state level, prison-based gerrymandering exaggerates the political power of the mainly rural districts where prisons are built. And it dilutes the power of the mainly urban districts where inmates come from and to which they nearly always return. But as the Anamosa case shows, this kind of gerrymandering is also a problem within cities and towns.

Anamosa’s voters were so outraged that they have passed a referendum that will require its City Council members to be elected at large beginning in 2009. And other states and localities are beginning to wake up to the problem. But a study by the Prison Policy Initiative, an advocacy group, has found 21 counties across the nation where at least one in five people counted as residents were actually prison inmates.

The ideal solution would be for the United States Census Bureau to count prison inmates, not as residents of prisons, but at their actual home addresses. Until the bureau gets around to that, state and local lawmakers should make sure that prisoners are excluded from the population counts when legislative districts are drawn. The current arrangement undermines the most basic democratic principle of one person, one vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12wed3.html

Posted by lois at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

October 27, 2008

Campaigns butt heads over felons' voting rights

Campaigns butt heads over felons' voting rights
The Roanoke Times
October 25, 2008
RICHMOND -- Republican John McCain's presidential campaign is accusing Democratic rival Barack Obama and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine of making a coordinated effort to add felons to the state's voter rolls, a charge that Democrats said is a sign of GOP desperation in the closing days of the race.

McCain's campaign said Friday that Kaine was restoring the voting rights of convicted felons at an accelerated clip to help Obama in the Nov. 4 election.

Trey Walker, McCain's mid-Atlantic regional campaign manager, accused the governor of participating in a "conspiracy" with the Obama campaign, a charge that Obama's campaign and the governor's office called baseless.

"I think it's pretty clear that this is just a smear tactic," Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said.

Virginia has one of the nation's most restrictive processes for restoring the civil rights of convicted felons who have served their sentences.

Kaine has restored the rights of 1,484 felons this year, including 1,261 who were convicted of nonviolent, nondrug-related offenses, according to the governor's office.

To become eligible, the convicted felons had to complete their sentences and probation periods and observe specified waiting periods. It is unclear how many actually registered to vote.

Kaine has restored civil rights for more than 2,600 felons since taking office in 2006. His predecessor, Democrat Mark Warner, restored rights for nearly 3,500 in his four-year term.

McCain's campaign relied on footage from a Martinsville cable television show to argue that Obama's campaign was working with Kaine to register felons.

In a clip of the June program provided by McCain's campaign, Democratic activist Penny Blue identifies herself as an Obama coordinator for Henry, Pittsylvania and Franklin counties and discusses the process for felons to get their rights restored. She said Kaine promised to review applications from nonviolent and nondrug offenders by Aug. 1 so that those who got their rights restored could vote in the Nov. 4 election.

"It seems clear to me that, in an effort to get felons restored and get them on the voting rolls so they can vote for Obama, that the governor's office has made a joke out of the restoration process," said former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore during a McCain campaign conference call.

Obama campaign aides said Friday that Blue is not a paid staffer and was not authorized to speak for the campaign. Skinner said the deadline was widely known for submitting paperwork to restore rights and become eligible for the November election.

Obama's campaign released a statement from supporter Lilibet Hagel, the wife of U.S. Sen, Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, decrying "desperate tactics meant to distract hard-working Virginians from the tough economic issues we all face."
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/181729

Posted by lois at 09:28 PM | Comments (0)

October 24, 2008

Anamosa IA: 58 non-prisoners and 1,300 non-voiting prisoners make up one ward

October 24, 2008
Census Bureau’s Counting of Prisoners Benefits Some Rural Voting Districts
By SAM ROBERTS, NY Times

Danny R. Young, a 53-year-old backhoe operator for Jones County in eastern Iowa, was elected to the Anamosa City Council with a total of two votes — both write-ins, from his wife and a neighbor.

While the Census Bureau says Mr. Young’s ward has roughly the same population as the city’s three others, or about 1,400 people, his constituents wield about 25 times more political clout.

That is because his ward includes 1,300 inmates housed in Iowa’s largest penitentiary — none of whom can vote. Only 58 of the people who live in Ward 2 are nonprisoners. That discrepancy has made Anamosa a symbol for a national campaign to change the way the Census Bureau counts prison inmates.

“Do I consider them my constituents?” Mr. Young said of the inmates who constitute an overwhelming majority of the ward’s population. “They don’t vote, so, I guess, not really.”

Concerns about so-called prison-based gerrymandering have grown as the number of inmates around the nation has ballooned. Similar disparities have been identified in upstate New York, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Critics say the census should count prisoners in the district where they lived before they were incarcerated.

“The Census Bureau may count prisoners in the wrong place, but that doesn’t mean that democracy must suffer there as a result,” said Peter Wagner, executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, an advocacy group that favors alternatives to prison sentences and urges that inmates be counted in their hometowns.

In 2006, experts commissioned by the Census Bureau recommended that the agency study whether prison inmates should be counted in 2010 as residents of the mostly urban neighborhoods where they last lived rather than as residents of the mostly rural districts where they are temporarily housed against their will.

Any such change would probably require Congressional approval. It could benefit Democrats, since it would add population to the party’s urban strongholds and subtract from the Republican-dominated rural areas where most prisons are.

“With only one exception nationwide,” Mr. Wagner said, “every time a community learns that prison populations are distorting their access to local government, the legislature has reversed course and redrawn districts based on actual population, not the Census Bureau’s mistakes.”

The sole exception he cited is St. Lawrence County in upstate New York. Each legislator on the county board represents about 7,500 residents, Tedra L. Cobb, the board’s vice chairwoman, said, but in two districts well over 1,000 of those residents are prison inmates. Ms. Cobb hopes to place a referendum on the ballot to change the apportionment process before the 2010 elections.

“The outcome is almost like weighted voting,” Ms. Cobb said.

Pending legislation in New York would require the state to use prisoners’ home addresses in apportioning legislative districts.

“In New York and several other states, the regional transfer of a minority population does have a representational impact,” said Prof. Nathan Persily, director of the Center on Law and Politics at Columbia Law School. “There’s no reason why a community ought to gain representation because of a large, incarcerated, nonvoting population.”

Prof. James A. Gardner of the University at Buffalo Law School, said that because “prisoners don’t want to be there, leave at the first opportunity, and there’s no chance they can vote, it is taking advantage of a completely inert population for the purpose of sneaking out extra political power.”

The Prison Policy Initiative found 21 counties across the country where at least one in five people, according to the Census Bureau’s count, were actually inmates from another county.

In Lake County, Tenn., Mr. Wagner said, 88 percent of the population in one county commissioner district are prisoners at the Northwest Correctional Complex. In Chippewa County, Wis., he said, redrawing the districts of local supervisors on the basis of an influx of inmates to new prisons this decade would create one district in which 72 percent of the population would be prisoners.

Anamosa, population 5,700, is best known as Iowa’s pumpkin capital, the birthplace of the artist Grant Wood and the home of the American Motorcycle Museum. It is also the home of the Anamosa State Penitentiary, in Ward 2, where more than 95 percent of the population is in prison, according to the census.

Bertha Finn, a 76-year-old retired writer and court clerk, was instrumental in organizing a referendum last year to allow for the election of council members at large, rather than from wards.

Patrick Callahan, the city administrator, said the change would take effect in November 2009. Councilman Young said he was undecided on whether to seek re-election to the seat that he won, more or less, by default.

“The people of Anamosa have the right idea,” Mr. Wagner said. “A small group of people should not be allowed to dominate government just because the Census Bureau counted a large prison there.”

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24census.html
Map of Anamosa districts and information on other places discussed in
article:
http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2008/10/24/anamosa/

Posted by lois at 08:06 PM | Comments (0)

October 08, 2008

MA: Town scrambles as 70 inmates register to vote

Town scrambles as 70 inmates register to vote
Civilly committed act on court ruling
Boston Globe

By Christine Legere, Globe Correspondent | October 1, 2008

BRIDGEWATER - More than 70 sex offenders and substance abusers from the local correctional facility have registered to vote here next month, following a recent court ruling that civilly committed prisoners are eligible to participate in elections.

The decision, which affects inmates who have finished their prison terms but remain committed for other reasons, has officials scrambling in this college town that hosts a psychiatric hospital, substance abuse center, and prison all under the authority of the state Department of Correction.

The Superior Court ruling stemmed from a case filed in 2004 by inmate William Stevens, who was civilly committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater because he was considered sexually dangerous. Stevens argued that Bridgewater Town Clerk Ronald Adams acted improperly in denying him the right to vote in the town because of his status as a prisoner.

Adams had also argued Stevens could not claim Bridgewater as the place where he lived simply because he was being held by the Department of Corrections in a Bridgewater facility. "He doesn't own a home here or rent here, pay taxes here, or have a car," Adams said. "All the things that usually define 'domicile.' "

Under state law, felons cannot participate in elections while in prison. But Superior Court Justice Richard Connon argued that the ban does not apply to civilly committed inmates, who have officially completed their criminal sentences but remain incarcerated because they have been deemed dangerous either to themselves or society.

In an August ruling, Connon said Stevens should not only be allowed to vote, but could also register as a Bridgewater resident because he didn't appear to have a strong tie to any other place.

Adams did not take any immediate action when the court decision arrived, but instead waited to see whether Stevens would follow through. Stevens did, and was followed by more than 70 inmates, who in the last two weeks have forwarded their voter registration cards to Adams, listing Administration Road in Bridgewater as their place of residence - the address of the prison facilities.

Adams has sent all of their names to the Department of Correction's central records office in Concord to determine whether each is still a prisoner or civilly committed. "Some of them, but not all, will qualify to vote," Adams said yesterday. "If they're not felons, the records division will tell us they're free and clear."

Corrections spokeswoman Diane Wiffin confirmed yesterday that Concord officials are working on Adams's list.

"All the Department of Correction will do is verify the status of the inmates," Wiffin said. "Then it will be up to the town clerk to decide who votes," based on whether they are eligible to claim residency in Bridgewater.

Assistant Town Clerk Jolie Martin said her office has never faced this problem.

"Before, I guess they just sent requests to their hometowns for absentee ballots," Martin said.

Selectmen Chairman Herbert Lemon said his board was asked by Adams to discuss the issue during last night's meeting. But he and Adams decided legal clarifications should be obtained prior to any public discussion.

"I wasn't even aware this was going on," Lemon said yesterday. "We have to find out how many this applies to, where they are going to vote, and what it's going to cost the town."

Asked his opinion on the developing situation, Lemon said: "It doesn't matter what I think about it, if that's what the court ruled."

"The time and effort involved in this, with the staff I have, is unbelievable," Adams complained, adding that prisoners number in the thousands. "But I will abide by what the court ruled."

Christine Legere can be reached at christinelegere@yahoo.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/01/town_scrambles_as_70_inmates_register_to_vote/

Posted by lois at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2008

Justice Policy Institute Report: Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) released a new report this week examining the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC)--the relationship between government and private interests that use imprisonment, policing, and surveillance as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex, examines the progress of reform 10 years after Critical Resistance first launched its efforts to dismantle the PIC. The report underscores:

Despite crime rates at 30-year lows, the criminal justice system has under its control more people than ever.

* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* Spending on the criminal justice system, including police, corrections, the judiciary, has increased 64 percent between 1996 and 2005 to a total of $213 billion.
* The prison system disproportionately impacts communities of color. African Americans and Hispanics make up one third of the U.S. population but makeup 61 percent of the imprisoned population.
* Incarceration rates continue to increase whether crime rates are up or down.

Economic incentives encourage the growth of prisons and support increased surveillance, arrests, and imprisonment.

* Private Prisons: Corrections Corporation of America's stock price has been steadily rising. CCA recently posted a $35 million profit in the last quarter of 2007, up from $32 million in the same period in 2006.
* Prison Industries: Federal Prison Industries, a corporation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, has an online catalogue of merchandise for purchase by other federal agencies, including office furniture and clothing. State prison industries employed 56,000 people in prison in 1999 and, according to research published in Labor Studies Journal in 2002, generated $3 billion in sales and $67 million in profits for the states.
* Private Industry in Prison: In 1979, Congress established the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program to authorize private companies to employ people who are held behind bars and to execute contracts. Companies frequently pay people in prison below minimum wage for these "low-skilled" jobs and prisons garnish their wages further by charging for room and board. This process ensures that resources are pumped back into prisons and that individuals see little of their earnings.
* Industry for Surrounding Communities: Although public officials will often claim that prisons will bring jobs to rural or economically depressed areas, actually there is often little or no economic improvement or revitalization of the community.

Investments in policing and surveillance have increased, thereby widening the gateway to the criminal justice system.

* Although local police still receive the majority of funding, increases at the federal level are the most dramatic. Between 1982 and 2005, federal expenditures on police protection have increased 945.1 percent, from $2.15 billion in 1982 to $22.5 billion in 2005.
* Law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their surveillance capacity and presence in certain areas: in just three years the number of police departments using video cameras increased 15 percentage points. In 2000, 45 percent of local police departments regularly used video cameras. By 2003, 60 percent regularly operated video cameras, and an estimated 48,800 in-car cameras were in use.
* Cop-watching groups are increasing and becoming more organized in cities across the counties as a way to monitor police behaviors.
* Specialized police, particularly in schools, has also increased dramatically. In 1999, 54.1 percent of students ages 12 to18 reported the use of security guards and/ or assigned police officers at school, compared to 67.9 percent in 2005.

The prison industrial complex relies on the criminalization of certain actions to thrive.

* Federalization of certain offenses: The U.S. has added one new federal crime to the books every week for the past 7 years. This increase in crimes has directly added to the federal prison system, which has grown at triple the rate of state prison populations.

* War on Drugs: The war on drugs is increasingly waged with paramilitary-style tactics. In the past 20 years, there has been a 1,400 percent increase in the total number of SWAT team deployments.

* Criminalizing Poverty: More cities are relying on policies that are meant to address "quality of life crimes" by having a zero tolerance approach to behaviors such as panhandling, loitering, and "camping." A report in 2006 that surveyed 224 cities around the country on their laws involving the criminalization of homelessness and found that 27 percent of cities prohibited sitting or lying in certain public places and 43 percent prohibited begging in certain places.

* Criminalization of Immigration: The number of USBP agents nearly tripled between 1990 and 2005. In FY 2006 alone, 1,500 more agents were added. Since 1995, the number of people held by ICE in prisons and jails has increased more than 200 percent.

Media messages, public opinion, social policy, and government agencies legitimize the criminalization of certain behaviors to the benefit of the prison industrial complex.

* Crime and Public Safety: The frequency with which media reports crime does not fluctuate with actual crime rates. In 1994 when the violent crime rate was at its peak, there were more than 2,500 media crime stories. But as the violent crime rate continued to fall, the number of crime stories continued to fluctuate for the next 10 years, regardless of trends in violent or property offenses.

* Criminalization of Poverty: Researchers have found that television media relies on stereotypical assumptions about poverty and the symptoms of poverty (crime, drug use, mental illness) by linking those symptoms to visual cues and language ("abandoned house" or "drug-infested"). In one study, of the 239 news stories that mentioned symptoms of poverty, approximately 147 stories showed crime, drugs, and gangs as a manifestation of poverty.

* Criminalization of Immigration: Public opinion polls document public fear about Latino immigrants coming to the United States not to commit a terrorist act but to take jobs and use services typically guaranteed to U.S. residents, and to commit crimes. This is despite research which shows that while the number of undocumented immigrants increased 57 percent from 1990 to 2000, crime rates plummeted to some of the lowest in U.S. history.

Communities of color and people living in poverty are overwhelmingly disproportionately affected by the prison industrial complex.

* Data shows that in 2002, 8.5 percent of whites used illicit drugs, compared to 9.7 percent of African Americans. However, African Americans are admitted to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of whites.

* Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that 83.5 percent of people in jail in 2002 earned less than $2,000 per month prior to arrest.

* People of color are disproportionately affected by poverty and, thus are also more likely to be imprisoned. African Americans made up about 13 percent of the general population but approximately 22 percent of the people living in poverty and 40 percent of people in prisons and jails in 2006.

The report concludes that advocates must be just as innovative and flexible as the prison industrial complex in order to dismantle the system, while resisting so-called reforms that inadvertently expand the reach of the criminal justice system. Positive social investments in education, employment, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment are cost effective means of creating strong communities
Find the report here:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-09_REP_MovingTargetCR10_AC-PS.pdf

Posted by lois at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2008

GOP Intimidation Halts Historic Drive to Register Voters in Alabama

GOP Intimidation Halts Historic Drive to Register Voters in Alabama
State Law Allows Certain People to Vote Even While Incarcerated

Alabama Department of Corrections Caves to Republican Pressure, Tells Advocates: You Can No Longer Register Voters Inside Alabama Prisons

DOTHAN—Alabama-based The Ordinary People's Society and their national partner the Drug Policy Alliance began a historic voter registration drive this week in prisons across Alabama. The drive was prepared with the full support of the Alabama Department of Corrections (DOC). However, after Alabama newspapers reported on the registration drive, the state GOP voiced their opposition to the effort and pressured the DOC to end it. Yesterday, the DOC reversed their position and has barred advocates from registering eligible voters in Alabama correctional facilities.

"Voter registration drives are an essential part of our democracy, and this action by the GOP and the Department of Corrections smacks of voter intimidation," said Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, founder and executive director of The Ordinary People's Society, the group leading the registration drive. "Our focus isn't politics, it's restoration. We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people in prison and ministering to them. The chairman of the Republican Party and the chairman of the Democratic Party can go into prisons with us and monitor the registration process to make sure it's nonpartisan, if that's a concern."

In Alabama, nearly 250,000 people have been stripped their voting rights due to a felony conviction. But in a 2006 court ruling in Alabama, a judge found that only those convicted of felonies of "moral turpitude" lose their right to vote. The judge found that certain felonies—such as drug possession—do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude, and therefore individuals convicted of those crimes do not lose their right to vote, even during incarceration. Alabama's Attorney General, Troy King, concurred with the ruling. This change could have an impact on nearly 70,000 Alabamians, including nearly 10,000 currently incarcerated in state prisons on drug charges alone.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act, which supports the process of people with felony convictions re-entering society by funding programs inside and outside prisons to increase civic participation upon their release. Bush, the country's top Republican, also has expressed support for the restoration of voting rights to people with felony convictions.

"Alabama state law makes it clear that people incarcerated for simple drug possession never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated," said Glasgow. "The GOP and the Alabama Department of Corrections cannot decide on their own which constituencies are going to have access to the vote, and which will be barred from it. We live in a democracy, after all."

###

Associated Press
GOP opposes letting prisoners register to vote
9/19/2008
By JAY REEVES

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Republican Party opposes a drive to register inmates to vote so they can cast absentee ballots from inside state prisons, with the state GOP chief saying Thursday there needs to be safeguards against voter fraud.

State Rep. Mike Hubbard, chairman of the party, told Corrections Commissioner Richard Allen in a letter delivered by e-mail that the party supports the idea of registering more people to vote, but not when it comes to prisoners.

"Furthermore, I have concerns about potential issues with how this effort is being monitored to ensure no form of voter fraud occurs," Hubbard wrote. He asked Allen to outline the prison system's plans for preventing fraud.

Prison spokesman Brian Corbett said the commissioner was working on a response and declined further comment.

Hubbard's letter came two days after The Associated Press reported that a coalition of groups led by a community activist, the Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, began registering inmates to vote in state lockups this week. Nearly 80 filled out registration forms in two days.

Glasgow, a Democrat from Dothan who served time for robbery and drug convictions, said no one with the state has told him to stop registering inmates. He plans to continue the effort with other members of the coalition, which he said includes Republicans and Democrats.

"I think they're more worried about me being a Democrat than anything," said Glasgow. "The chairman of the Republican Party and the chairman of the Democratic Party can go in there with me and monitor it to make sure it's nonpartisan."

Glasgow, a pastor, intends to turn in the registration forms and return to the lockups later to make sure inmates mail in absentee forms. He said the project is about human rights and preparing prisoners to return to society, not politics.

"We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people in prison and ministering to them," he said.

About 3,000 people could be eligible to vote from inside Alabama prisons, Glasgow said, and he plans to register as many as possible in coming weeks.

Alabama law prohibits felons convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude" from voting unless they have had their rights restored. State law doesn't define such crimes, but court opinions have said they include major offenses like murder, robbery and rape plus some lesser offenses, like taking a stolen car across state lines.

Glasgow's drive is concentrating on registering prisoners who have been convicted only of drug possession, which an attorney general's opinion issued in 2005 did not define as a crime of moral turpitude.

Confusion over which crimes involve "moral turpitude" has led to litigation seeking the restoration of prisoners' voting rights. The most recent was filed in July by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three ex-inmates.

Associated Press
State inmates register to vote in prison
By Jay Reeves
September 17, 2008

BIRMINGHAM -- Alabama inmates are registering to vote from prison in a precedent-set­ting effort organized by activist groups with the blessing of state corrections officials.

Nearly 80 prisoners had filled out registration forms during drives at two lockups, and organizers plan to help them and hundreds more obtain absentee ballots in time to vote in the presidential election on Nov. 4.

Laura Schley, 34, has eight months left on a four-year sen­tence for illegal possession of prescription drugs. She had a hard time believing she was reg­istering Tuesday at the Bir­mingham Work Release Center.

"It just blew my mind," said Schley, who was wearing prison whites. "My voting rights are very important to me and have been ever since I was 18."

The state attorney general's office issued an opinion seven years ago that inmates could vote from inside prison using absentee ballots. But confusion and lawsuits followed over which felons had that right be­cause of a murky phrase in state law.

Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said no one previ­ously had registered prisoners to vote in Alabama.

"It's something that we sup­port and authorized for them to do," said Corbett.

The drive is led by Kenneth Glasgow of Dothan, who served 14 years on robbery and drug charges and is now a pastor. Glasgow said restoring voting rights is essential to returning felons to society.

"What we're interested in is not so much the politics but the restoration of people's lives," Glasgow said.

Glasgow is state coordinator of a coalition that includes the Drug Policy Alliance, which ad­vocates reforms including a move toward treatment rather than prison time for drug users.

Angela Wright, in the work-release center for cocaine pos­session, said she has to study be­fore casting her vote for either Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama for president.

"I haven't really even been paying attention because I fig­ured it was a lost cause," Wright said after filling out a registra­tion form.

Studies have estimated that more than 250,000 Alabama resi­dents are barred from voting be­cause of criminal records.

State law says those con­victed of crimes of "moral turpi­tude" can't vote unless they have their rights restored by the state. The law does not state ex­actly which crimes are bad enough to make that list. Turpi­tude is defined as "baseness, vil­eness, depravity."

The state attorney general's office has said those offenses in­clude murder, rape, multiple sex and obscenity offenses, bur­glary, robbery, forgery, conspir­acy to commit fraud, aggravated assault, drug sales, bigamy, im­peachment, treason and trans­porting stolen vehicles out of state.

Others convicted of lesser crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs, battery or attempted burglary are eligi­ble to vote, even from inside prison.

Glasgow, who coordinates a coalition of eight prisoners' rights groups, is registering in­mates convicted only of drug possession. He previously regis­tered hundreds in county jails across the state.

Many convicted on drug charges also were sentenced for other crimes. Prison system sta­tistics don't indicate how many inmates are behind bars only for drug possession.

Glasgow believes about 3,000 people could be eligible to vote from inside Alabama prisons, and he plans to register as many as possible in coming weeks.

Completed voter registration forms will be sent to the secre­tary of state's office and volun­teers will return to state lockups to make sure prisoners cast their absentee ballots.

A Jefferson County judge in 2006 ordered the state to let all convicted felons vote because the law failed to define offenses or moral turpitude, but the Ala­bama Supreme Court over­turned the decision.

Posted by lois at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2008

OK: Counties reminded people with felony convictions can vote

Counties reminded ex-felons can vote
Publication:The Oklahoman Sept 18, 2008
Section:Front page

By Michael Kimball Staff Write

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma mailed letters to the state’s county election boards this week reminding them former felons have the right to vote.

“With Oct.10 being the deadline (for voter registration) for the presidential election, we find this to be extremely timely,” said ACLU spokeswoman Katy Jones at a Tuesday news conference. “A lot of people don’t understand that these exfelons have voting rights.”

In Oklahoma, convicted felons are stripped of the right to vote while incarcerated, on parole or probation. When a felon’s original sentence is complete, voting rights are restored. Those given a deferred sentence for a felony crime retain their voting rights without interruption. Voting rights for felons vary by state.

All of Us or None Oklahoma, the local chapter of a national felon advocacy group, is conducting a survey this month to see which counties are giving incorrect information about felons’ voting rights, spokeswoman Faye Tucker said. Counties have shown improvement over a 2005 survey in providing correct information, Tucker said.
Felon Voting Rights FAQs:
Q: Can convicted felons vote in Oklahoma?
A: Yes – so long as their sentence has been completed.
Q: Can people accused of a felony, but not convicted, vote?
A: Yes – voting rights are stripped only upon conviction for a felony.
Q: What about deferred or suspended sentences?
A: People given a deferred sentence can vote. People given suspended sentences for felony convictions cannot vote.
Q: Must felons provide proof they are not on probation or on parole when registering to vote?
A: No. Like all voters, felons are simply asked to swear they meet requirements.
Q: What if a person’s felony conviction came from another state?
A: The same rules apply, regardless of jurisdiction.

Posted by lois at 05:25 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2008

States Restore Voting Rights for Ex-Convicts, but Issue Remains

September 14, 2008
States Restore Voting Rights for Ex-Convicts, but Issue Remains Politically Sensitive
By SOLOMON MOORE
NY Times

Striding across a sweltering strip-mall parking lot with her clipboard in hand, Monica Bell, a community field organizer in Orlando, Fla., was looking for former convicts to add to the state’s voter rolls.

Antonious Benton, a gold-toothed 22-year-old with a silver skull-shaped belt buckle, a laconic smile and a criminal record, was the first person she approached.

“I can’t vote because I got three felonies,” Mr. Benton told Ms. Bell. He had finished a six-month sentence for possession of $600 worth of crack cocaine, he said. But Ms. Bell had good news for him: The Florida Legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, changed the rules last year to restore the voting rights of about 112,000 former convicts.

“After you go to prison — you do your time and they still take all your rights away,” Mr. Benton said as he filled out a form to register. “You can’t get a job. You can’t vote. You can’t do nothing even 10 or 20 years later. You don’t feel like a citizen. You don’t even feel human.”

Felony disenfranchisement — often a holdover from exclusionary Jim Crow-era laws like poll taxes and ballot box literacy tests — affects about 5.3 million former and current felons in the United States, according to voting rights groups. But voter registration and advocacy groups say that recent overhauls of these Reconstruction-era laws have loosened enough in some states to make it worth the time to lobby statehouses for more liberal voting restoration processes, and to try to track down former felons in indigent neighborhoods.

“You’re talking about incredible numbers of people out there who now may have had their right to vote restored and don’t even know it,” said Reggie Mitchell, a former voter-registration worker for People for the American Way. In Florida, “we’re talking tens of thousands of people,” he said. “And in the 2000 election, in the state of Florida, 300 people made the difference.”

A loose-knit group of national organizations working to restore voting rights includes the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn (Ms. Bell’s employer); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and the Brennan Center for Justice.

Two other groups, the Sentencing Project and the American Civil Liberties Union, said they had given briefings to officials for Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign about how to register former felons. But the Obama campaign has been reluctant to acknowledge any concerted effort.

An Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, said via e-mail, “We are trying to register voters across the country and follow the state laws wherever we are.”

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and senior adviser to the Obama campaign on criminal justice issues, said he had briefed campaign officials about felony disenfranchisement issues and the various and often-confusing state requirements to restore voting rights to former convicts.

Campaign volunteers get briefed on specific state laws governing voting rights restoration in case they come across former felons during general voter registration drives, Mr. Ogletree said, “but it’s not as if the Obama campaign said, ‘Here’s a plan for felony disenfranchisement.’ ”

None of the felony voter registration organizations contacted for this article could recall hearing from Senator John McCain’s campaign. And a campaign spokesman said there had been no effort to reach out to former prisoners specifically.

Last month, Obama campaign workers took down a sign at their headquarters in Pottstown, Pa., that said “Felons can vote,” because it might have sent the wrong message.

“The fear is that it might cost them more votes to be portrayed as the candidate of the felons than it could gain them,” said Anthony C. Thompson, a New York University law professor and Obama campaign adviser. “This is a mistaken belief, in my view, when there are tens of millions of citizens with criminal records.”

In fact, felony voter restoration efforts have received bipartisan support in many states including Alabama, Florida, Indiana and Maryland. Still, surveys have shown that about 70 percent of former convicts lean Democratic, according to Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota criminologist who said that had led some to believe that Democrats benefited from felony voter restoration more than did Republicans.

“That’s because of the high rate of incarceration among African-Americans, who have strong Democratic preferences,” Mr. Uggen said, “and because many people who have committed felonies are working class, relatively young, unmarried and in particular individuals with less than a high school education. These are all demographics that traditionally align themselves with the Democrats.”

Muslima Lewis, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said: “Really, you’re not having a full participatory democracy if you disenfranchise so many people. It weakens the whole system and, in particular, communities of color.”

All of Us or None, a prisoner-advocacy organization in San Francisco, held a rally last month about restoration of voting rights in California. Also last month, the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition successfully lobbied the Denver County jail system to begin registering felons upon their release.

The A.C.L.U. is also advising lawyers’ groups planning to deploy to polling places in November to enforce the rights of former convicts who have restored their voting privileges.

According to the A.C.L.U. only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners, parolees and probationers to vote. Thirteen states allow parolees and probationers to vote, eight states reinstate probationer voting rights, and 20 states restore voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, although each state has different processes, exceptions and limits on eligibility requirements. Kentucky and Virginia permanently disenfranchise nearly all felons.

Florida’s felony voter registration law divides applicants into three categories based on the seriousness of their crimes: nonviolent criminals, the biggest group, need not apply for restoration of voting rights and just need to re-register. Violent criminals, but not murderers or rapists, must apply to the clemency board. The board either grants those rights immediately or investigates on a case-by-case basis. The most violent criminals are subjected to a more rigorous investigation and must attend a hearing of the clemency board, which meets only four times a year, before their rights can be reinstated.

Despite the state’s liberalization of felony voter procedures, only 9,000 out of a potential 112,000 former convicts in Florida registered to vote in the last year, according to a report last month in The Orlando Sentinel. Part of the reason is that thousands of notifications sent by the state went to the wrong addresses because of poor data and former prisoners’ high mobility.

Fred Schuknecht, the director of administration for the Florida Clemency Board, acknowledged in an interview that there was a backlog of 60,000 former felons who could potentially have their rights restored, but must first be reviewed by the agency. Despite the fact that 3,500 newly released prisoners are added to the caseload every month, the Legislature cut 20 percent of the staff devoted to felony voter restoration cases, Mr. Schuknecht said.

Further, Ms. Bell said that many former convicts shun attention, even if that means abdicating their voting rights.

“You might want them to fill out the registration form, but they have an outstanding warrant,” she said. “And in order to help them, I need to ask what their crimes are, but they might not want to say.”

Cheria Murray, 24, of Orlando, regained voting rights this year, after serving a two-day jail sentence with two years’ probation for grand theft in 2003. Ms. Murray lives in a housing project where, she said, many people had been stripped of their rights because of their records.

Her companion, Duane Miller, 28, recently returned from serving a sentence for illegal firearm possession, and has not applied to reinstate his voting rights.

Ms. Murray said she thought about restoring her voting rights only recently, inspired by the presidential campaign.

“When I saw Barack Obama, that’s when I got excited to get my rights back,” she said. “I wanted to vote for history.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14felony.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Posted by lois at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2008

60 Days Left in NV to Restore Voting Rights

Public News Service - NV » August , 2008
60 Days Left in NV to Restore Voting Rights

Las Vegas, NV – The clock is ticking for an estimated 20,000 Nevadans who have paid their debts to society and have a chance to regain their right to vote, in time for the upcoming presidential election. Under a new state law, most people who have served their time for non-violent offenses can file papers to get a voter registration card.

Mike Aguirre was in his 20s when he admitted his guilt to a drug charge, and his three years of probation ended long ago. Now, he's forty.

"It just seems like this election, there's so much attention focusing on it, I want my voice to count; I want to be part of this, basically making history, this campaign, and I just want to be a part of it."

Political analysts say the 19 electoral votes of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico combined could tilt the election.

Aguirre says he thinks a lot of Nevadans with records don't know they can restore their voting rights. Most Nevadans who were released from prison prior to July 2003 are automatically eligible to have their voting rights restored. For those released in August 2003 and after, only non-violent offenders are eligible.

In passing the law, Nevada joined 33 other states in allowing people who have done their time and stayed on the right side of the law to return to the voting booth.

Meredith McGhan is the voter restoration advocate for PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

"We're really hoping that we'll get a lot of people involved in this because it's just so important that people participate in civic engagement; it reduces their chances of re-offending, it makes them feel like they are part of the community again, and I think that's just really important in a democracy."

People who have completed their sentences can start the process on their own as long as they have documentation of their release, discharge or pardon. Nevadans who need help obtaining that paperwork can get help from the PLAN voter restoration project.
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/print.php?key=5885-1

Posted by lois at 04:38 PM | Comments (0)

NYCLU Launches Public Education Campaign on the Voting Rights of People with Criminal Records

Published by the New York Civil Liberties Union (http://www.nyclu.org)
NYCLU Launches Public Education Campaign on the Voting Rights of People with Criminal Records

As the presidential election approaches, the New York Civil Liberties Union today announced it has launched an intensive statewide campaign to help New Yorkers with criminal records reclaim their right to vote.

The campaign, which runs through the voter registration deadline on Friday, Oct. 10, features bus advertisements in New York City, train advertisements in Buffalo and Western New York, public service announcements to be broadcast on radio stations throughout the state, and a new web page – www.nyclu.org/vote – where visitors can access voting rights toolkits, posters and videos. Every weekend until the voter registration deadline, teams of NYCLU volunteers will be in New York City parks registering voters and educating New Yorkers about their rights.

“There is a mistaken belief that those with criminal records permanently lose their right to vote. As a result, thousands of New Yorkers are either unnecessarily forfeiting their rights or being unlawfully denied their right to vote,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. “This campaign seeks to correct that mistake by educating both the public and county election officials that people who have completed felony sentences have the right to vote.”

In New York State, individuals who have been convicted of a felony cannot vote while incarcerated or on parole. The right to vote is restored once someone is released from prison or completes parole, though it is up to the voter to re-register with their county board of elections. No documentation or special forms are required to prove the completion of a sentence. Those sentenced to probation for a felony offense never lose the right to vote.

More than 100,000 people are convicted of felonies each year in New York State – in 2007 alone, a record 115,573 people were convicted of felony offenses. Nearly 62,300 of those who are convicted are currently on probation for felonies. An additional 12,100 people are released from parole each year.

A study conducted by the Sentencing Project shows that a majority of these people are under the mistaken belief that they are unable to vote, which means there are hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who incorrectly believe they are permanently disfranchised.

Many workers at county election boards are poorly informed about the voting rights of those with criminal records. A 2006 report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 38 percent of employees at New York’s county election boards indicated they didn’t know whether probationers could vote. A study conducted before the 2004 election revealed that more than half of New York’s county election boards unlawfully required formerly incarcerated individuals to present documentation of their criminal status before they could register to vote.

“This is a matter of justice,” said Corinne Carey, NYCLU public policy counsel and voting rights campaign coordinator. “Voting provides people a voice – something stripped from them while in prison. The vote allows people to demonstrate their commitment to American democracy and helps them rejoin society.”

The campaign, partly paid for by a $15,000 grant from the Adco Foundation, educates the public about the voting rights of those with criminal records through a variety of media. Partnering with the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Against Recidivism and The Fortune Society, the NYCLU sponsored advertisements on MTA buses in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan alerting people of their voting rights and directing them to the NYCLU’s voter enfranchisement web page: www.nyclu.org/vote. The NYCLU ran similar ads in Buffalo and Western New York.

By visiting www.nyclu.org/vote, people can download voter registration forms; access a toolkit of information on voting rights; listen to a public service announcement on registering to vote; and download posters to help spread the message.

Visitors to the web page also can watch a series of videos chronicling a Brooklyn woman’s effort to reclaim her right to vote. Maria Perez, who completed parole in 2000, was unlawfully denied the right to vote in the 2004 presidential election. The videos follow her as she visits her local election board and registers to vote and as she receives the election board’s decision on her voting status. A third video will follow her to the polls on Election Day as she casts her first vote in a decade.
Source URL:
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1976

Posted by lois at 04:32 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2008

For Those Once Behind Bars, A Nudge to the Voting Booth

For Those Once Behind Bars, A Nudge to the Voting Booth

By Krissah Williams Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 11, 2008; A01

TALLAHASSEE -- Herbert Pompey had gone through rehab, stayed sober, held a job, married and started a landscaping business in the two years since he walked out of Taylor Correctional Institution. But what Pompey hadn't done -- and what he assumed a string of felony drug and DUI convictions would keep him from ever doing again -- was vote.

So his pulse quickened when civil rights lawyer Reggie Mitchell called to tell him that his rights had been restored.

"You're eligible to vote now, Mr. Pompey," Mitchell said, calmly relaying the news. "Can I bring you a voter-registration card?"

Pompey whispered, "Lord, you was listening."

Mitchell smiled -- he had gotten another felon back on the rolls.

Mitchell is a leader of a disparate group of grass-roots Democrats and civil rights activists who are trying to register tens of thousands of newly eligible felons. They have taken up the cause on their own, motivated by the belief that former offenders have been unfairly disenfranchised for decades. Despite massive registration efforts, the presidential campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have not designated anyone to go after the group.

In Alabama, Al Sharpton's younger brother, the Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, will take his "Prodigal Son" ministry into state prisons with voter-registration cards for the first time. The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed suit there and in Tennessee to make it possible for an even larger class of felons to register. In Ohio, the NAACP will hold a voter-registration day at the Justice Center in downtown Cleveland this month to register "people caught up in the criminal justice system," a local official said. In California, a team will stand in front of jails on Aug. 16 to register people visiting prisoners and encourage them to take registration cards to their incarcerated friends or family members, some of whom can legally vote.

"This is a voting block that has never been open before, and it has opened up at such a time as this," said Glasgow, who was a felon himself.

In Florida, a law change last year made more than 115,000 felons eligible to vote, according to the state Parole Commission. In other states, civil rights and criminal justice groups estimate there are similar numbers who have not registered.

All but two states -- Maine and Vermont -- limit voting rights for people with felony convictions. Some felons are banned from voting until they have completed parole and paid restitution, others for life. Kentucky and Virginia have the most restrictive laws, denying all felons the right to vote, though Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has encouraged nonviolent offenders to apply to have their rights restored.

Generally, though restoring voting rights has hit resistance from all directions. Not wanting to appear soft on crime, Democratic and Republican leaders have not aggressively pursued the issue. In Florida, black state legislators led the fight for a decade before populist Republican Gov. Charlie Crist pushed through the change shortly after being elected in 2006. The legislation permits many nonviolent felons to vote as long as they have no charges pending, have paid restitution and have completed probation.

But getting the ex-offenders registered has been a slow process.

Mitchell, 43, a Democrat and Obama backer, is leading the effort in Tallahassee and has created an "Ex-Felon Targets" database to search for potential voters. He calls getting voter-registration cards to them a "passionate hobby."

"The majority of people to get their rights restored are Democrats, and if we get them registered, [we] might overtake the state," he said.

The Obama campaign isn't so sure. Mark Bubriski, the candidate's spokesman in Florida, said the felon vote "could certainly swing an election, but there are millions and millions of voters." Bubriski added that finding ex-offenders can be hard to do, and that "there's also the perception, for some reason, that they are all black and all Democrats, and that's certainly not the case."

For Mitchell, his effort to sign up felons is political and personal. Florida's ban was written into the state constitution after the Civil War, and regaining the right was nearly impossible for decades. Hundreds of thousands of clemency applicants were rejected, leaving nearly 1 million Floridians unable to vote in the 2004 presidential election, according to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group.

The majority of felons in the state are white, and there are no studies on ex-offenders' party affiliation. Yet black men are disproportionately incarcerated and disproportionately disenfranchised, which Mitchell sees as a civil rights issue. Before the law changed, nearly a third of the state's black men were banned from voting, according to the Florida chapter of the ACLU.

"It kind of offended my notion of justice. You can serve your time and still have your rights taken away," said Mitchell, who is black. "I studied the history of black disenfranchisement in the state. We had the grandfather laws and the tissue-paper ballots. When a black man came to vote, they gave him a tissue-paper ballot that was later thrown out. There were lynchings and riots. We've got a long history of depriving people of the right to vote in Florida."

Mitchell left a personal-injury practice in 2004 to become Florida legal director for the nonprofit People for the American Way Foundation. Leading the liberal advocacy group's state voting rights project, he sent out news releases, lobbied politicians and, in 2006, marched to the statehouse with the ACLU and others, demanding that ex-offenders be allowed to vote.

Since the law was changed, the ACLU and People for the American Way have been reaching out to ex-offenders through Web sites that help people figure out whether the state has acted on their cases. Mitchell oversaw the project that helped build the foundation's Restore My Vote site ( http://www.restoremyvote.org).

Elizabeth Rhoden, 57, went to the site late last year, punched in her name and sat in her office crying with her dog Lopsy when she read that she had been cleared to vote. Rhoden, who is white, lost her right to vote when she was convicted of a drug charge in 1979.

The things she did when she was "young and stupid" have hung like a cloud over her life, she said, and for years she has been the lone Democrat in her family, complaining about the Bush administrations that have run the country and her state. In 2000, she volunteered for Al Gore's presidential campaign. In 2004, she worked on a committee to draft Gen. Wesley K. Clark. This year, she cast the first vote of her life -- for Obama in the Democratic primary.

"This has been a major, major thing in my heart," she said.

But visits to the Web sites have been inconsistent, and Mitchell thinks too much of the onus for getting the vote back has been on the felons. He feels called to help.

One hot Thursday, he folded his 6-foot-3 frame into his black Dodge Durango with the white Obama 'o8 bumper sticker. He had his salt-and-pepper goatee trimmed and wore a suit and leather shoes, as he does every day even though he is unemployed after losing his job in a downsizing at the end of June.

Mitchell was on his way to meet with Ion Sancho, election supervisor in Leon County, which includes Tallahassee. Sancho, who starred in an HBO documentary that questioned the reliability of electronic voting machines, is something of a local celebrity. Mitchell considers him an ally and told him about a St. Petersburg Times finding that only 8,200 ex-offenders have registered since the policy was changed, less than 10 percent of the number eligible.

"The information is not filtering to the people who need it," said Sancho, who worries that the governor's rule change has been stymied by a slow-moving, underfunded bureaucracy.

"It's catch as catch can as people learn about it," said Mitchell, who attended the historically black Florida A&M University on the city's south side. "If this country lawyer could figure this out, you mean the government couldn't do it?"

Next month, he and his Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity brothers will use his "Ex-Felon Targets" list to go door to door as part of its "a voteless people is a hopeless people campaign."

Until then, he is on his own. It was on his sixth call of a recent morning that Pompey picked up the phone.

Pompey drank and drugged for long stretches and cannot remember the last ballot he cast, but he and his wife, Carolyn, are Democrats and admirers of Obama's campaign because of its historic nature. Several months ago she told him, "We've got to get you registered to vote."

Even so, Pompey procrastinated after he received a letter from the state this summer telling him he now had his "rights restored."

"Not knowing what to do makes people not want to go do it," said Pompey, who is taking night classes at a community college and dreams of opening a Christian halfway house for ex-offenders. "You don't realize how far behind you are until you get back in the mainstream. Maybe fear, maybe procrastination just kind of paralyzed me, and I just didn't go forward with it."

Pompey came by Mitchell's nondescript office straight from work wearing mud-covered boots. He silently filled out the registration form, printing each word with care. Done, he said he felt free.

"Sometimes society has a way of wanting to continue to punish you," Pompey told Mitchell. "For me, [voting] is about coming full circle. For me, it's big."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081002511_pf.html

Posted by lois at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2008

"Real Cost of Prisons Comix' book events in the SF Bay Area September 24th through September 29th, 2008

Wednesday September 24th - Lois Ahrens, editor of the ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’ at The Green Arcade 7pm.
Book launch for the ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’, edited by Lois Ahrens and published by PM Press.
“One out of every hundred adults in the U.S. is in prison. This book provides a crash course in what drives mass incarceration, the human and community costs, and how to stop the numbers from going even higher.”
Through the comics, and associated campaigning, hundreds of thousands of prisoners, their allies, and activists, have had the grisly facts and consequences of mass incarceration and its devastating effects on communities, families and the poor, made accessible. Each comic includes alternatives to the costly and inhumane system we have now. More than 30 organizers in and out of prison write about how they use the comix in their work. Long-time activist and organizer, Lois Ahrens discusses The Real Cost of Prisons Project and introductory essay by Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore frames the comix within a political context.

Join the editor speaking about the book, and the wider project, together with the following activists who will talk on how they’ve used the comic books, and their work:
Marlon Altan is a social studies teacher with 5 Keys Charter School. 5 Keys charter school is a high school that works out of the San Francisco County Jail.
Amie Dowling is an Assistant Professor in the Performing Arts Dept at the University of San Francisco and through Community Works leads theater/writing workshops in the San Francisco jails.
Debbie Reyes, OSI Fellow, Central Valley Coordinator California Prison Moratorium Project, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Fresno, California.
Karen Shain is Co-Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a San Francisco-based 30-year-old prisoners' rights organization that advocates for the rights of incarcerated women, their families and communities.
Mara Taub from Santa Fe, NM, is the coordinator/editor ‘Coalition for Prisoners' Rights Newsletter’. Since 1976, the Coalition for Prisoners' Rights has worked to gather and disseminate information and analysis for those imprisoned, formerly imprisoned and their allies. Their short, free, monthly ‘Newsletter’ features news from/for prisoners nationwide; offers a variety of resource lists; and emphasizes analysis of the U.S. punishment system.
Part of the ‘Great Rehearsal’ Week of ’68 Events.
The Green Arcade
1680 Market Street (at Gough.)
San Francisco CA 94102
www.thegreenarcade.com
info@thegreenarcade.com

Thursday September 25th – ‘Incarceration, Resistance, Costs And Consequences: A Discussion with Authors, Activists And Former Political Prisoners’. At the First Congregational Church in Oakland 7pm. $10 (no-one turned away).
Co-sponsored with KPFA. A benefit for the Angola 3 Defense Fund.
A lively discussion on the rising costs, and consequences of incarceration. And of those that are resisting the Prison Industrial Complex.
Panelists include:
Robert Hillary King, author of the new autobiography ‘From The Bottom Of The Heap: The Autobiography Of Black Panther Robert Hillary King’ (PM Press). Robert Hillary King is better known as one of the Angola 3, who served over 31 years in Louisiana’s ‘slave plantation’ at Angola, 29 of them in solitary confinement. He, together with his Angola 3 comrades, Herman Bell and Albert Woodfox, organized within the prison the first (and only) Black Panther chapter behind the walls. The state reacted (unsurprisingly) accordingly.
Lois Ahrens, editor of the ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’ (PM Press). Through the comics, and associated campaigning, hundreds of thousands of prisoners, their allies, and activists, have had the grisly facts and consequences of mass incarceration and its devastating effects on communities, families and the poor, made accessible. Each comic includes alternatives to the costly and inhumane system we have now.
Victoria Law, author of ‘Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles Of Incarcerated Women’ (PM Press), and longtime prison activist. About the forthcoming book: In 1974, women imprisoned at New York's maximum-security prison at Bedford Hills staged what is known as the August Rebellion. Protesting the brutal beating of a fellow prisoner, the women fought off guards, holding seven of them hostage, and took over sections of the prison. While many have heard of the 1971 Attica prison uprising, the August Rebellion remains relatively unknown even in activist circles. ‘Resistance Behind Bars’ is determined to challenge and change such oversights. As it examines daily struggles against appalling prison conditions and injustices, ‘Resistance’ documents both collective organizing and individual resistance among women incarcerated in the U.S. Emphasizing women's agency in resisting the conditions of their confinement through forming peer education groups, clandestinely arranging ways for children to visit mothers in distant prisons and raising public awareness about their lives, ‘Resistance’ seeks to spark further discussion and research into the lives of incarcerated women and galvanize much-needed outside support for their struggles.
Matt Meyer, editor of the monumental (all 912 pages!) ‘Let Freedom Ring’ (PM Press/Kersplebedeb), and activist with Resistance In Brooklyn:
‘Let Freedom Ring’ presents a two-decade sweep of essays, analyses, histories, interviews, resolutions, People’s Tribunals verdicts and poems by and about the scores of U.S. political prisoners and the campaigns to safeguard their rights and to secure their freedom. Represented here are the radical movements that have most challenged the U.S. empire from within: Black Panthers and other Black liberation fighters (several still held after 30+ years), Puerto Rican independentistas, Indigenous sovereignty activists, Chicano/Mexicano freedom strugglers, white anti-imperialists, environmental and animal rights militants, and others. This invaluable resource guide details the diabolical methods--from isolation to sensory deprivation to parole denial--used to suppress these freedom fighters, as well as the creative--and sometimes winning--strategies to bring them home.
Ashanti Alston, former Black Panther, Black Liberation Army political prisoner, and longtime activist, and a contributor to ‘Let Freedom Ring.’
Rita ‘Bo’ Brown, former member of the George Jackson Brigade, political prisoner, and longtime prisoner and queer activist, and a contributor to ‘Let Freedom Ring’
Moderated by KPFA host to be announced.
First Congregational Church of Oakland
www.firstoakland.org
2501 Harrison St
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-8511

Friday 26th September thru Sunday 28th September is the Critical Resistance 10th Anniversary Conference in Oakland.
Vikki Law and Matt Meyer are doing workshops. Robert Hillary King and Lois Ahrens will be in attendance. The PM films ‘The Angola 3’, ‘Jena 6’ and ‘Black & Gold’ are all being shown during the conference as part of the Critical Resistance Film Festival
www.criticalresistance.org

Monday 29th September - Book launch for ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’ and ‘Let Freedom Ring’ anthology, at Modern Times 7pm.
Last of the month long series of events as part of PM Press as ‘Publisher Of The Month’ at Modern Times. Featuring ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’, editor and activist and organizer Lois Ahrens:
“One out of every hundred adults in the U.S. is in prison. This book provides a crash course in what drives mass incarceration, the human and community costs, and how to stop the numbers from going even higher.”
Through the comics, and associated campaigning, hundreds of thousands of prisoners, their allies, and activists, have had the grisly facts and consequences of mass incarceration and its devastating effects on communities, families and the poor, made accessible. Each comic includes alternatives to the costly and inhumane system we have now. More than 30 organizers in and out of prison write about how they use the comix in their work. Long-time activist and organizer, Lois Ahrens discusses The Real Cost of Prisons Project and introductory essay by Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore frames the comix within a political context.
‘Let Freedom Ring’ editor Matt Meyer:
Let Freedom Ring’ presents a two-decade sweep of essays, analyses, histories, interviews, resolutions, People’s Tribunals verdicts and poems by and about the scores of U.S. political prisoners and the campaigns to safeguard their rights and to secure their freedom. Represented here are the radical movements that have most challenged the U.S. empire from within: Black Panthers and other Black liberation fighters (several still held after 30+ years), Puerto Rican independentistas, Indigenous sovereignty activists, Chicano/Mexicano freedom strugglers, white anti-imperialists, environmental and animal rights militants, and others. This invaluable resource guide details the diabolical methods--from isolation to sensory deprivation to parole denial--used to suppress these freedom fighters, as well as the creative--and sometimes winning--strategies to bring them home.
Ashanti Alston, former Black Panther, Black Liberation Army political prisoner, longtime activist, and a contributor to ‘Let Freedom Ring’.
Rita ‘Bo’ Brown, former member of the George Jackson Brigade, political prisoner, longtime prisoner and queer activist, and a contributor to ‘Let Freedom Ring’.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore, author of ‘Golden Gulag’ and co-author (with Craig Gilmore) of a new introduction to the ‘Real Cost Of Prisons Comix’.
Modern Times
www.mtbs.com
888 Valencia St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 282-9246

Posted by lois at 04:40 PM | Comments (0)

July 24, 2008

VA: Restore the right of felons to vote

Restore the right of felons to vote
Edward Hailes Jr.

Hailes is a senior attorney at Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization in Washington, D.C.

No single existing voting-rights inequity seems a starker injustice than the plight of people with felony convictions. These people, of course, aren't just murderers and muggers. Three out of every five felony convictions don't lead to jail time, and there's no clear line you have to cross to earn one.

Taking away the right to vote for life is analogous, some commentators have suggested, to the medieval practice of "civil death," where severe violations of society's social code led to complete loss of citizenship rights.

Contrary to popular belief, felony disenfranchisement laws are not part of the criminal justice system. Instead, they are state election laws, enacted by state legislatures and governors or hardwired into constitutions. Losing the right to vote after a felony conviction in Virginia is not in any way part of a criminal sentence -- it is a collateral consequence dictated by state law.

In essence, people with felony convictions lose their right to vote because of the intersection of two systems -- the election law system and the criminal justice system.

Virginia is one of only two states (Kentucky is the other) that permanently takes away the voting rights of all individuals with felony records, barring personal intervention by the governor.

The good news is Gov. Tim Kaine has pledged to expedite the review process for those petitioners who are eligible (nonviolent felons) to submit a one-page application by Aug. 1 in order to regain their voting rights and to register to vote in time to participate in the historic presidential election in November 2008 and beyond.

Many disenfranchisement laws were established to keep blacks from voting in former slave states. There is a movement afoot in Virginia to ameliorate the disempowering impact of felony disenfranchisement.

Three out of four Virginia voters think it is important to protect voting rights for all people, including those who have committed a crime, and most Virginia voters favor restoring voting rights to people who have been convicted of a felony after they have served their full sentence and completed all conditions of their punishment.

The commonwealth should change in the direction of automatic restoration after people with felony convictions have served their time.

The labyrinth of rules and regulations for re-enfranchisement in the commonwealth needs to end. Advancement Project's work in Virginia has shown us the sobering reality of the plethora of seemingly irrational obstacles to the voting process confronting people with felony convictions who have completed their debt to society.

The spotlight is now on the bureaucrats and the politicians who created and are responsible for administering these systems that unfairly keep people from voting.

The racially tainted history of felony disenfranchisement laws ought to make citizens of the commonwealth of all ideological persuasions reconsider their value in our democracy.

Felony disenfranchisement laws are undemocratic and unjust in denying citizens their political voice. And in doing so, these repugnant laws not only strip citizens of legitimate self-empowerment, but make a mockery of those of us who have faith that our democratic system can spawn a just society.

Advancement Project applauds Kaine for taking a step in the right direction in exercising his authority to restore voting rights to Virginia citizens who have already paid their debt to society.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/170152

Posted by lois at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2008

LA: Bill Requiring DOC to notify former prisoners of their voting rights signed into law

July 18, 2008. From The Sentencing Project

Louisiana: Bill Requiring Voting Rights Notification Gets Thumbs Up from Local ACLU

The ACLU of Louisiana has applauded Gov. Bobby Jindal's recent signing of a law that mandates the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to notify people leaving its supervision about the process of regaining their voting rights. The law, which goes into effect August 15, also requires the Department to provide returning citizens with voter registration applications.

"By requiring notice of voting rights reinstatement to those completing their felony sentences, the Louisiana legislature and Gov. Jindal have taken an important step towards ensuring that all of Louisiana's eligible voters can exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Marjorie Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana, which lobbied in favor of the bill. "The enactment of this legislation shows that the right to vote transcends partisan politics," Esman said. "This bill is about the strength of our democracy."

Louisiana's current law bans nearly 100,000 citizens from voting until they have completed parole or probation. Thousands more are kept from the polls because they wrongly believe that they cannot regain their right to vote, according to the ACLU. "The ACLU of Louisiana will be working with Voice of the Ex-Offender (VOTE) to help ensure that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections implements the bill quickly and effectively," said Norris Henderson, VOTE's founder and director.

Posted by lois at 06:12 PM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2008

MI: people with felony convictions and homeless people eligible to vote

Ex-felons, homeless are part of state voting process

By Eric T. Campbell
The Michigan Citizen

DETROIT — The 2008 primary race for the highest office in the nation has brought millions of new voters to the polls. With the end of the primary season and the beginning of the general election, many more will finally become active participants. But what about access to the polls for those whom society has attempted to marginalize?

The purging of Florida citizens, ex-felons and non-felons alike, from voter rolls in 2000 is just one example of a state apparatus intentionally eliminating minorities from the election process. In addition, new photo ID laws popping up around the country create more barriers to voter participation.

The 2004 presidential election in the U.S. resulted in numerous cases of alleged election fraud and a lack of sufficient numbers of voting machines.

In Michigan, the homeless and ex-felons are legally entitled to vote.

According to statistics obtained from the U.S. Justice Department by the Sentencing Project, 13% of Black men are unable to vote in America due to felony conviction laws. Like many states, ex-felons in Michigan keep their right to vote once they’ve served the community. Their voting status remains exactly the same as it was before a felony conviction.

However, according to Marc Mauer, executive director for the Washington D.C. based Sentencing Project, Corrections Departments in most states don’t go far enough in getting the word out to prisoners.

“It’s the lack of information,” Mauer told the Michigan Citizen. “There’s no systematic means by which they are informed of their right to vote.”

Mauer says many parolees incorrectly believe that they are unable to vote—an opinion often substantiated by misinformed election officials. He sites a recent 10 state survey in which 31% of local election officials misunderstood voting laws for ex-felons.

Kwasi Akwamu, from Helping Our Prisoners Elevate (H.O.P.E.), a Detroit prisoner advocacy group, says that prisoners often come out with the intention of addressing a system that unjustly led to their incarceration.

“Most people that go to prison gain a greater awareness,” Akwamu said. “We encourage ex-prisoners to vote—to become part of that process and change those harsh policies.”

Akwamu also says that one problem ex-prisoners often experience is maintaining the proper ID.

Ken Silfven, of the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, says that the Department of Corrections in Michigan is spending more time with ID issues for outgoing prisoners.

“We’re involved in the prison reentry program initiative,” Silfven told the Michigan Citizen, “with one goal being to get prisoners proper identification once released.”

Silfven talked about a new Secretary of State mobile office, which is targeting hard to reach populations like veterans, the elderly and the homeless.

Cheryl P. Johnson of the Coalition On Temporary Shelter told the Michigan Citizen that the 13,000 homeless in Detroit also have the opportunity to vote through absentee ballots.

COTS has four locations in the Detroit area which house homeless citizens in transition and permanent residents who may suffer from physical disabilities.

The city clerk’s office has traditionally had a presence at the shelters during elections to register voters and promote awareness, Johnson told the Michigan Citizen.

“We definitely focus on getting people knowledge about their voting rights,” Johnson says.

Johnson also said that local and national candidates have campaigned at temporary and permanent shelters in an effort to address the problem of homelessness and the people that have been victims of it.

“We’ve always had that kind of open door policy to allow nominees to come and speak.”

COTS is located at 26 Peterboro and can be reached at 313-831-3777.
Contact Helping Our Prisoners Elevate at www.hopedetroit.com
http://www.michigancitizen.com/print_this_story.asp?smenu=1&sdetail=6182

Posted by lois at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)

June 30, 2008

2 Editorials on Expanding Democracy & Disenfranchisement

June 30, 2008
Editorial, NY Times
Expanding Democracy in Florida

Among the world’s democracies, the United States is uniquely unforgiving in denying ex-offenders the right to vote. Nowhere is the problem worse than in Florida, where criminal justice experts estimate that as many as 950,000 felons are barred from the voting booth.

Last year, Gov. Charlie Crist pushed through new rules that made it easier for some ex-offenders to become full citizens and helped restore voting rights to more than 100,000 former prisoners. But this is well short of what’s needed — a complete overhaul of a wildly illogical system.

In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.

Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.

The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30mon3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Out of jail, on the rolls

June 24, 2008

VOTING IS a fundamental right, not a privilege for the virtuous. And yet 10 states permanently restrict the voting rights of some or all felons, and 25 more deny the franchise to those out on parole, according to a compelling new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. While these measures might satisfy a desire to punish law-breakers, they also add to the alienation of ex-cons - and are therefore likely to hurt rather than help public safety.

The voting rights of ex-felons are - bizarrely - decided on a state by state basis. Until a ballot question tightened the rules eight years ago, Massachusetts allowed incarcerated prisoners to vote. Even now, the Commonwealth restores prisoners' right to vote upon their release - a practice that the Brennan Center urges more restrictive states to adopt. The center is also touting federal legislation that would guarantee 4 million released prisoners the right to vote at least in federal elections.

Bans on voting by ex-cons bespeak a kind of paranoia - as if politically astute criminals would take control of the government and repeal all the laws. In fact, ex-cons are likely to be disconnected from politics and economic life. Their disenfranchisement also dampens the voting power of African-Americans and other minority communities with high incarceration rates.

The long-term disenfranchisement of ex-cons creates opportunities for mischief. In 2000, Florida denied the vote to innocent people with names similar to those in a national database of felons.

But there are more hopeful signs. In 2006 Rhode Island voted to restore the franchise to prisoners upon their release, and the report points to reforms in Iowa, Maryland, and even Florida. Legislators and voters are realizing that most prisoners eventually get out, and need to find a place in society. Restoring their right to vote can only help.

Posted by lois at 06:22 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2008

The Sentencing Project's response to George Will's Column: "More Prisons, Less Crime"

The Sentencing Project
www.sentencingproject.org

Do More Prisoners Equal Less Crime? A Response to George Will

In a recent syndicated column (“More Prisons, Less Crime,” Washington Post, June 22, 2008), commentator George Will argues that the world record incarceration rate in the United States has produced safer streets and has been beneficial in particular to African Americans, who are disproportionately victims of crime. Will’s selective use of data and limited vision provide an inaccurate portrayal of current criminal justice policy and its effects. Following is an assessment of some of the key arguments raised in the column.

“Liberalism likes victimization narratives and the related assumption that individuals are blank slates on which ’society’ writes. Hence liberals locate the cause of crime in flawed social conditions that liberalism supposedly can fix.”

Decades of research documents that people in low-income, minority communities are at greater risk of entering the criminal justice system because of the paucity of prevention programs, early intervention programs, and alternatives to incarceration. While privately run social services programs are widely available in most middle and upper class communities, their limited presence where they are most needed means that the first “intervention” that those less fortunate encounter is often prison.

Evidence-based social programs that address the contributing factors to crime have been demonstrated to be more cost-effective than incarceration. Research shows that quality preschool programs can save the public $17 for each dollar that is invested. Other programs with documented cost-effectiveness include initiatives to improve high school graduation rates and a variety of substance abuse treatment strategies.

“…Obama said that ‘more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities.’ Actually, there are more than twice as many black men ages 18 to 24 in college as there are in jail.”

Will is technically correct that Senator Obama misspoke in his reference to young black men, as opposed to black men of all ages. But current and projected rates of incarceration for black men are indeed dramatic. One of every nine black males in the age group 20-34 is in prison or jail on any given day, and if current trends continue one of every three black males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime.

“…from 1999 to 2004, violent offenders accounted for all of the increase in the prison population”

Will is both wrong and misleading on this statistic. First, the violent offense proportion of the state prison population increase, 75%, was substantial, but did not account for “all of the increase.” More importantly, the crisis of incarceration in the U.S. did not begin in 1999. In fact, the incarcerated population has been rising at a dramatic rate for more than three decades. The combined prison and jail population has risen by more than 600% since 1972, increasing from 300,000 to 2.3 million today. A longer term view of the rise in the prison and jail population shows that changes in drug policy have been most significant in contributing to this expansion. From 1980 to today, the number of drug offenders in prison and jail has risen by 1100%, from 41,000 to 500,000.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, prison remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. Absent recidivism or a violent crime, the criminal-justice system will do everything it can to keep you out of the state or federal slammer.”

The unprecedented rise in the prison population described above was brought about primarily as a result of changes in policy, not crime rates. State and federal legislatures passed numerous “tough on crime” laws intended to put more people in prison and keep them there longer than in the past. An analysis of incarceration patterns between 1980 and 2001 by noted criminologists Alfred Blumstein and Allen Beck concluded that fluctuations in crime rates played no role in the 316% growth in imprisonment. The researchers found that the entire growth was related to changes in sentencing policy, with 53% attributable to an increased likelihood of incarceration following an arrest and 47% resulting from increased time served in prison.

“But [Heather] Mac Donald cites studies of charging and sentencing that demonstrate that the reason more blacks are disproportionately in prison, and for longer terms, is not racism but racial differences in patterns of criminal offending.”

While differential crime offending is one contributing factor to racial disparities in prison, a wealth of research documents that it only explains a portion of the patterns in imprisonment. A comprehensive review of research in the field conducted for the National Institute of Justice concluded that "race and ethnicity do play an important role in contemporary sentencing decisions. Black and Hispanic offenders -- and particularly those who are young, male, or unemployed -- are more likely than their white counterparts to be sentenced to prison; in some jurisdictions, they also receive longer sentences...than do similarly situated white offenders."

“As for the charge that the incarceration rate of blacks is substantially explained by more severe federal sentences for crack as opposed to powder-cocaine defendants…[citing Mac Donald] ‘it’s going to take a lot more than 5,000 or so [federal] crack defendants a year to account for the 562,000 black prisoners in state and federal facilities at the end of 2006.’”

The movement to reform federal penalties for crack cocaine offenses is not based on the assumption that these policies represent the entire problem of disparity in the criminal justice system. Instead, as respected organizations including the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the American Bar Association have documented, the crack penalties are both ineffective as drug policy and contribute to unwarranted racial disparities. They are also representative of many of the misguided policies and practices of the “war on drugs,” which has resulted in over-incarceration of low-level offenders and disproportionate targeting of communities of color.

“ . . . 10 years of scholarly studies ‘have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime . . . [a] high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works.’”

The relationship between incarceration and crime is far more complicated than is suggested by this quote. During the 1990s, a time of historic declines in crime, there was no discernible correlation between incarceration rates and criminal offending. Between 1991 and 1998, states with above average increases in the rate of incarceration (72%) experienced a 13% decrease in crime rates. But states with below average increases in the rate of incarceration (30%) actually experienced a greater decline in crime rates, 17%. During this time the notable “tough on crime” state of Texas experienced a 144% rise in incarceration between 1991 and 1998, and its crime rate fell 35%. However, New York’s crime rate declined by a greater extent, 43%, during this period, despite an increase of incarceration of only 24%. New York continues to experience historic lows in crime while its prison population continues to decline, and there is widespread discussion of closing four prisons in the state because of excess capacity.

In truth, imprisonment has only played a limited role in reducing crime. An analysis of the drop in crime during the 1990s estimated that the growth of imprisonment accounted for about one-quarter of the decline in violent crime. Other contributing factors likely included a growing economy, changes in drug market dynamics, strategic policing, and community engagement in crime prevention efforts. While imprisonment may work at some level to reduce crime through deterrence and incapacitation, there is little evidence supporting the deterrent effect of increasingly longer prison sentences. Research suggests that any deterrent effect is more a function of the certainty of punishment, not the severity.

“‘Deterrence works.’ [Quoting Heather MacDonald] It works especially on behalf of blacks, who are disproportionately the victims of crimes by black men.”

While prison has had only a limited impact on crime, it is increasingly resulting in negative consequences for individuals, families, and communities. As a result of mass incarceration there are now 1.5 million children with a parent in prison, including 1 in 14 African American children.

African American communities are also affected by the challenges of reentry for the 700,000 people leaving prison each year. Many persons leaving prison are ill-equipped to handle life on the outside because they have received few services for mental health, substance abuse, education, and vocational skill-building programming while incarcerated.

Upon leaving prison or jail, individuals encounter a tangle of legal restrictions which severely limit their ability to become productive members of society. In addition to longstanding barriers to employment and education, in recent years policymakers have enacted a host of restrictions, many applying solely to drug offenders. These include a federal ban on welfare and food stamps for those with a felony drug conviction, a federal mandate that limits access to public housing, and restrictions on student loans for higher education.

An estimated 5.3 million individuals are unable to vote because of laws that deny this fundamental right to participate in the democratic process to those with felony convictions. These restrictions fall disproportionately on African Americans, with13% of black males currently unable to vote. These policies affect black communities as a whole, whereby even persons who are not disenfranchised experience vote dilution as a result of high rates of legal disenfranchisement in their communities.

Conclusion

Issues of crime and justice are critical ones for all Americans. As such, we need to encourage a national dialogue on promoting safety that assesses the appropriate balance of approaches among prevention, strengthening communities, and criminal justice sanctions. For more than three decades our nation has made unprecedented investments in prison expansion at the expense of other policy options. We now need a national dialogue that is centered on evidence-based research regarding the relative effectiveness of various interventions. Such a dialogue would produce better public safety outcomes for all Americans.

June 28, 2008

Posted by lois at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2008

VA: Churches add to effort to restore voting rights

Effort seeks to restore felons' voting rights
The local project will involve sermons, distributing information and conducting workshops.
Daily Press, Newport News VA
By DAVID SQUIRES
May 24, 2008

M.V. Cooke realizes that she made her own bed — hard. She didn't realize that she'd have to sleep in it so long — years after she paid for her crime and made peace.

Roderick Hart feels pretty much the same way.

Both plan to be in church Sunday as local pastors spur a grass-roots effort to help nonviolent offenders get voting rights restored in time for the Nov. 4 presidential election. For the next two Sundays, local churches will announce the program, pass out the necessary forms and plan workshops for offenders wanting their voting rights restored.

Cooke, 62, said that would be a big step toward making her whole again after a drug conviction in the 1980s. She has been out of the probation system since 1992.

"I didn't realize I couldn't vote until after I got out," said Cooke, who served 11 months in the Virginia Correctional Center for Women in Goochland. But that was merely one of her problems, she soon learned.

"When you have a felony, you can't get a job, a decent apartment, and you can't vote," said Cooke, who married in 1995 and is now a homeowner.

She didn't want to be photographed for this news story because she feared being ostracized in the community. "We're in a new neighborhood," she said. "None of the people in our church knows."

Cooke has sage advice for anyone thinking of crime to jump-start their lifestyle: "Don't do it," she said. "It's not worth it, and it's wrong."

Cooke, who's retired, said one of her biggest frustrations was a stereotype about black people and jobs.

"People always say that black people don't want to work," she said. "But if you go to a temp place, like Labor Finders, all you see is black people. People want to work, but jobs don't want to hire you because of something in your background."

Hart, 51, of Newport News, can relate: Off probation since 2002 for guns and weapons charges, Hart shows up regularly to find work through a Labor Finders location in Newport News.

Hart, who attends Way of the Cross Living Waters Church in Newport News, didn't know that his right to vote could be restored until recent talk about the local project.

He said he was eager to begin the process because as a convicted felon, "You don't have a say in anything. You have no say whatsoever. ... But one vote can make a difference."

The expedited program doesn't apply to violent and drug-distribution offenders. That process will take at least six months — usually longer — because it's more extensive, says Bernard Henderson, deputy secretary of the commonwealth.

Local churches will help collect applications from nonviolent offenders and send them to Richmond by Aug. 1, so the forms can be processed in time to allow registration for the November election. Registration can take place at least 30 days before the election.

The Rev. Paul Sheppard, pastor of Third Baptist Church in Hampton, is coordinating the effort for the Peninsula Baptist Pastors Council, which has asked local churches to participate. Sheppard said his Sunday sermon would refer to the vote-restoration project.

"I'm going to preach about it this Sunday, then I'm going to reinforce it next Sunday," he said. "Right now, I'm looking at Luke 15 — the reaction of a restoring God."

Applicants for restoration of rights must be residents of Virginia or convicted of a felony in a Virginia, federal or military court. They must have paid all costs, fines and restitution associated with their cases and have completed a three-year waiting period after the end of their sentence or release from probation. They also can't have a drunken-driving conviction in the past five years.

Restoration of rights — which are lost when a person is convicted of a felony — has been on the books in Virginia since the 1700s.

This year, the state started the expedited process for nonviolent offenders because the office always gets swamped in presidential-election years.

Three local women — Gaylene Kanoyton, Gisele Russell and G.V. Watson — thought up the local restoration project as a civic project and coordinated with the pastors council.

"This is the election that can restore human dignity to thousands of people who have been disenfranchised in any number of ways: economically, educationally, in the justice system or with basic civil rights," Kanoyton said. "That's why we need to make sure everyone who is eligible actually gets out to vote."

Copyright © 2008, Newport News, Va., Daily Press
dailypress.com/news/local/dp-local_voterestore_0524may24,0,3530066.story

Posted by lois at 11:15 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2008

VA: Voting rights elusive for people with felony convictions

Voting rights elusive for ex-felons
Virginia joins Kentucky with harsh reinstatement laws
by : Scott Weaver
In the coming summer months, when Virginia Organizing Project (VOP) organizer Harold Folley knocks on doors and talks to folks about the 2008 elections, inevitably some will tell him that they aren’t able to vote. And just maybe, Folley will lean in and pry a bit, stick his nose in their business, and discover that a felony conviction, even decades old, has taken away someone’s civil rights.

The Sentencing Project, a national organization that works on criminal justice issues, estimates that 5.3 million Americans—one in 41 adults—have lost their voting rights because of a felony conviction. And while each state has its own laws regarding the restoration of a felon’s civil rights, Virginia has one of the harshest sets of laws that make restoring your civil rights after a felony conviction a slog through a bureaucratic wasteland.

Civil rights include the right to vote, hold public office, serve on a jury and serve as a notary public. They do not include the right to possess a firearm.

Virginia has one of the nation’s harshest policies for felons who wish to regain the rights to vote, serve on a jury and hold public office.

“We encourage people all we can,” says Sheri Iachetta, Charlottesville’s general registrar. “But that’s about all we can do. It’s a really daunting procedure.”

Virginia and Kentucky are the only two states that do not automatically restore convicted felons’ civil rights. Most states restore these rights upon the completion of a prison sentence, probation or parole. In Virginia, felons convicted of a nonviolent offense must wait three years after completing all court obligations—sentencing, fines and probation—then file an application for the restoration of rights to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

If your conviction is for a violent offense —or a drug manufacturing or distribution offense—the process is much more difficult.

The nonviolent offender’s application is two pages. The violent application is 12. Iachetta calls the violent felony forms cumbersome. “They’re horrible,” she says.

After waiting five years after all court obligations, a person convicted of a violent felony must obtain a burdensome collection of paperwork: a letter from your most recent probation or parole officer, copies of your pre- or post-sentence report, certified copies of every order of conviction and sentencing orders, three letters of reference and, to top it off, a personal letter to the Governor explaining your convictions and how your life has changed.

Iachetta says that roughly half of the people she sees who start the process don’t complete it.

“There’s got to be an easier way,” says Iachetta. “I don’t know at this point what it is. The process can be streamlined. That being said, until it happens, we’ve got to deal with what we’ve got.”

Folley says that VOP will have 50 interns canvassing the state this summer, hoping to knock on 300,000 doors. Each will have restoration applications with them for anyone unable to vote because of a felony, violent or nonviolent. “We’ll have all the information for them that they’ll need.”

And if they are in Charlottesville, chances are they will be directed to Iachetta. Folley says her office has been extremely helpful to people navigating the state labyrinth of civil rights restoration.

Applicants drop by to use the phone, making the long-distance call to Richmond to check on applications that sometimes seem to go nowhere as the October 6 deadline to register to vote in the 2008 elections grows nearer. The Virginia League of Women Voters is also making restoration of civil rights one of its priority issues.

Iachetta says a six-month wait is typical.

“I’m seeing it a little longer than six months,” she says, “but I also know that there are a lot of people going through this process.”
http://c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11431905083135948

Posted by lois at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2008

Western MA Inside Out Program: The more we imprison, the less we vote

Conor Clarke and Greg Yothers
The Boston Globe
The more we imprison, the less we vote

May 5, 2008

FOR THE past 12 weeks, we have both been students in an Amherst College class on citizenship. Unlike most college courses, however, this one isn't held in a classroom. Each week, as part of the nationwide program Inside-Out, we meet for 2 1/2 hours in the dimly lit visiting room of the Hampshire County Correctional Facility. Half the students in the class are from the college; half are inmates at the facility.

It is a class on citizenship with a cruel irony: Because of a 2000 amendment to the Massachusetts constitution disenfranchising incarcerated felons, half the students in the class cannot vote. In about a week, all of the Amherst students will leave for the summer; many will volunteer for a presidential campaign. This November, like most adult citizens, they will walk to a local polling station or cast absentee ballots from the comfort of a college dorm. The students inside the facility can't.

American incarceration has received a lot of attention recently. Last month, The New York Times reported that one in every 100 American adults is in prison, the highest rate in the world by a wide margin, and about six times higher than the world median. This drive to incarcerate has been rightly and roundly criticized as too expensive (it costs more per capita to imprison than educate) and too harsh, since the vast majority of inmates are serving time for nonviolent crimes. But amid the controversy over price and punishment, it tends to be forgotten that incarceration imposes a cost on American democracy: The more we imprison, the less we vote.

Why should that be the case? In early 2000, before the amendment passed, Governor Paul Cellucci told Bryant Gumbel of CBS News that disenfranchisement was necessary to ensure that felons did not damage the political process. Cellucci said, after a group of Massachusetts prisoners tried to organize a political action committee in 1997, he "thought that this was a little bit ridiculous, that prisoners would actually politically organize and try to lobby against the very laws that put them in prison to protect the people of this state." The clear implication was that, once you've broken the social contract, you've proved yourself unfit for any social contact, including the right to vote.

But our experience in class suggests that the opposite is true. We all write the same papers, read the same material by John Locke and Alexis de Tocqueville, and are all equally engaged in debating and discussing everything from the role of the good citizen to America's role in the world. There is no reason to think inmates are uniquely unqualified to wield a vote, and no reason to think they can't.

Yes, going to prison necessarily entails the loss of liberty. But the right to vote is in many ways more important than the right to walk freely down the street: Voting is the most basic check against the coercive power of the state. The places where that coercive power is most starkly exercised, such as prisons, are also the places where that most basic of checks becomes more important. The fact that prisoners have a big stake in governmental choices isn't an argument in favor of disenfranchisement; it's an argument against.

And because the vote is so essential to democratic citizenship, it is also an important part of reintegrating inmates with society. Prisons separate and divide, but at their best they also prepare inmates for life after imprisonment. Rebuilding civic engagement is perhaps the most important part of that process.

There are more than 25,000 inmates in Massachusetts correctional facilities, and more than half are racial minorities. Almost all of them will, at some point in the future, exit their cells and return to their homes and families. It would be better if they returned as voting citizens.

Conor Clarke is an Amherst College student; Greg Yothers is an inmate at the Hampshire County Correctional Facility.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Posted by lois at 05:13 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2008

What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?

What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?
By Erika Wood, AlterNet
Posted on April 21, 2008, Printed on April 22, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/82457/

This is a big year for American democracy. Hundreds of thousands of new voters are not only registering, but are actually showing up at the polls. States whose primary races have never counted before are suddenly the center of attention. Voters in Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Kentucky, who have long gone ignored during primary season, finally find themselves with a voice and a vote. This year they matter.

Despite this, our democracy still falls far short of its promise to be a government that truly represents the will of its citizens. Across the country there are 5.3 million Americans who are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction in their past. Nearly 4 million of these people are not in prison; they live, work, pay taxes, and raise families in our communities, but remain disenfranchised for years, often for decades, and sometimes for life.

States vary widely on when they restore voting rights to former prisoners. Maine and Vermont do not disenfranchise people with convictions; even prisoners may vote there. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia disenfranchise people only while they are incarcerated; five states disenfranchise those who are incarcerated or on parole, but allow people on probation to vote; 20 states disenfranchise people in prison, on parole, and on probation; and 10 states permanently disenfranchise some categories of people who have completed their correctional supervision. Kentucky and Virginia are the last two remaining states that permanently disenfranchise all people with felony convictions, unless they apply for and receive individual, discretionary clemency from the governor.

Jim Crow Roots

To fully appreciate how these laws compromise our democracy, it is important to understand their deep roots in the troubled history of American race relations. In the late 1800s these laws spread as part of a larger backlash against the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments -- the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution -- which ended slavery, granted equal citizenship to freed slaves, and prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Over time, Southern Democrats sought to solidify their hold on the region by modifying voting laws in ways that would exclude African-Americans from the polls. Despite their newfound eligibility to vote, many freed slaves remained effectively disenfranchised.

Violence and intimidation were rampant. The legal barriers employed -- including literacy tests, residency requirements, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes -- while race-neutral on their face, were intentional barriers to African-American voting.

Felony disenfranchisement laws were a key part of this effort. Between 1865 and 1900, 18 states adopted laws restricting the voting rights of criminal offenders. By 1900, 38 states had some type of felon voting restriction, most of which disenfranchised convicted felons until they received a pardon. At the same time, states expanded the criminal codes to punish offenses that they believed targeted freedmen, including vagrancy, petty larceny, miscegenation, bigamy, and receiving stolen goods. Aggressive arrest and conviction efforts followed, motivated by the practice of "convict leasing," whereby former slaves were convicted of crimes and then leased out to work the very plantations and factories from which they had ostensibly been freed. Thus targeted criminalization and felony disenfranchisement combined to produce both practical re-enslavement and the legal loss of voting rights, usually for life, which effectively suppressed the political power of African Americans for decades.

The disproportionate impact of felony disenfranchisement laws on people of color continues to this day. Nationwide, 13 percent of African-American men have lost the right to vote, a rate that is seven times the national average. In eight states, more than 15 percent of African-Americans cannot vote due to a felony conviction, and four of those states -- Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, and Nebraska -- disenfranchise more than 20 percent of their African-American voting-age population.

These statistics mirror stark racial disparities in the criminal justice system. A recent study by the Pew Center on the States revealed that 1 in 100 Americans is now behind bars. That figure is startling enough, but the study also reports that 1 in 9 African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34 is in prison.

The Ripple Effect of Disenfranchisement

Felony disenfranchisement laws do not only impact those who lose their voting rights. Entire communities lose their political capital when their citizens cannot vote. Denying the vote to one person has a ripple effect, dramatically decreasing the political power of urban and minority communities.

Evidence suggests that disenfranchising the head of a household can discourage his or her entire family from civic participation. Many people's first experience with voting or political engagement comes through their parents -- by joining them at a town meeting, attending a school board hearing, or accompanying them into the voting booth. A parent can provide critical "how-to's" of voting, including such basics as how to register and where to vote. In fact, of the various factors included in the study, the parent's political participation had the greatest effect on the child's initial decision to vote.

Andres Idarraga, who recently had his right to vote restored by a recent change to Rhode Island's law, explained, "coming from a family in which voting had rarely, if ever, been discussed, this was a new beginning."

Throughout the country, minority communities have lost political influence thanks to felony disenfranchisement laws. In the last 25 years, as incarceration rates skyrocketed and African-Americans were sent to prison at a rate seven times that of whites, the political power of minority communities has been decimated. It's a simple equation: communities with high rates of people with felony convictions have fewer votes to cast. Consequently, all residents of these communities, not just those with convictions, lose their political influence.

What's more, even when people with felony convictions are eligible to vote, they are often de facto disenfranchised due to bureaucratic barriers. In 2003, Alabama could not process more than 80 percent of applications within statutory time limits, and completely failed to respond to dozens of applications. And in New York, Brennan Center surveys have repeatedly uncovered widespread confusion and misinformation among elections officials. In 2005, one third of local election boards mistakenly advised that people could not vote while on probation, and many illegally required unnecessary documentation before allowing people to register.

Dispelling Disenfranchisement Myths, Restoring Democracy

Fortunately, there are signs of progress. Advocates, policy-makers, and some unusual allies have made great strides towards restoring voting rights, and have built significant national momentum towards building a more just and inclusive democracy.

Critics of voting restoration argue that disenfranchisement is an appropriate punishment for breaking the law. But in fact, many in law enforcement have come to believe that felony disenfranchisement laws do more harm than good. The American Probation and Parole Association recently released a resolution calling for restoration of voting rights upon completion of prison, finding that "disenfranchisement laws work against the successful reentry of offenders." Many realize that, in terms of public safety, bringing people into the political process makes them stakeholders, helping to steer former offenders away from future crimes. As one Kentucky prosecutor wrote, "Voting shows a commitment to the future of the community." Branding people as political outsiders by barring them from the polls disrupts reentry into the community and does not do anything to keep people from re-offending. There is absolutely no credible evidence showing that continuing to disenfranchise people after release from prison serves any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Disenfranchisement has nothing to do with being "tough on crime."

Since 1997, 16 states have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. Recent reforms include an executive order signed by then-Governor Tom Vilsack in Iowa which restored voting rights to 80,000 Iowa citizens on Independence Day, 2005. On Election Day 2006, Rhode Island voters were the first in the country to approve a state constitutional amendment authorizing automatic restoration of voting rights to people as soon as they are released from prison. The Rhode Island Department of Corrections became a voter registration agency, and now every individual is handed a voter registration form on the day they leave prison. In April 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued new clemency rules ending that state's policy of permanent disenfranchisement for all felony offenders. Also in April 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law streamlining the state's complicated restoration system by automatically restoring voting rights upon completion of sentence.

This law also eliminated the requirement that people in Maryland pay off any court-imposed fees and fines before being able to register to vote.

And just last month, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear eliminated some of the burdensome requirements his predecessor imposed on people trying to get their voting rights restored. People with felony convictions are disenfranchised for life in Kentucky and can only regain their right to vote by receiving clemency from the governor.

Beshear's predecessor had required all applicants to provide three character references and write an essay explaining why they should get their right to vote back. While Kentucky still has a long way to go, Beshear's executive action was certainly an important step.

Still, millions of U.S. citizens continue to be denied the right to vote. This year, Congress has decided to address the issue on a national level. Senator Russ Feingold and Representative John Conyers will soon introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, a bill that seeks to restore voting rights in federal elections to all Americans who have been released from prison and are living in the community. In February, Senator Feingold, joined by former Republican Congressman and Bush I cabinet member, Jack Kemp, wrote, "once the criminal justice system has determined that [people] are ready to return to the community, they should receive the rights and responsibilities that come with that status, and should not continue to be relegated to second-class citizenship."

The energy and optimism spreading across our country this election season is palpable. But our democracy stands for nothing if not the fundamental tenet that each citizen is entitled to one vote, and each vote counts the same regardless of who casts it. The promise of our democracy will never be realized if 4 million Americans remain disenfranchised. It is time to end this last blanket barrier to the ballot box.

Erika Wood is Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law where she directs the Right to Vote project. Her most recent publication is "Restoring the Right to Vote."
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/82457/

Posted by lois at 11:11 PM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2008

Oregon: State Diminishes 'More Liberal than Most'

Oregon: State Diminishes 'More Liberal than Most'

In March, a law was passed further disenfranchising Oregon residents. Thousands of individuals in Oregon's county jails are now ineligible to vote due to a new provision of House Bill 3638. Oregon law does not allow those incarcerated individuals to vote, but does restore voting rights to those on probation. "Previously, it was just individuals in the Department of Corrections" who couldn't vote, said Brenda Bayes, the deputy director of the state Elections Division in a Statesman Journal article . "This bill in the 2008 legislative session expanded that to also include felons in the custody of county jails. You can still register to vote, you just can't vote while you're incarcerated." According to the article, 35,000 formerly incarcerated individuals and probationers are allowed to vote, in addition to about 600 psychiatric and forensic patients at Oregon State Hospital who were charged with felony offenses.
From the Sentencing Project

Posted by lois at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)

April 04, 2008

FL: Florida's Process To Restore Suffrage Illustrates Haze

Felons' Voting Requests Pile Up
Florida's Process To Restore Suffrage Illustrates Haze
By GARY FIELDS
March 31, 2008
Wall Street Journal

MIAMI -- Republican Gov. Charlie Crist went against his party a year ago and made it easier for felons to regain their voting rights. The process has been slow, however -- stirring controversy in a state expected to be closely fought in this fall's elections.

Florida's clemency board has restored voting rights to nearly 75,000 residents. But nearly 96,000 requests are pending, according to information through March 20. Activists say there might be an additional 400,000 people who have been rejected without explanation, making it impossible for them to be reinstated.

[silent minority]

The fate of these votes is especially sensitive in Florida, where George W. Bush claimed the presidency by a mere 537 votes in 2000. But similar tensions are playing out across the country, with 5.3 million U.S. citizens unable to vote because of felony convictions -- including four million people who are no longer in prison, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow felons to vote while incarcerated. Thirteen others and the District of Columbia allow inmates to regain the right to vote after their release, according to the Sentencing Project, a Washington advocacy group. Other states limit voting based on factors including the severity of a crime, the completion of probation and the payment of fines.

Restoring the rights of all five million felons who can't vote is complicated by this patchwork system, said University of Florida political scientist Richard Scher, who noted, "There is no uniformity."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Tennessee contending that the state's rules amount to a poll tax, a reference to the illegal restrictions imposed during the 1960s. The state requires felons to pay outstanding fines and child support before restoring their votes, something the two advocacy groups say penalizes the poor.

Richard Gooden of Alabama lost his right to vote in 2000 after a drunken-driving conviction. The secretary of state said Mr. Gooden had to appeal through the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles because the felony was considered a crime of "moral turpitude." The board refused his application, saying his crime didn't disqualify him from voting. The stalemate between the two agencies left him unable to register.

The 66-year-old was turned away from the polls in the 1960s when he couldn't recite the Alabama State Constitution by heart, part of a test designed to keep African-Americans from voting. This time, the state's Supreme Court restored his vote.

"You can be in a place where you're eligible to vote but not know you're eligible because of the complexities and disinformation," said Mr. Gooden's lawyer, Ryan Haygood, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

In Florida, churches are hosting rights-restoration sessions. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, a group of 40 organizations, is planning a daylong rally for April 1 in Tallahassee. The state's clemency board is trying to reach out to as many people as possible to tell them of the changes. It held 17 hearings across the state and is preparing a leafleting campaign in convenience stores, churches and other well-traveled areas.

Inside the fellowship hall of the Greater Bethel AME Church in the Overtown area of Miami, more than 100 residents with criminal records listened to representatives from the state attorney and public defender offices explain how felons can register.
[Ricky McGowan]

Those with more-serious crimes worked their way to the table staffed by the ACLU and University of Miami School of Law students. Ricky McGowan, 41 years old, spoke animatedly to one of the students while others lined up, waiting for a free chair. Mr. McGowan, a landscaper, has never voted. He lost his voting rights before he registered because at 18 he was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He asked about the process and explained that he is worried an arrest for littering a year ago will further complicate his application.

"I done things I'm not proud of, and I'm different now; I'm a man," he said outside the hall. "But I can't go back and change what I did." Mr. McGowan said he doubts his rights will be restored in time. If he can, he will vote for Sen. Barack Obama. "I like Hillary; Hillary is all right, but Barack, Barack is something different," he said.

The change in Florida was controversial from the start. Mr. Crist's initial proposal was opposed by two Republicans who were members of the executive clemency board, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Secretary of Agriculture Charles Bronson. Mr. Crist revamped the idea, limiting the scope to nonviolent offenders, and Mr. Bronson signed on. To qualify, those felons must have completed their prison term, probation and parole, if applicable, and made any payments the court orders, including child support.

Mr. McCollum, with the backing of law-enforcement organizations, continued to oppose the measure, noting that authorities already had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said he has accepted the changes and now is focusing on better preparing inmates for their release.

The new process is simpler than the old method, but some want it to be faster still. It is "unnecessarily complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic and unnecessarily slow," said Muslima Lewis, director of ACLU Florida's Racial Justice Project.

Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative legal advocacy group, said the old system could have been improved, but the new system goes too far. Each case should be reviewed, he said. "To assume someone has turned over a new leaf because they've walked out of prison doesn't make sense."

Good map from The Sentencing Project at this URL and at www.sentencingproject.org
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120692447687975721-EN6zQhkYtRXw4iHF9EneXxh3YKM_20080429.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top/

Posted by lois at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2008

IL: Families fight closing of Stateville Prison

"Built north of Joliet in 1925, Stateville is home to 3,280 prisoners and is the closest state correctional facility to Chicago and its growing suburbs. Rather than spend an estimated $100 million to refurbish Stateville to the level of other maximum-security prisons, Blagojevich wants to close the section that houses the most violent criminals and ship them to more secure rural prisons hours away. While the closing could mean the loss of hundreds of jobs at Stateville‹and deal a financial hit to the communities around it‹state officials acknowledge the blow to families could have the most far-reaching effect."

Chicago Tribune
Families fight Stateville plan
Inmate transfers may cut ties to relatives

By Joel Hood | Tribune reporter
March 25, 2008

Seven days a week, the families gather in the small visitor's center outside the immense stone walls of the Stateville Correctional Center. They come in groups or one by one‹mothers, fathers, sons and daughters‹leaving one world and entering another.

Their reunions with inmates can last up to two hours, just once a week. While that's not much time, families say it's enough for talk and reflection, for the occasional smile and laugh.

So when plans surfaced last month to close the maximum-security wing of Stateville, relocating up to 1,600 inmates all over Illinois, the impact hit hard in this network of families.

"I'm honestly afraid we'll lose my brother if we can't see him and talk with him face to face," said Paula Carballido, 25, of Waukegan, whose 21-year-old brother, Juan, is four years into a 35-year murder sentence. "We don't want him to disconnect, to break off from the family."

Some of the families have begun writing letters and speaking to lawmakers at budget forums, such as one held Tuesday at Kennedy-King College on the South Side. They are organizing a bus trip to Springfield, where legislators must vote on Gov. Rod Blagojevich's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year. In the process, the families are casting light on their crucial but often overlooked contribution to the care and rehabilitation of prisoners.

There is a public safety element to the debate. Studies by the Washington, D.C.-based Vera Institute of Justice and elsewhere have shown inmates who had regular contact with family and friends while incarcerated were less likely to commit crimes once they were released. While family involvement does not guarantee a prisoner will stay on the right side of the law upon re-entering society, experts say there is perhaps no greater indicator of future success.

"The impact of separation is very significant," said Malcolm Young, executive director of the non-profit John Howard Association of Illinois, an inmate advocacy group. "In a lot of instances we're talking about children [of inmates]. And no matter what people say about the people who commit these crimes and go to jail, it's not the children's fault. They shouldn't be punished."

Built north of Joliet in 1925, Stateville is home to 3,280 prisoners and is the closest state correctional facility to Chicago and its growing suburbs. Rather than spend an estimated $100 million to refurbish Stateville to the level of other maximum-security prisons, Blagojevich wants to close the section that houses the most violent criminals and ship them to more secure rural prisons hours away.

While the closing could mean the loss of hundreds of jobs at Stateville‹and deal a financial hit to the communities around it‹state officials acknowledge the blow to families could have the most far-reaching effect.

"We understand families are a very important part of an inmate's success when they go out. That's part of what makes this so tough," said Department of Corrections spokesman Derek Schnapp. "But the No. 1 issue for us is safety and security."

On a recent rainy weekday, two dozen people crowded the one-room waiting area inside Stateville's visitor center. Carballido came with her younger sister Lucy, who was just 13 when Juan began his sentence. Now when she visits him, the older brother lovingly grills her about her friends and how she's spending her time out of school.

"He tells me not to hang out with certain kinds of people," Lucy Carballido said.

Similarly, Cicero resident Pearlie White frequently comes to Stateville to visit the father of her 17-year-old son. The man, Steve Robinson, has been serving a life sentence, but White often brings her son so the two can have some kind of a relationship. Despite his incarceration, Robinson is a "father figure" for her son and teenage daughter, she said.

"They would not have a man in their lives if not for [Robinson]," White said. "It might not be the best situation, but it's all we've got."

White, who travels the 30 miles between Cicero and Stateville by bus, said she wouldn't be able to visit Robinson if he transfers to a prison farther away. "The only contact we'd all have is over the phone. And that's just not the same," she said. "They can't close this place."

Schnapp said proximity to family is factored into where inmates are assigned. But it's not the deciding factor, he said, and inmates are often shipped from one prison to another to improve safety, alleviate crowding or for other reasons. If Stateville closes, some prisoners will be sent to the maximum-security wing of the next closest facility in Pontiac, 100 miles from Chicago. But others could be transferred to Thomson, which is 150 miles away from Chicago; to Menard, 350 miles away; or Tamms, 363 miles away.

Young, whose John Howard Association officially supports the closing, called the family element a "wrenching issue."

"These are families who typically don't have a lot of means to begin with," said Young, who is encouraging the state to work out cheaper bus and train fares for families visiting rural prisons.

For Paula Carballido and her family, the concern is not only that Juan remains free of the drug use and gang activity that is so common in prison life, but that he has a support system in place when he is released.

"He's in there for a long time, but not for life," Paula Carballido said. "He's going to come out eventually. When he does, I think everybody should want him to have the best chance he can."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-stateville_26mar26,1,2153695.st
ory

Posted by lois at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2008

The Sentencing Project guide to 2008 Presidential Candidates' Platforms on Criminal Justice

The Sentencing Project guide to 2008 Presidential Candidates' Platforms on Criminal Justice. This guide provides information on a range of key criminal justice issues, including sentencing policy, reentry, felony disenfranchisement, and the death penalty.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/tmp/File/PresidentialCandidatesPlatforms.pdf

Posted by lois at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2008

In Alabama, a Fight to Regain Voting Rights Some Felons Never Lost

By SHAILA DEWAN
NY Times
March 2, 2008

DOTHAN, Ala. — The Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, onetime criminal and founder of a ministry called The Ordinary People Society, spent years helping people with criminal records regain the right to vote in Alabama, where an estimated 250,000 people are prohibited from voting because of past criminal activity.

Then he discovered that many of them had never actually lost the right.

Because of a quirk in its Constitution, Alabama disqualifies from voting only those who have committed a “felony involving moral turpitude.” Those who have committed other felonies — like marijuana possession or drunken driving — can cast ballots even if they are still in prison, according to the state attorney general.

But it has been slow work cajoling public officials to enforce and publicize the law. Until Friday, the secretary of state’s Web site advised, incorrectly, that those with any kind of felony conviction could not register unless they had served their time and their right to vote had been restored by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Because neither the Legislature nor the attorney general has offered a definitive list of crimes involving moral turpitude, there is no way of knowing how many inmates are eligible to vote. But state agencies generally agree that those convicted of drug possession — at least 3,000 of Alabama’s 29,000 prison inmates and thousands more on probation — are eligible. Most felons and former felons, however, assume that they have lost the right to vote.

“This is an issue that’s never come up before,” said Richard F. Allen, the commissioner of corrections. “I would think that if there were any latent feeling out there that they wanted to vote, they would have expressed it by now.”

Mr. Glasgow, who is the half-brother of a far less obscure crusader based in New York, the Rev. Al Sharpton, believes that not only do inmates and former convicts want to vote, but also that their ballots could alter the political landscape in this Republican-leaning state, adding that his group has registered more than 500 people by visiting a handful of county jails.

“There would be a lot of difference in our legislators, our elected officials and our presidents that we’ve had,” he said. “It would definitely change the political spectrum of Alabama.”

Republicans agree. They railed against a statute passed in 2003 that made it easier for some former felons to regain their voting rights by side-stepping a lengthy and backlogged pardon process.

“There’s no more anti-Republican bill than this,” said Marty Connors, the chairman of the state Republican Party, according to news reports at the time. “As frank as I can be, we’re opposed to it because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”

In the two years after the 2003 statute took effect, more than 5,500 former felons had their rights restored, and interest in the November presidential election is running high, said Sarah Still, manager of the pardons department. In January, Ms. Still received more than 280 applications for voting rights, up from an average of 140 a month last fall.

Nationally, 5.3 million people are barred from voting because of their criminal history, according to a 2004 estimate cited by the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice policy group. In the last decade, as criminals who were swept into prison during the drug war have been released and the difficulty of re-integrating them into society has become clear, at least 16 states have made it easier for former felons to vote.

But in the South, where restrictions on former convicts are among the most severe and in many cases date to Jim Crow laws, there have been fewer changes. Last Monday the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in protest of a 2006 Tennessee law that requires former convicts to pay back child support before regaining the right to vote. In Alabama, the Republican attorney general, Troy King, has proposed a constitutional amendment that would delete the moral turpitude clause, prohibiting all felons from voting.

Though he is an active Democrat, Mr. Glasgow, 42, says his main goal is not to aid his party but to help former inmates become productive members of society.

But for most of his own life he was hardly an exemplar of civic engagement. Mr. Sharpton, in his memoir, “Go and Tell Pharaoh,” says his parents’ marriage was wrecked when his father, Al Sharpton Sr., had an affair with his mother’s teenage daughter from a previous marriage, resulting in the birth of Kenneth.

By the time Kenneth was a teenager, his mother had taken him to her hometown, Dothan, Ala., where he began to get in trouble for selling drugs, became addicted to crack cocaine and did time in Alabama and Florida for armed robbery and other crimes.

It was during his longest stint in prison, nine years, that the genes of activism and oratory that run in Mr. Glasgow’s family emerged and he began to preach. When he was released in 2001, the bondsman who had repeatedly bailed him out of jail became treasurer of The Ordinary People Society and paid for Mr. Glasgow to attend seminary.

Mr. Glasgow opened a soup kitchen, held church services under a white tent and began to help former convicts like Anna Reynolds, a recovering addict, regain the right to vote — a process often made onerous by the moral-turpitude clause.

As a legal concept, moral turpitude refers to conduct that would be immoral even if it were not illegal, unlike, say, speeding. The delegates to the 1901 constitutional convention who used the term also took away voting rights for other infractions that they believed blacks were more likely to commit, like wife beating, adultery and vagrancy. In 1985 the United States Supreme Court struck down most of the law on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory, but the moral-turpitude clause remained.

Most officials in Alabama were unaware of the clause until 2005, when it came to light after a man on probation tried to vote in St. Clair County. The parole board requested clarification, and the attorney general responded with an incomplete categorization of felonies based largely on previous court decisions.

The opinion leaves a large gray area, said Ms. Still of the pardons department. It says, for example, that rape is a crime of moral turpitude and that assault is not, but offers no clarification on variations like statutory rape or assault with intent to kill.

The parole board settled on a policy of treating drug possession and drunk driving as crimes devoid of moral turpitude, but that has not put an end to the confusion, Mr. Glasgow said.

Initially Ms. Reynolds, 52, was told by the local registrar that she could not vote because of a conviction for drug possession. She applied to the parole board, which told her that it could not restore her right to vote because she had never lost it. Finally, The Ordinary People Society helped cut through the red tape.

On Feb. 5, Ms. Reynolds stood outside the public library handing out sample ballots before casting her own. “Voting, that’s part of getting back to normal life,” she said. “I’ve been out of the loop for a long time, and it was good to have help getting back into the loop.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/02felons.html?_r=1&sq=Alabama&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=2&adxnnlx=1204473648-cWbxoAYTy5eI6xEz3aPH3g

Posted by lois at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)

February 29, 2008

TN: ACLU Sues Tennessee's Felon Disenfranchisement Law As Modern Day Poll Tax

ACLU Sues Over Tennessee’s Felon Disenfranchisement Law
2/25/2008
Group Says Payment Provision Is A Modern Day ‘Poll Tax’

NASHVILLE – The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Tennessee filed a lawsuit today in federal court challenging the state’s 2006 law that made the restoration of voting rights for people convicted of crimes contingent on the payment of all outstanding legal financial obligations (LFOs), namely restitution and child support fees. According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, requiring some individuals to bear an undue financial burden before voting is tantamount to a poll tax in violation of the constitutional right to vote and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

“Reports show that, nationally, over 50 percent of criminal defendants are indigent at the time of sentencing. Therefore, requiring a person with a criminal conviction to pay a fee before restoring their right to vote is nothing more than a modern day poll tax,” said Nancy Abudu, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “This law locks citizens out of the democratic process when it comes to issues of great concern to them. The result is that the political power of poor people is further diminished and the collateral consequences of poverty multiply.”

Today’s legal action, filed against state and county officials, challenges a 2006 law that changed the process by which individuals with criminal convictions may seek the restoration of their voting rights. According to the law, “a person shall not be eligible to apply for a voter registration card and have the right of suffrage restored unless such person has paid all restitution to the victim or victims of the offense ordered by the court as part of the sentence... [and] unless such person is current in all child support obligations.”

The ACLU brought its lawsuit on behalf of three individuals – Terence Johnson, Jim Harris and Alexander Friedman – who have completed their terms of imprisonment, parole, and probation for their offenses. Johnson and Harris are ineligible to vote because they owe child support for children they currently have custody of. Friedman applied for restoration of his voting rights in 2006, but Tennessee denied his application, claiming he owes over 1,000 dollars in restitution.

“My dream is to have the opportunity to become a fully productive citizen again, regardless of my economic status. And I have the right to participate in the electoral process to bring about change to the issues that concern me most in my community,” said Terence Johnson, a plaintiff in this case. “I’ve served my time, I am a taxpaying citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track.”

Until recently, Tennessee’s voting rights restoration law – a patchwork of rules, restrictions, and procedures – was the most confusing and complicated in the country. Although a former felon no longer needs to go before a judge to have his or her right to vote restored, the law still requires several procedural steps before restoration is complete. The ACLU is committed to securing additional reforms to make Tennessee’s voting laws more user-friendly and to ensure that all people who have been incarcerated can regain their full voting rights.

“The ability to vote should not be based on one’s financial status,” said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “Penalizing low-income parents by charging them a fee to exercise their constitutional right to vote is shameful. This law has no place in a functioning democracy.”

In addition to the equal protection claim, the ACLU’s lawsuit charges the Tennessee law violates the 24th Amendment’s voting rights provision and the due process protections in the federal and state constitutions.

Attorneys on the case are Abudu, Laughlin McDonald and Neil Bradley of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project, Tricia Herzfeld of the ACLU of Tennessee, and attorney Charles Grant of the law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.
URL: http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/34201prs20080225.html
A copy of today’s legal complaint is available at:
www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/34203lgl20080225.html

Posted by lois at 10:10 PM | Comments (0)

February 08, 2008

AL: All votes count, even prisoners'

Today, there are more than 250,000 people in Alabama who have been disfranchised because of a felony conviction, but nearly 75,000 of these people were convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and have never legally lost their voting rights. Yet nowhere in our state can one find a system in place that distinguishes, for voting purposes, between those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude and those not. Everyone with a felony conviction is barred from voting, contrary to the law.

All votes count, even inmates'
Sunday, February 03, 2008

As Alabama prepares for the presidential primaries Tuesday, my organization, The Ordinary People Society, has been busy registering people to vote. Our work takes us all over the state, including into many jails and prisons. My staff and I have gone to jails in Dothan, Montgomery, Enterprise, Birmingham and Huntsville to register people to vote. Our goal is simple: to ensure those persons who have the right to vote are able to do so, wherever they are.

Most Alabamians don't know there are thousands of people in our jails and prisons who are legally eligible voters. Alabama's constitution takes away the right to vote from those convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude." This controversial practice is called disfranchisement. But many crimes, including nonviolent drug offenses, do not qualify as crimes of moral turpitude and, thus, persons convicted of these crimes never lose their right to vote. Recently, rulings by the state Supreme Court and findings by state Attorney General Troy King have reaffirmed this.

Today, there are more than 250,000 people in Alabama who have been disfranchised because of a felony conviction, but nearly 75,000 of these people were convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and have never legally lost their voting rights. Yet nowhere in our state can one find a system in place that distinguishes, for voting purposes, between those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude and those not. Everyone with a felony conviction is barred from voting, contrary to the law.

The overwhelming majority of the people affected by this illegal practice are black. While blacks make up only 26 percent of our state population, we comprise fully 62 percent of the prison population. Our overcrowded prisons now hold nearly 30,000 people - nearly a third of which are incarcerated on low-level drug charges, mostly simple marijuana possession. These individuals are eligible voters under our constitution.

After visiting jails and prisons throughout the state and registering thousands of voters, I can tell you these people are not being notified of their voting rights, nor is there a system in place that allows them to exercise those rights.

The struggle for equality under the law - especially for voting rights - is a part of our state's history. But as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized, this struggle is a long one, and it's not yet complete in Alabama.

My organization wants to ensure that everyone's basic voting rights are protected. Voting is the basic foundation of a functioning democracy. With Super Tuesday coming up, registering voters is an important task. In Alabama jails and prisons, there are men and women entitled to vote but never given the opportunity. These votes can change elections; just think of the falsely disfranchised black voters in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

Equality suffers when constitutional rights aren't made equally available. It tarnishes our image as a state and nation when we so blatantly disregard essential, sovereign rights. To make our democracy credible, we have to fairly enforce our laws and ensure that everyone has his rights protected. Otherwise, how far will we have really progressed toward equality?

On King's birthday this year, I registered voters in the Houston County jail. I believe it is what King would have wanted from us - to work for justice. If we are to have equality in our great nation, we must protect the vote for all those who are legally entitled to it, even if they happen to be incarcerated.

I say, let my people vote. From the back of the bus, to the front of the prison, the struggle continues.
The Rev. Kenneth Glasgow is executive director of The Ordinary People Society in Dothan. E-mail: topssociety@yahoo.com.

© 2008 The Birmingham News

Posted by lois at 05:01 PM | Comments (0)

Amy Goodman : Denying felons a vote has substantial impact

Published: 02.07.2008

My opinion Amy Goodman : Denying felons a vote has substantial impact

As I raced into our TV studio for our Super Tuesday morning-after show, I was excited. Across the country, initial reports indicated there was unprecedented voter participation, at least in the Democratic primaries, several times higher than in previous elections. For years I have covered countries like Haiti, where people risk death to vote, while the United States has the lowest participation rates in the industrialized world. Could it be this year would be different?
Then I bumped into a friend and asked if he had voted. "I can't vote," he said, "because I did time in prison." I asked him if he would have voted. "Sure I would have. Because then I'm not just talking junk, I'm doing something about it."

Felony disenfranchisement is the practice by state governments of barring anyone convicted of a felony from voting, even after they've served their time. In Virginia and Kentucky, people convicted of any felony can never vote again (this would include "Scooter" Libby, even though he never went to jail, unless he is pardoned).
Eight other states have permanent felony disenfranchisement laws, with some conditions that allow people to rejoin the voter rolls: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming.
Disenfranchisement — people being denied their right to vote — takes many forms, and has a major impact on electoral politics. In Ohio in 2004, stories abounded of inoperative voting machines, too few ballots or too few voting machines. Then there was Florida in 2000. While many continue to accuse Ralph Nader of throwing the election to George Bush, Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida. Ten times that number of Floridians are prevented from voting at all. Why? More than 1.1 million Floridians have been convicted of a felony, and thus aren't allowed to vote.
We can't know for sure how they would have voted, but as scholar, lawyer and activist Angela Davis said recently in a speech honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Mobile, Ala., "If we had not had the felony disenfranchisement that we have, there would be no way that George Bush would be in the White House."
Since felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects African-American and Latino men in the United States, and since these groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic, the laws bolster the position of the Republican Party. The statistics are shocking. Ryan King, policy analyst with The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., summarized the latest:
● 5.3 million U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement; 2 million of them are African-American. Of these, 1.4 million are African-American men, which translates into an incredible 13 percent of that population, a rate seven times higher than in the overall population.
● Forty-eight states have some version of felony disenfranchisement on the books. All bar voting from prison, then go on to bar participation while on parole or probation. Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote from behind the walls, as does Canada and a number of other countries.
The politicians and pundits are all abuzz with the massive turnouts at the primaries and caucuses. There are increasing percentages of women participating, and initial reports point to more young people. The youth vote is particularly important, as they have less invested in the status quo and can look with fresh eyes at long-standing injustices that disenfranchise so many.
In this context, one of The Sentencing Project's predictions bears repeating here: "Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 10 of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40 percent of black men may permanently lose their right to vote."
The Sentencing Project's King said: "We are constantly pushing for legislative change around the country. But public education is absolutely key. There are so many different laws that people simply don't know when their right to vote has been restored. That includes the personnel who work in state governments giving out the wrong information."
I called my friend to tell him he was misinformed. He hadn't been on probation or parole for years. "You can vote," I told him. "You just have to register." I could hear him smile through the phone.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now," which airs in Tucson on radio station KXCI (91.3-FM) and Access Tucson. For broadcast times and to e-mail Goodman, go to Web site www.democracynow.org
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/223938

Posted by lois at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2007

Brennan Center for Justice: NY- Testimony on Disenfranchisment

Today 87% of those currently disenfranchised in New York are Latino and African American.

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_50919.pdf
Testimony of Brennan Center for Justice
Before the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform November 13, 2007. For the complete testimony go the URL above.

________________________

Sentencing Reform Commission Gets It Right On Voting Rights
For the first time in 40 years, New York's hodge-podge sentencing procedures are poised for a thorough review and revision.

In March Governor Spitzer tasked the State Commission on Sentencing Reform, an 11-member body of law enforcement officials, state legislators and criminal justice experts, with creating a proposal for streamlining the state's sentencing structure.

The Commission's preliminary report, which was released last month, includes an enlightened recommendation to restore voting rights to people on parole in New York.

It's about time. A quick peek into the history of the state's felony disenfranchisement law reveals ugly origins:

Back in 1821, delegates at the state¹s Constitutional Convention brainstormed how new requirements could be used to exclude African Americans from the polls. Their efforts resulted in Article II of the state constitution which imposed special property requirements on African Americans and established a felony disenfranchisement provision which the delegates believed would target African Americans.

Fast-forward to the present, and that same misguided felony disenfranchisement provision remains in tact today, and it has achieved its intended result: 87% of those currently disenfranchised in New York are Latino and African American.

The disenfranchisement provision not only makes election administration more confusing (Brennan Center surveys have revealed that even a good portion of Board of Elections officials get confused about who can vote), but also dilutes the voting power of New Yorks communities of color.

On Tuesday, advocates and experts had a chance to give the Commission comments at a public hearing at the New York City Bar Association. (A hearing in Albany is being held today, and one is scheduled for next Monday in Buffalo).

The Brennan Center's Erika Wood testified in favor of restoring voting rights upon release from prison and outlined how the Governor could change the current law through executive order.

The Commission recognizes that fostering civic participation is one way to facilitate the re-entry process, and that restoring the right to vote to people on parole is fundamental to that participation. Hopefully the Governor will heed the Commission's wise counsel.
http://reformny.blogspot.com/2007/11/sentencing-reform-commission-gets-it.ht
ml
--Jude Joffe-Block, Research Associate, Democracy Program

Posted by lois at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2007

FL: Rights-restoration process needs to focus on finding jobs

Article published Oct 26, 2007
Tallahassee Democrat
Rights-restoration process needs to focus on finding jobs
By Mark Schlakman
MY VIEW

The governor and Cabinet, sitting as Florida's Board of Executive Clemency, changed the clemency rules several months ago to enable more ex-offenders to regain their civil rights to vote, to serve on a jury and to hold public office after they complete their sentences. At the time, the prevailing view was that Gov. Crist accomplished as much as was possible in the face of strong opposition from Attorney General Bill McCollum and measured resistance from Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson.

Notwithstanding the governor's determination and support that he received from CFO Alex Sink, that simply wasn't the case. And Crist readily acknowledged that the rule changes amounted to an important step forward but fell short of achieving comprehensive reform.

He maintained that, “Once a prisoner serves his or her debt to society, the state should automatically restore his or her civil rights so that the ex-offender may vote and become gainfully employed."

Under the new rules, more ex-offenders are eligible to regain their civil rights without a hearing before the Clemency Board after they complete their sentences. Others are subject to higher levels of scrutiny and in many instances will require a hearing.

Recent trends suggest the vast majority of rights restoration cases that now go to hearing ultimately will be denied.

The Department of Corrections advised that, from April 5 to Oct. 10, it reviewed 600,000 ex-offender case files that date back to 1980. About 150,000 appeared to be eligible for rights restoration without a hearing. All of the rights restoration case files are sent to the Parole Commission, which serves as the investigative arm of the Clemency Board, for further review. In addition to the historical cases, about 3,000 ex-offenders are released from DOC custody every month.

It was reported that 35,000 ex-offenders regained their civil rights since the new rules were adopted. State officials claim that more ex-offenders regained their civil rights during this period than during any other comparable period in recent memory. Despite this progress and setting aside independent studies that indicate there may be as many as 950,000 ex-felons residing in Florida without their civil rights, it may nevertheless take years to process all of the pending cases.

Crist's efforts to change certain aspects of the rights-restoration process were laudable but it is now abundantly clear that the governor and Cabinet must revisit and reengineer that process to achieve more comprehensive reform.

Two fundamental problems must be addressed:

Employment restrictions: Ex-offenders are ineligible for a wide array of state occupational licenses and jobs that require state certification unless they can demonstrate that their civil rights have been restored.

Florida appellate courts have been critical of this misplaced reliance upon rights restoration. Employment eligibility issues and related public-safety concerns that may correspond to any given job must be separated from clemency deliberations and redirected to state regulatory agencies and licensing boards where they could be more effectively addressed. The rights restoration process was never intended to serve this larger purpose.

Gov. Bush's Ex-Offender Task Force recommended such a course of action in late 2006 in an effort to remove some of the arbitrary barriers to post-release employment which, in turn, would help to reduce relatively high recidivism rates. The Legislature passed a bill this year that implemented these Task Force recommendations within the construction industry.

Rather than wait until next spring for the Legislature to consider whether to expand these provisions to all occupational licenses and jobs that require state certification, Crist can sign an executive order at any time directing the agencies and boards that he oversees to implement these recommendations immediately.

Bronson and Sink oversee the agencies and boards that do not report to Crist. They can issue similar directives. Legislators can revisit these matters during the next regular session to codify executive action and reconcile other laws that may be at cross-purposes with the task force recommendations.

Once the linkage between rights restoration and ex-offender eligibility for various jobs is broken, there would be no compelling need to distinguish violent offenses from non-violent offenses to determine fitness to vote. Similarly, there would be no need to subject rights-restoration cases to multiple levels of scrutiny and cumbersome and costly investigations.

Restitution rule: Significant numbers of ex-offenders owe restitution. They are currently ineligible to regain their civil rights by rule until they satisfy that obligation in full. If, as a result, they are ineligible for otherwise appropriate jobs that pay living wages and therefore unable to earn sufficient income to make restitution payments, the rule perpetuates the problem. Everybody loses, including the crime victims.

As a matter of public policy, ex-offenders should be required to pay all court-ordered restitution; however, it is counter-productive to require that it be paid-in-full as a pre-condition for rights restoration. The governor and Cabinet should repeal or substantially modify this long-standing clemency rule. Apart from clemency, the state could improve relevant enforcement mechanisms to facilitate restitution payments along the lines of legislation that was enacted years ago to address delinquent child support payments.

Only then will civil-rights restoration in Florida reflect the kind of fundamental fairness that the governor has been talking about.

Posted by lois at 04:06 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2007

Massachusetts: District Court Rules in Felony Disenfranchisement Case

Massachusetts: District Court Rules in Felony Disenfranchisement Case

The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has opened the way for a challenge to the state's disenfranchisement policy as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. On August 30, the Court issued a ruling in Simmons v. Galvin, a case challenging that state's disenfranchisement laws. The plaintiffs had argued that the state of Massachusetts incorrectly denied their right to vote in federal and state elections.

In its ruling, the Court denied the state's motion for a summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs had argued that the racially disproportionate impact of the state's felony disenfranchisement policy violated the Act. The Court ruled that "[i]t may be difficult for plaintiffs to prove that racial bias in the court system exists and has interacted with other cognizable factors to render" the Massachusetts policy unlawful, but they should be given the opportunity to make that case in court.

The Court rejected two additional arguments of the plaintiffs. First, the plaintiffs had contended that the change to the Massachusetts law in 2000 that denied the right to vote to persons who are currently incarcerated should not apply to them because they were incarcerated prior to the constitutional amendment that resulted in the policy change. They argued that to deny their right to vote was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court disagreed, ruling that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to "civil, non- punitive measures" intended "for the regulation of the franchise." The Court held that the "amendment was intended to be primarily civil and regulatory, rather than punitive, in nature."

Secondly, the plaintiffs argued that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In granting the state's motion for summary judgment, the Court pointed to the established ruling in Richardson v. Ramirez upholding the practice of felony disenfranchisement as clear evidence that the law in Massachusetts does not run afoul of the Constitution.

- - - - - -

Posted by lois at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2007

NC: Education and Awareness to Reinstated Voters in the Works

From The Sentencing Project. August 17, 2007
North Carolina: Education and Awareness to Reinstated Voters in the Works
The state passed HB1743, an election reform bill which will require the State Board of Elections, the Department of Corrections, and the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide written notice to formerly incarcerated persons informing them of their right to vote upon completion of sentence and provide them with a voter registration form. The bill, which will "jointly develop and implement educational programs and procedures for persons to apply to register to vote at the time they are restored to citizenship" awaits the governor's signature.

Posted by lois at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

WA: State's system for restoring voter rights unfair, unwieldy

Guest columnist
State's system for restoring voter rights unfair, unwieldy
Seattle Times, August 14, 2007
By Kathleen Taylor
Special to The Times

Consider two people who are convicted of felonies. Both go to prison and serve their time. But one is able to vote upon release from custody, while the other will not be able to vote for many years after release, perhaps ever.

What makes the difference — seriousness of the offense? Length of sentence? Personal history?

In Washington, the answer is "none of the above." The person with more money is far more likely to regain the right to vote. This is because of a state law — recently upheld by the Washington Supreme Court — under which the right to vote will be restored only after payment of all court costs and other related financial obligations. And that includes interest, which accrues at 12 percent per year.

In practice, this means a wealthy citizen may be able to vote again almost immediately; a citizen who cannot afford to pay the financial portions of the sentence right away may wait many years, maybe forever, to vote again.

The system for restoring voting rights isn't just unfair. It is so complex and confusing that it causes major problems at election times. Election officials find it devilishly complicated to figure out who still owes money on a sentence. The Department of Corrections stops keeping records after persons have completed their terms of custody. Payments are made to a network of county court clerks; they each have their own accounting systems that were never designed to interface with voter-registration rolls.

As a result, state and local officials often are uncertain exactly who is eligible to vote. In short, this is a broken system.

The effects of the law are widespread, affecting tens of thousands of citizens. The vast majority of people convicted of crimes in Washington are poor when they enter prison, and even poorer when they leave. Once out, it can be difficult for them to find decent-paying jobs. Overall, only a small portion of the people convicted of felonies in Washington are ever able to vote again after they have served their time.

The loss of voting rights hits racial minorities especially hard. Felony disenfranchisement affects 3.6 percent of the state's total voting-age population, but 10.6 percent of the Latino population and 17.2 percent of the African-American population.

As a matter of principle, a democratic society should never condition the right to vote on a person's wealth. Poll taxes have been justly outlawed. And, we normally do not use the right to vote as a method of debt collection. People with unpaid parking tickets also owe money to the state, but they are not disenfranchised.

Many states have a more-sensible, streamlined system. Our Northwest neighbors, Oregon and Montana, automatically restore the right to vote at the end of the term of imprisonment. A simple, clear rule based on whether a person is currently incarcerated would have eliminated some of the confusion we saw in the 2004 elections. Anyone not in prison who is otherwise eligible may register to vote. Any other system requires election officials to become bogged down in a maze of paperwork, subject to mistakes and second-guessing.

The current system also places a barrier to rehabilitation of people who have served their time. At least two recent studies have shown that people who vote after their release from prison are far less likely to commit future crimes than those who do not. As a matter of public safety, the state should encourage full political participation.

Fortunately, the Legislature can fix this broken system. No constitutional amendment is required. In 2007, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, and Rep. Jeannie Darneille, D-Tacoma, sponsored automatic-restoration bills. The Secretary of State's Office and the Department of Corrections supported the legislation. So did a wide array of organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Washington State Labor Council, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs.

Though the legislation did not pass this year, it will be up for consideration again in 2008.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has observed that Washington's current re-enfranchisement system creates "a virtual debtor's prison." It doesn't have to be that way. We should join the states that automatically restore voting rights once people have finished their prison sentences. And, we shouldn't wait to act until after the next major election.

Kathleen Taylor is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003834803&zsection_id=268883724&slug=kathleentaylor14&date=20070814

Posted by lois at 06:33 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2007

Stars and Bars

The Nation
posted August 9, 2007 (August 27, 2007 issue)
Stars and Bars
Daniel Lazare

How can you tell when a democracy is dead? When concentration camps spring up and everyone shivers in fear? Or is it when concentration camps spring up and no one shivers in fear because everyone knows they're not for "people like us" (in Woody Allen's marvelous phrase) but for the others, the troublemakers, the ones you can tell are guilty merely by the color of their skin, the shape of their nose or their social class?

Questions like these are unavoidable in the face of America's homegrown gulag archipelago, a vast network of jails, prisons and "supermax" tombs for the living dead that, without anyone quite noticing, has metastasized into the largest detention system in the advanced industrial world. The proportion of the US population languishing in such facilities now stands at 737 per 100,000, the highest rate on earth and some five to twelve times that of Britain, France and other Western European countries or Japan. With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States has close to a quarter of the world's prisoners, which, curiously enough, is the same as its annual contribution to global warming. With 2.2 million people behind bars and another 5 million on probation or parole, it has approximately 3.2 percent of the adult population under some form of criminal-justice supervision, which is to say one person in thirty-two. For African-Americans, the numbers are even more astonishing. By the mid-1990s, 7 percent of black males were behind bars, while the rate of imprisonment for black males between the ages of 25 and 29 now stands at one in eight. While conservatives have spent the past three or four decades bemoaning the growth of single-parent families, there is a very simple reason some 1.5 million American children are fatherless or (less often) motherless: Their parents are locked up. Because they are confined for the most part in distant rural prisons, moreover, only about one child in five gets to visit them as often as once a month.

What's that you say? Who cares whether a bunch of "rapists, murderers, robbers, and even terrorists and spies," as Republican Senator Mitch McConnell once characterized America's prison population, get to see their kids? In fact, surprisingly few denizens of the American gulag have been sent away for violent crimes. In 2002 just 19 percent of the felony sentences handed down at the state level were for violent offenses, and of those only about 5 percent were for murder. Nonviolent drug offenses involving trafficking or possession (the modern equivalent of rum-running or getting caught with a bottle of bathtub gin) accounted for 31 percent of the total, while purely economic crimes such as burglary and fraud made up an additional 32 percent. If the incarceration rate continues to rise and violent crime continues to drop, we can expect the nonviolent sector of the prison population to expand accordingly. A normal society might lighten up in such circumstances. After all, if violence is under control, isn't it time to come up with a more humane way of dealing with a dwindling number of miscreants? But America is not a normal country and only grows more punitive.

It has also been extremely reluctant to face up to the cancer in its midst. Several of the leading Democratic candidates, for example, have recently come out against the infamous 100-to-1 ratio that subjects someone carrying ten grams of crack to the same penalty as someone caught with a kilo of powdered cocaine. Senator Joe Biden has actually introduced legislation to eliminate the disparity--without, however, acknowledging his role as a leading drug warrior back in the 1980s, when he sponsored the bill that set it in stone in the first place. At a recent forum at Howard University, Hillary Clinton promised to "deal" with the disparity as well, although it would have been nice if she had done so back in the '90s, when, during the first Clinton Administration, the prison population was soaring by some 50 percent. Although he is not running this time around, Jesse Jackson recently castigated Dems for their hesitancy in addressing "failed, wasteful, and unfair drug policies" that have sent "so many young African-Americans" to jail. Yet Jackson forgot to mention his own drug-war past when, as a leading hardliner, he specifically called for "stiffer prison sentences" for black drug users and "wartime consequences" for smugglers. "Since the flow of drugs into the US is an act of terrorism, antiterrorist policies must be applied," he declared in a 1989 interview, a textbook example of how the antidrug rhetoric of the late twentieth century helped pave the way for the "global war on terror" of the early twenty-first.

In other words, cowardice and hypocrisy abound. Fortunately, a small number of academics and at least one journalist have begun training an eye on America's growing prison crisis. Since there is more than enough injustice to go around, each has zeroed in on different aspects of the phenomenon--on the political and economic consequences of stigmatizing so many young people for life, on the racial consequences of disproportionately punishing young black males and on the sheer moral horror of needlessly locking away real, live human beings in supermax prisons that are little more than high-tech dungeons. Their findings, to make a long story short, are that the damage cannot be reduced to a simple matter of so many person-years of lost time. To the contrary, the effects promise to multiply for years to come. In American Furies Sasha Abramsky, a Sacramento-based journalist and longtime Nation contributor, convincingly argues that the best way to understand US prison policies is to think of them as a GI Bill in reverse. Just as the original GI Bill laid the basis for a major social advance by making college available to millions of veterans, mass incarceration is laying the basis for an enormous social regression by stigmatizing and brutalizing millions of young people and "de-skilling" them by removing them from the workforce. America will be feeling the effects for generations.

Bruce Western, a Princeton sociologist, offers the best overview. He notes in his new study, Punishment and Inequality in America, that mass imprisonment is actually a novel development. For much of the twentieth century, the US incarceration rate held steady at around 100 per 100,000, which would put it in the same ballpark as Western Europe today. But after a slight dip following the liberal reforms of the 1960s, the curve reversed direction in the mid-'70s and then rose more steeply in the '80s and '90s. Considering that Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Austria succeeded in reducing or holding their incarceration rates steady during this period, the US pattern was highly exceptional. But so are US crime rates. Between 1980 and 1991, US homicides hovered at between 7.9 and 10.2 per 100,000, as much as ten times the European average. (The rate has since fallen to around 5.7.) Combined with the crack wave that also exploded in the 1980s, the result was a deepening sense of panic that peaked in mid-1986 with the death of basketball star Len Bias from a cocaine overdose. Although there was no evidence that crack had anything to do with Bias's death--police found only powdered cocaine in his car--the incident somehow confirmed crack as the new devil substance, "the most addictive drug known to man," in the words of Newsweek, and a threat comparable to the "medieval plagues," in the considered opinion of U.S. News and World Report (which would have meant that the country was facing an imminent population loss of up to 33 percent). Within a matter of months, Joe Biden had helped shepherd through to victory the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, an unusually horrendous piece of legislation that etched in stone the 100-to-1 penalty ratio for crack.

Still, it is always interesting to consider which deaths fill people with horror and which ones don't. The year before Bias's death not only saw 19,000 homicides in the United States but nearly 46,000 highway fatalities too, and yet Congress somehow refrained from criminalizing motor vehicles. Crack's status as the drug du jour of a certain class of inner-city blacks should have been the giveaway. What had Congress in a tizzy was not cocaine consumption so much as black cocaine consumption, which is why the subsequent repression was bound to be far harder on African-Americans than on whites. Although there is no evidence that blacks use drugs more than whites and indeed some evidence that they use them less, Western notes that black users are now twice as likely to be arrested for drugs and, once arrested, more likely to go to prison or jail. None of this is necessarily racist, at least not in the crudely explicit way we associate with men in white sheets. The reason the police concentrate their efforts in black inner-city neighborhoods, Western notes, is that users congregate there in large numbers, and buying, selling and using tend to take place in public. (It's harder to make arrests behind the closed doors of some suburban
McMansion.) If a judge is more inclined to send a poor black defendant to prison, similarly, it is not necessarily because he or she enjoys punishing someone with dark skin but because the judge, according to Western, may "see poor defendants as having fewer prospects and social supports, thus as having less potential for rehabilitation." If your weeping parents can afford to send you to private rehab, you're excused. If not, it's off to the state pen.

Racial and class biases are thus built into the very structure of the drug war. Western is particularly effective on the economic consequences of such grossly disproportionate policies. The standard account of American economic development since the 1970s, told and retold in countless undergraduate classrooms, is that economic deregulation and growth have done much to narrow the once-yawning wage gap between white and black workers. To quote the New York Times: "Unemployment rates among blacks and Hispanic people...are at or near record lows. Joblessness among high school dropouts has fallen to about half the rate in 1992. And wages for the lowest paid are rising faster than inflation for the first time in decades." A rising tide lifts all boats, whereas all that labor-market rigidity has done for "Old Europe" is to saddle it with persistently high levels of unemployment, an alienated underclass and riots in the banlieues. But as Punishment and Inequality in America points out, if US economic policies look good, it is only because the country's enormous prison population is not factored into the equation. If workers behind bars are counted, then it quickly becomes apparent "that young black men have experienced virtually no real economic gains on young whites" and that the real black unemployment rate is up to 20 percent greater than official statistics indicate. Rather than freeing up the markets, Western writes, the United States has "adopted policies that massively and coercively regulated the poor." Where the Danes provide their unemployed with up to 80 percent of their previous salary and the Germans provide them with 60 percent, America has deregulated the rich while throwing a growing portion of its working class in jail.

In Marked, Devah Pager, who also teaches sociology at Princeton, uses a simple technique to show how mass incarceration has undone the small amount of racial progress achieved in the 1960s and '70s. Working with two pairs of male college students in Milwaukee, one white and the other black, she drilled them on how to present themselves and answer questions. Then, arming them with phony résumés, she sent them out to apply for entry-level jobs. The résumés were identical in all respects but one. Where one member of each team had nothing indicating a criminal record, the other's résumé showed an eighteen-month sentence for drugs. To help insure that the results were uniform, the résumés were then rotated back and forth among the testers.

The results? The white applicant with a prison record was half as likely to be called back for a second interview as the white applicant without. But the black applicant without a criminal record was no more likely to be called back than the white applicant with a record, while the black applicant with a record was two-thirds less likely to be called back than the black applicant without. The black applicant with a record therefore wound up doubly penalized--as a black man and as an ex-con. With the chances of a call-back reduced to just 5 percent, the overall effect, Pager writes, was "almost total exclusion from this labor market." Considering that there are as many as 12 million ex-felons in the United States, a major portion of them black, the result has been to create a huge pool of the semi-permanently unemployed where one might otherwise not exist. This is not to disprove sociologist William Julius Wilson, whose study The Declining Significance of Race caused an uproar when it was published in 1978. Wilson may have been
right: The significance of race may well have been declining by the late '70s. But thanks to a government policy of mass stigmatization, it has come roaring back.

This is not only bad news for those arrested but bad news for those who have to foot the bill for their incarceration and for dealing with the social problems that labor-market exclusion on this scale helps generate. But there are other costs too. In Locked Out, Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, professors of sociology at Northwestern and the University of Minnesota, respectively, point out that only two states, Maine and Vermont, permit felons to vote while incarcerated, that most limit felons' voting rights after they complete their terms and that, even if not legally disenfranchised, some 600,000 jail inmates and pretrial detainees are effectively prevented from voting as well. All told, this means that 6 million Americans were unable to vote on election day in 2004. This is not peanuts. Nationwide, one black man in seven has been disenfranchised as a consequence, while in Florida, the state with the most sweeping disenfranchisement laws, the number of those prevented from voting now exceeds 1.1 million.

From a right-wing perspective, this is nothing short of brilliant. After all, what could be better than disenfranchising an unfriendly racial group while persuading the rest of the nation that the group deserves it because its ranks are filled with violent criminals? Since felons and ex-felons tend to be poor and members of oppressed racial minorities, they tend to vote Democratic. Even though the poor are less likely to vote than those higher up on the socioeconomic ladder, Manza and Uggen say there is little doubt that, had the disenfranchisement laws not existed in Florida in November 2000, the extra votes would have provided Al Gore with a margin of victory so comfortable that not even the Republican state legislature could have taken it away. If the ranks of prison inmates and hence of disenfranchised ex-inmates had not multiplied since the '70s, much of the wind would also have been taken out of the sails of the great GOP offensive. Americans have not gone right, in other words. Rather, by taking control of the criminal-justice issue, the right wing has winnowed down the electorate so as to artificially boost the power of the conservative minority.

But how did the right gain control of this all-important issue in the first place? This is the problem that Marie Gottschalk, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, wrestles with in The Prison and the Gallows, an eccentric but compelling study of mass incarceration's ideological origins. While taking aim at the usual right-wing villains, The Prison and the Gallows also goes after various liberals and radicals who, inadvertently or not, also contributed to the construction of "the carceral state." Bill Clinton, for example, not only embraced the drug war and capital punishment--he interrupted his 1992 presidential campaign to fly back to Arkansas and sign the death warrant for a mentally disabled prisoner named Rickey Ray Rector--but also endorsed what Gottschalk calls "a virulently punitive victims' rights movement," going so far as to call for a constitutional amendment in 1996 as "the only way to give victims equal and due consideration."

This was important because the victims' rights movement represented an effort to inject a dose of vengeance into the judicial process and thereby blur the distinction between the private interest of the victim and the public's interest in maintaining order and justice. In Europe, reformers were also concerned with victims' rights. But "extending a hand to victims was seen from the start as primarily an extension of the welfare state," Gottschalk observes, whereas in America, where welfare is a dirty word, it was seen as a way of steering criminal justice in a more punitive direction.

Gottschalk's assault on '70s feminism is sure to raise the most eyebrows. She argues that the women's movement helped facilitate the carceral state by promoting a punitive approach to sexual violence that was unmitigated by any larger political considerations. This single-minded focus led to what The Prison and the Gallows describes as unsavory coalitions with tough-on-crime types. In the State of Washington, women's groups successfully marketed rape reform as a law-and-order issue so that, when the measure finally passed in 1975, it was "in part by riding on the coattails of a new death penalty statute."

In California a new rape shield became known as the Robbins Rape Evidence Law, in honor of one of its legislative sponsors, a conservative Republican named Alan Robbins. In pressing for limits on the cross-examination of alleged rape victims, feminists "generally did not consider what effect such measures would have on a defendant's right to due process," Gottschalk adds, even though due process at the time was under assault from a growing war on crime. More radical elements, meanwhile, strayed into outright vigilantism. In Berkeley, antirape activists picketed an accused rapist's home. In East Lansing in 1973, they "reportedly scrawled Rapist on a suspect's car, spray-painted the word across a front porch and made warning telephone calls late at night." In Los Angeles, a self-styled "antirape squad" vowed to shave rapists' heads, cover them with dye and then photograph them for posters reading, This Man Rapes Women. A feminist publication called Aegis ran a notorious cover showing a gun with the warning, "You can't rape a .38; we will defend ourselves."

The National Rifle Association was no doubt delighted. Gottschalk contends that such activists wound up "profoundly co-opted," since "by framing the rape issue around 'horror stories,' they fed into the victims' movement's compelling image of a society held hostage to a growing number of depraved, marauding criminals." She notes that feminists threw themselves into the battle for the Violence Against Women Act, which passed in 1994 as part of an omnibus anticrime bill that "allocated nearly $10 billion for new prison construction, expanded the death penalty to cover more than fifty federal crimes, and added a 'three strikes and you're out' provision mandating life imprisonment for federal offenders convicted of three violent offenses." Yet feminists' involvement was relatively modest two years later when a few liberals tried to rally opposition to Clinton's plan to abolish Aid to Families With Dependent Children, which heavily benefited poor women. Like their nineteenth-century forebears, who advocated bringing back the whipping post to deal with wife beaters, late-twentieth-century feminists got more excited about punishment than defending the welfare state.

Gottschalk is more than a bit brave in pointing this out. Still, her choice of historical examples to explain the growth of an increasingly vindictive national mood seems incomplete. As much damage as radical feminists may have done in undermining due process, they seem less important than certain ant-drug activists--in particular, certain black Democratic antidrug activists--whose efforts ran on parallel tracks. This means not just Jesse Jackson, who backed vigilante-style antidrug patrols by the Nation of Islam ("As long as this type of solution is within the law, it should be encouraged") but also Congressman Charles Rangel, the Manhattan Democrat who, as head of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse, spent much of the '80s baiting Reagan for being soft on drugs. "I haven't seen a national drug policy since Nixon was in office," Rangel lamented at one point. "So far, the Administration hasn't given it any priority." This is as clear a case of an ostensible liberal cheering on the forces of right-wing reaction as one could hope to find. US prisons are not bulging with rapists and wife beaters, but they are filled with drug offenders, some 458,000 as of 2000, which makes the brief space that Gottschalk allots to the drug war somewhat hard to fathom. It's like discussing Al Capone without mentioning Prohibition.

Sasha Abramsky is less interested in the ideological currents that helped pave the way for mass incarceration, although in American Furies he does spotlight the fascinating role played by a Berkeley-educated sociologist named Robert Martinson, who, after several years investigating the cornucopia of rehabilitation programs offered at the time by the New York State prison system, summed up his findings in a sensational 1974 article titled "What Works?" His answer: nothing. Martinson's frustration is understandable to anyone who has ever suffered through an encounter group. Yet his conclusions, published in the neoconservative journal Public Interest, were grossly one-sided: While many programs do not work, some clearly have a positive effect.

In short order, Martinson's article became the bible of the vengeance-and-punishment set, which seized on it as proof that rehabilitation was a lost cause and that the only purpose of prison was to penalize wrongdoers. Once this ideological impediment was removed, the criminal-justice system slid downhill with remarkable speed. If punishment was good, then more punishment was better. In short order, Massachusetts Governor William Weld was declaring that life in prison should be "akin to a walk through hell," while right-wing Senator Phil Gramm was promising "to string barbed wire on every military base in America" to contain all the criminals he wanted to round up. In Maricopa County, Arizona, which includes Phoenix, a colorful local character named Joe Arpaio got himself re-elected sheriff time and again by parading his inmates about on chain gangs, dressing the men among them in fluorescent pink underwear and serving prisoners food that, as he cheerfully admits, costs less than what he gives to his cats and dogs. "Voters like it everywhere," Abramsky quotes Arpaio as saying of such policies. "I'm on thousands of talk shows. I never get a negative. I get letters from all over the world--and I answer every one. They say, 'Come up here and be our sheriff.'" What makes this all the more repellent is that the people subjected to such humiliation and abuse are rarely killers or rapists but alcoholics, vagrants and other small fry doing time for such misdemeanors as possession and shoplifting.

Amazing how much damage a single article can do, eh? Yet when a conscience-stricken Martinson published a mea culpa in the Hofstra Law Review five years later ("contrary to my previous position, some treatment programs do have an appreciable effect on recidivism"), the media yawned. No big shots interviewed him on TV, and no politicians called to solicit his views. No one wanted to hear that rehabilitation programs work, only that they don't. Beset by personal troubles, professional setbacks and perhaps the realization of how grievously he had allowed himself to be misused, Martinson committed suicide by throwing himself out of a ninth-floor Manhattan apartment in 1980. American Furies provides us with a vivid account of the horrors that have followed--the low-level pot dealers and shoplifters sentenced to life in prison in California, Oklahoma, Alabama and other states where various "three strikes" or other habitual-offender laws pertain; the supermax prisoners condemned to spend twenty-three hours a day in barren concrete cells the size of walk-in closets; the epidemics of suicide and self-mutilation; and the stubbornly high levels of violence between and among prisoners and guards--which law-and-order advocates seize upon as reason to build yet more supermax facilities. US prison policy is like a computer program that is designed to spit out the same answers no matter what data are fed into it: Arrest more people, put more of them in prison, build more cells to accommodate them.

Where will it end? As Martinson's story shows, American mass incarceration is not what social scientists call "evidence based." It is not a policy designed to achieve certain practical, utilitarian ends that can then be weighed and evaluated from time to time to determine if it is performing as intended. Rather, it is a moral policy whose purpose is to satisfy certain passions that have grown more and more brutal over the years. The important thing about moralism of this sort is that it is its own justification. For true believers, it is something that everyone should endorse regardless of the consequences. As right-wing political scientist James Q. Wilson once remarked, "Drug use is wrong because it is immoral," a comment that not only sums up the tautological nature of US drug policies but also shows how they are structured to render irrelevant questions about wasted dollars and blighted lives. Moralism of this sort is neither rational nor democratic, and the fact that it has triumphed so completely is an indication of how deeply the United States has sunk into authoritarianism since the 1980s. With the prison population continuing to rise at a 2.7 percent annual clip, there is no reason to think there will be a turnaround soon. Indeed, Gottschalk writes that mass incarceration is so taken for granted nowadays that "it seems almost unimaginable that the country will veer off in a new direction and begin to empty and board up its prisons." Still, she ends on a quasi-optimistic note by quoting Norwegian sociologist Thomas Mathiesen to the effect that "major repressive systems have succeeded in looking extremely stable almost until the day they have collapsed." Indeed, repression is itself often a sign of instability bubbling up from below. This is not much to pin one's hopes on, but it will have to do.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/lazare

Posted by lois at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2007

Real Cost of Prisons Project Website Reminder

The Real Cost of Prisons Project website (www.realcostofprisons.org) is constantly updated with new research and papers focused on providing ideas and information to strengthen the work of organizers, family members, students, policy makers and others. PDFs of our three comic book are on line in addition to individual comic book pages which can be downloaded free and used for flyers, tabling, newsletters. There also links to hundreds of organizations. Two of our newest sections: "Comix from Inside" and "Writing from Prison" include political and analytical writing and artwork by men and women who are incarcerated.

Posted by lois at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

July 24, 2007

TX: Activists Decry CCA & Hutto Detention Center

Even if protesters don't have an impact in closing the corporation down, Jose Orta, the founding member of the Taylor council of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said it's important for everyone to do what they can. "CCA needs to understand people in the community are holding it accountable for what it's doing," Orta said."

7/23/07, Daily Texan, UT Austin
Activists decry for-profit prison facilities
Protests have helped force policy changes, local leaders claim

By Amanda DeBard

More than 50 activists lined the sidewalk in front of the headquarters of the Corrections Corporation of America on Friday along the 8000 block of Shoal Creek Boulevard, accusing the corporation of running for-profit prisons.

The Corrections Corporation of America is the largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities in the nation, according to the Texas Civil Rights Review. It runs the T. Don Hutto detention facility in Taylor, Texas, which has been under recent scrutiny for policies concerning the imprisonment of immigrant children and families awaiting their immigration hearings.

"It sickens me they're taking families and children and putting them in cells," said Laura Hitt, an concerned Austin resident and mother of three. "Especially being a mom, I can't imagine what it's like to be a mother and have kids in there or to live as a family in that type of situation."

Hitt heard about Friday's protest through a Listserv for peace organizations and is involved with Code Pink, a women-initiated group that focuses on peace and social justice movements.

"This is my first time to protest against CCA, but I'm outraged because of all the things the administration has done," Hitt said.

In addition to protesting against the corporation, some grassroots activists say immigrants will show up to their hearings and don't need to be imprisoned.

"Research shows that almost everyone would show back up to their immigration hearings, which proves [locking immigrants up] isn't necessary," said Bob Libal, an activist against CCA and facilities such as Hutto. "CCA are beneficiaries, and they didn't used to do these things."

Even if protesters don't have an impact in closing the corporation down, Jose Orta, the founding member of the Taylor council of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said it's important for everyone to do what they can.

"CCA needs to understand people in the community are holding it accountable for what it's doing," Orta said. "It's still in the mind set of treating people as prisoners. That's what its bread and butter is."

Orta said the corporation made some changes as a result of all the protesting outside the Hutto facility. CCA has rewritten manuals and hired an activity director for the children, the guards no longer dress in prison uniforms, and children receive seven hours of education a day, he said.

Before the protest, Orta's young niece asked him if his efforts are a waste of time and if he really thought people would change.

"I want the community to be aware [that protesting] is not a waste of time and what CCA is doing is unjust," Orta said. "It needs to treat prisoners like human beings."

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2007/07/23/StateLocal/Activists.Decry.F
orProfit.Prison.Facilities-2926233.shtml>

Posted by lois at 09:51 AM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2007

NY Times Editorial: "PHANTOM VOTERS IN NEW YORK"

PHANTOM VOTERS IN NEW YORK
New York Times Editorial
July 23, 2007

Prison-based gerrymandering is especially egregious in New York, where prison inmates -- who are denied the right to vote -- are routinely counted as "residents" to pad out legislative districts. This practice falsely inflates the political power of districts with prisons, while undercutting districts with larger voting populations.

State senators who owe their seats to prison gerrymandering defend it tooth and nail. But a new study from the New York-based research group Prison Policy Initiative, entitled "Phantom Constituents in the Empire State," found that 13 counties have excluded inmates from the local redistricting count because they thought it unfairly stacked the political deck. Some of the counties came to that conclusion after learning that imprisoned people would have made up 30 percent or more of proposed county legislative districts.

The Board of Supervisors for Essex County got it right when it wrote that counting prison inmates as residents unfairly diluted the voting weight of the county's actual residents, especially since inmates "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 study found 16 counties where inmates were still counted as residents for redistricting purposes. But that is likely to change as citizens learn that districts with prisons are wielding undeserved influence in county affairs. The same thing needs to happen in the New York State Legislature.

* * *
The reported cited by The Times, "Phantom Constituents in the Empire State," is available at http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/nycounties/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon3.html

Posted by lois at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2007

NY: New Report Finds Some Counties Count Prisoners in Population Count and Others Do Not

Ulster, Columbia include prisoners in population count
By Michael Hill, Associated Pess
07/18/2007

ALBANY - Prison towns can wield disproportionate local political clout in the New York counties that count inmates as constituents, according to a report from an advocacy group Wednesday.

The Prison Policy Initiative identified 15 counties in the state - including Ulster and Columbia - plus New York City that rely on Census tallies including prisoners when they draw lines for county legislative districts or weight the votes for county boards of supervisors. (County governments usually use one system or the other.)

Critics long have contended that the practice of counting state and federal prisoners, who cannot vote, as local residents creates "phantom constituents" and gives undue political power to places withprisons. Theeffect can be especially acute in sparsely populated rural counties.

The report found five counties - Chautauqua, Livingston, Oneida, Madison and St. Lawrence - contained districts that consisted of at least 20 percent prisoners. Report author Peter Wagner said this creates a "crisis" in those counties because it gives people in the prison districts more concentrated voting power than their neighbors in other parts of the county.

"It allows certain parts of counties to dominate the future of their
counties," Wagner said.

For example, the report said 62 percent of the residents counted by the Census in the Livingston County town of Groveland are incarcerated. That means every four residents there have the same say over county affairs as 10 residents elsewhere in the county, according to the report.

James Merrick, chairman of the Livingston County Board of Supervisors, saidhe did not want to comment on a report he had not seen. But Merrick,Groveland's supervisor, said the county's system works fine.

"I don't think there has been any talk of any change," he said, "everybodylikes the system."

Wagner said five other counties had at least one district with 8 to 15
percent prisoners: Columbia, Chenango, Fulton, Jefferson and Wayne. New York City also fell within that range.

Researchers measured relatively small effects in five other counties, like Monroe, where the average district size is more than 25,000 and the lone state prison holds 90 inmates. The other counties in that group were Ulster,Erie, Saratoga and Westchester.

Thirteen counties - including Dutchess, Greene, Sullivan and Orange -
exclude prisoners for redistricting purposes.

Wagner called for counties to end the practice of counting inmates when drawing district lines.

The Prison Policy Initiative is a not-for-profit group based in Northampton,Mass., that works for new criminal justice policies by documenting what it
calls the "disastrous impact of mass incarceration."

AT A GLANCE

NEW YORK counties that include prisoners in population:
Chautauqua
Chenango
Columbia
Erie
Fulton
Jefferson
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Oneida
New York City
Saratoga
St. Lawrence
Ulster
Wayne
Westchester

***

COUNTIES that exclude prisoners from population:

Cayuga
Chemung
Clinton
Dutchess
Essex
Franklin
Greene
Orange
Orleans
Schoharie
Sullivan
Washington
Wyoming

ttp://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18597571&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=
74958&rfi=6

©Daily Freeman 2007

Posted by lois at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2007

NY: Disenfranchisement and the Legacy of Slavery

From the Sentencing Project
July 12, 2007 Disenfranchisement: News/Updates
New York: Disenfranchisement and the Legacy of Slavery

Last month, the New York State Assembly passed a bill apologizing for slavery in an effort to acknowledge the state's hand in the nation's unfortunate legacy which, amongst many other things, restricted black people from the polls - and continues to do so, according to an op-ed by Te-Ping Chen and Maggie Williams. New York law currently bans those incarcerated and on parole from voting. Hayden v. Pataki, a New York case brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn the current law, was unsuccessful. The court dismissed the case in February 2005 concluding that "Congress did not intend the Voting Rights Act to cover such [felon disenfranchisement] provisions" and that such an application "would alter the constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government." The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Community Service Society urged the Court to reconsider its decision last January. For coverage, see the Gotham Gazette. (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20070709/202/2224)
http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/felon/hayden_case_summary.pdf

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20070709/202/2224

Keeping Felons from Voting
by Te-Ping Chen and Maggie Williams
09 Jul 2007

In a scene from the documentary Election Day, Leon Batts, who has a felony conviction holds up his ballot as he votes for the first time in his life. Batts' vote in 2004 was ruled invalid because of a problem with his registration, but he has vowed to try again.

Last month, the New York State Assembly unanimously passed a bill expressing regret for New York’s role in the slave trade. The move was a recognition of the state’s history as much as it was an apology. “A lot of people don’t even think slavery happened here,” said its prime sponsor, Assemblymember Keith Wright of Manhattan.

But it did. Slavery was not simply a Southern affair. Neither were the laws used to keep former slaves and their descendants from the polls. Today, New York’s laws depriving some people with felony convictions of their right to vote serve as an ongoing, painful reminder of that legacy.

Currently, under New York law, people with felony convictions lose the right to vote while they are incarcerated and on parole. They can vote while on probation. (People on parole and probation both live in the community under supervision. In some cases, after a person is convicted, the judge can sentence him or her to probation. While this can include jail time, it does not have to. Parole is granted by the parole board to a person who has served some of his or her sentences in prison and is awarded for “good behavior.’) These felon disenfranchisement laws currently bar 122,000 New Yorkers from the polls. Nearly 87 percent of those disenfranchised are black and Latino.
Origins of Injustice

New York began disenfranchising its black citizens even before the end of slavery. At the 1821 Constitutional Convention, the racial motivations behind felon disenfranchisement were clear. One delegate urged his colleagues, “Survey you[r] prisons…and what a darkening host meets the eye! More than one-third of the convicts and felons which those walls enclose are of your sable population.”

In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed blacks the right to vote. That is, on paper. But for nearly a century, states across the nation — New York among them — continued to pass laws to prevent blacks from voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests are some of the more infamous examples of such efforts, but they are by no means the full story.

American history gives us many moments to be proud of. One was the civil rights movement, whose brave efforts led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. But while that legislation swept away most legal obstacles suppressing the black vote—for example, the poll tax—felon disenfranchisement laws remained on the books.
The Effects of Disenfranchisement

Nationwide, 13 percent of all black men cannot vote due to such laws: a rate seven times that of any other group in America. The story is nearly universal—except for Maine and Vermont, all states deprive individuals with felony convictions of the right to vote for varying periods of time. In New York City, where the criminal justice system remains particularly rife with racial disparities, the situation is especially stark. According to the Federal Household Survey, 72 percent of current illicit drug users and dealers are white, yet over 92 percent of those serving drug-related sentences in New York are black and Latino. And among defendants convicted of felonies, blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be sent to prison and denied probation.

In some areas in the South Bronx, where the Voter Enfranchisement Project is based, nearly one in five men—family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers—will end up in prison over the course of their lives. As a result, felon disenfranchisement laws strip these communities of their most basic democratic right: a political voice.

Today, few, if any, Americans cite the need to keep blacks from the polls as an argument for felon disenfranchisement. The modern case for barring people with felony convictions from voting takes a different tact: that these people do not deserve—or cannot be trusted—to help make public policy. But if an individual has returned to our communities and is paying taxes, why should they be denied the right to participate in the democratic process?

Apart from their pockmarked origins, such laws fly in the face of the belief that our criminal justice system is grounded in rehabilitation. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, one affirmed in other nations for all citizens, regardless of their criminal backgrounds. Among all Western democracies, the United States has the harshest felon disenfranchisement laws.
Ending Felon Disenfranchisement

A broad movement has emerged to restore the right to vote to formerly incarcerated people. In recent years, several states—Nebraska, Iowa, Rhode Island, and Florida among them—have elected to reduce barriers to voting for people with felony convictions. While attempts in the recent case Hayden v. Pataki brought before U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to reverse New York’s laws on the grounds of discrimination were unsuccessful, similar suits are pending in Arizona and Washington state.

During his campaign last year, Governor Eliot Spitzer told the Better Ballots Voter Guide that he supported giving people with felony convictions who had been released on parole the right to vote. They have “been deemed fit to return to society, and deserve the right to participate in the electoral process,” candidate Spitzer said. That’s a step forward, but felon disenfranchisement didn’t change with “Day One.” In fact, the governor has not commented on the issue since.

Meanwhile, partisan deadlock in Albany continues to frustrate attempts to address even the most basic issues with New York’s voting laws. In 2006, a joint study (in pdf) released by Demos and the Brennan Center found that over one third of all election boards in New York disenfranchised even people with felony convictions who are eligible to vote by providing inaccurate information. Many of the boards, for example, erroneously tell people on probation that they cannot vote. During this past legislative session, the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed a bill to bring elections boards into compliance with the current law. Yet the majority-Republican Senate refused to introduce a companion bill.

As partisan politics continue to roadblock reform, the governor’s support for ending felon disenfranchisement is more vital than ever. Recognizing the injustices of the past is important but, given the persistence of discriminatory laws, it is not enough. As New York begins accounting for its role in the slave trade, we must continue to dismantle the legacy of racial discrimination at the polls. As an important step, the governor should issue an executive order restoring the vote to people on parole.

Te-Ping Chen is an intern and Maggie Williams is the Project Director of the Voter Enfranchisement Project at The Bronx Defenders

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20070709/202/2224

Posted by lois at 03:47 PM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2007

WI: Voter Fraud Conviction of Woman Who Cast Illegal Absentee Ballot is Upheld

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=620108

Voter fraud conviction upheld
Posted: June 14, 2007

In a 3-0 decision, a federal appeals court Thursday upheld the voter fraud conviction of Kimberly Prude, the Milwaukee grandmother of three who cast an illegal absentee ballot in the 2004 election.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago rejected claims made by Prude's defense team that key testimony from the chief inspector at a polling location where Prude worked on election day should have been omitted from the jury trial.

The court also rejected a claim that the jury was not instructed adequately on the theory of Prude's defense as well as claims that Prude was denied the chance to introduce testimony about procedures to withdraw a vote.

Prude, a felon under state supervision, was ineligible to vote in 2004. She worked as a volunteer for the John Kerry-John Edwards campaign and cast an absentee ballot after an Oct. 22, 2004 rally that featured Rev. Al Sharpton. Prude claimed she called the election commission and attempted to withdraw her ballot but was told by a person on the telephone that she should not be worried about the vote.

In 2005, a jury convicted Prude of voter fraud and her probation was revoked. Prude had previously pleaded guilty to a state charge of forgery in 2000.

Prude is serving her sentence at the Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center in Union Grove. She is expected to be released in the autumn.

- Bill Glauber

Posted by lois at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2007

WI: Her first vote put her in prison

Here's an example of the so-called "voter fraud" Monica Goodling & Co were so intent in prosecuting. Lois

Her first vote put her in prison
Woman is one of five from city convicted of voter fraud
By BILL GLAUBER
Posted: May 21, 2007

Union Grove - Kimberly Prude is 43, a grandmother of three and the face of voter fraud in Wisconsin.

The first vote she cast in her life, in the 2004 presidential election, landed her in the middle of a political storm and put her on a road to a two-year sentence inside the Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center.

"At this point, I'm not interested in voting," Prude said last week in a measured voice as she sat in a spare meeting room at the minimum security prison.

It was her first interview since her conviction in September 2005. She wore a gray T-shirt, blue jeans and white tennis shoes. She smiled and appeared comfortable discussing her life in prison, where she earns 26 cents an hour as a cleaner in the kitchen and is studying to complete a high school equivalency diploma.

On advice of her attorney, she declined to discuss the case, which is on appeal.

How Prude got from the streets of Milwaukee to a prison in Racine County is now the stuff of American political history.

Prude cast an illegal vote in 2004. As a felon on probation and under state supervision, she was ineligible to vote.

A woman who dropped out of high school in 10th grade, struggled with substance abuse and compiled a criminal record, Prude found herself up against the might of the federal system.

"I tried to get help in the beginning," she said. "I wrote Oprah (Winfrey's) O Magazine. I got my daughter to call certain talk show hosts, Montel Williams, Maury Povich. There was no interest."

In almost any other election year in perhaps any other state, such a vote might have gone unnoticed and unpunished.

But in Wisconsin - a key battleground state - the closely contested 2004 presidential election between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) was placed under a microscope, especially in Milwaukee. GOP warned of fraud

In the days leading to the election, Republicans leveled accusations that the vote was subject to fraud and challenged 5,600 addresses of voters on Milwaukee's rolls, while Democrats warned of intimidation and potential suppression of minority voters including African-Americans, such as Prude.

The election was held. The votes were counted. The debate died down.

But the issue did not go away.

In early 2005, Republican officials in Wisconsin complained to senior White House political adviser Karl Rove that Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic was not being aggressive enough in pursuing voter fraud cases.

Biskupic has said he was unaware of those complaints and has repeatedly denied that his office prosecuted any voter fraud case because of White House pressure. As early as 2005, Biskupic was on an "evolving list" of 26 U.S. attorneys to be fired by the Bush administration, according to The Washington Post.

After all the allegations of voter fraud made during the 2004 presidential campaign, federal attorneys in Milwaukee brought 14 cases. Six of those were dismissed before trial, and only five convictions were secured, all Milwaukee residents. Prosecutors had to prove that the voters intended to defraud the system. 10% of all U.S. cases

Although 14 cases may not sound like a lot, they made up more than 10% of all the federal voter fraud cases brought in the United States from 2002 to 2006, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

Four of the cases here involved allegations of double voting, and 10 others involved felons accused of voting.

As in a majority of states, Wisconsin prohibits felony offenders from voting until they have completed probation and parole. Only two states deny the right to vote for all ex-offenders, and nine other states restrict certain ex-offenders or impose a waiting period to vote, according to The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group.

One of those charged by prosecutors here was Derek Little, a felon from Milwaukee, who registered to vote and then cast a ballot on the same day. The only identification he had was a parolee card.

"In big bold letters, it says OFFENDER, and they still let me vote," Little said. "I thought it was their job to know the rules."

Federal attorneys dropped the case. But the experience left Little shaken.

"The Department of Corrections should take the time out and make sure a person understands each and every one of the rules 100 percent," he said. "I don't want anyone else to go through this situation. It will turn you into a nervous wreck."

Prude's case was different.

She worked as a local volunteer for the John Kerry-John Edwards campaign, even calling people to inform them how they could vote.

Went to Sharpton rally

On Oct. 22, 2004, she volunteered for a rally that featured the Rev. Al Sharpton. As the rally ended, Sharpton encouraged the crowd to follow him to City Hall, where people could register to vote. Prude joined the crowd, registered to vote and then submitted an absentee ballot. While waiting in line, she said, she heard someone asking for people to work the election-day polls. Prude signed up.

Later, Prude said she notified her parole agent that she had a job as a poll worker and the agent told her she couldn't vote. Prude claimed she called the election commission to attempt to withdraw her ballot but that a person she spoke with told her not to worry about the vote.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling said Prude's story "changed repeatedly."

"You didn't get the sense (from Prude), 'I made a mistake, I forgot.' This was, 'I did it, now I'm trying to cover.' "

During the three-day trial, Prude testified she made a "terrible mistake" by voting and tried to correct it.

The government said Prude was amply warned that felons under supervision could not vote. Prude's parole officer testified that on Sept. 27, 2004, he warned her not to vote.

The government said that at the polls on election day, "Prude improperly vouched for individuals she had never met. She also signed as the corroborating witness on two on-site registration cards for the same voter."

A jury convicted Prude of voter fraud.

She was sentenced to serve two years concurrent with a state sentence for forgery. She pleaded guilty to the state charge in 2000; her six-year prison term was stayed and she was placed on supervision.

The voting fraud conviction contributed to her probation being revoked.

Due for release in fall

Prude is expected to be released from prison in the autumn. She plans to return home and pursue a job lead.

For now, she said, the things she misses most are holidays. Asked what gift she wants for her first Christmas at home, she thought for a moment and said, "You know what, I want no surprises this year."

Original Story URL: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=608187

Posted by lois at 05:09 PM | Comments (0)

April 23, 2007

New Pages on the RCPP website-Comix from Inside and Writing from Prison

The Real Cost of Prisons Project has added two new categories to our website: Comix from Inside and Writing from Prison.
New materials are posted continuously so be sure to check and check back.
Materials can be downloaded and used in flyers, publications, etc.
Go to www.realcostofprisons.org and then to the new pages.

Posted by lois at 10:46 PM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2007

IL; Bill would restrict sex offenders at the polls

Please go to this URL for comments in response to this Bill which are NOT in support of this legislation.

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/112656.asp

Bill would restrict sex offenders at the polls
By LAURA CAMPER
STATE CAPITOL BUREAU

Published Friday, April 20, 2007

Child sex offenders would be banned from voting in polling places in schools under a bill passed by the Illinois House Thursday.

House Bill 263, which sailed through on a vote of 110-3, would require a child sex offender to vote early or by absentee ballot. The current election code allows the offender on school grounds to vote, though they cannot go there otherwise.

Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, said she had sponsored an earlier bill that would have closed the schools on Election Day, but it was defeated in committee. Rep. Roger Eddy, R- Hutsonville, a co-sponsor of HB 263, brought the legislation to her, Osmond said.

"We were both looking at the same concept of how not to have any child sex offender in the school area at all," Osmond said. "I feel this was a good way of doing it by not denying him or her the right to vote, but giving specific parameters where (the sex offender) should go to vote."

Rep. Careen Gordon, D-Coal City, who voted against the bill, questioned its constitutionality.

"It would be the only group of people that we would single out in this state to restrict where they are allowed to vote," Gordon said.

"The right to vote is a constitutional right," she added. "It's something we hold very, very dear, and when you decide to pick out a group, as horrible as they may be - and I am the first in line to vote for stronger laws on sex offenders as a former prosecutor - but we end up on a slippery slope."

Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union, offered a similar sentiment.

"It's hard for me to believe that we have to undermine the right to vote in this instance without really taking into account that there might be other steps we could take," Yohnka said.

A similar bill passed the Illinois Senate on March 29 by a vote of 57-0.

Senate Bill 417 would ban everyone subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act from voting in schools and libraries. The legislation also requires the Illinois State Police to provide each election authority a list of registered sex offenders within their jurisdiction, who would in turn give a list to each election judge.

Yohnka said the ACLU opposes both bills.

"It's curious as to why suddenly there's an issue with sex offenders, as opposed to really providing safety and security in the school," he said.

Gordon agreed.

"The reason why we keep them out is because of the offenses that they've committed," she said. "If they are going there to vote, it's a completely separate situation. Even a regular person can't randomly walk around a school on Election Day."

The State Board of Elections is neutral on the bill, said Cris Cray, director of legislation for the agency.

"This has been a really hot topic for the last three years," Cray said. "We've had a lot of legislation dealing with sex offenders and voting."

She said the board is still analyzing the bills.

Posted by lois at 12:14 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2007

Inmates vs. Animals: U.S. Fails the Test of Civilization

Inmates vs. Animals: U.S. Fails the Test of Civilization
By Ben Zipperer, AlterNet
Posted on April 18, 2007

Legend has it that in the fifth century the Asian monk Telemachus ran into a Roman arena to stop the brutality of the gladitorial games. For his interruption, the indignant crowd stoned him to death, but his actions impressed Emperor Honorius enough to put an end to the fights.

The past millenium and a half has arguably witnessed a general improvement in the cultural level of society, in particular many countries having preserved and extended their intolerance of sports that brutally exploit the disadvantaged. Today even cock fighting and pitting canines against each other are illegal in most industrialized nations.

Remnants of gladitorial combat nevertheless persist, notably at two prison rodeos in Angola, La., and McAlester, Okla., where Americans buy tickets to watch inmates wrestle bulls and participate in crowd favorites like "Convict Poker." Also called "Mexican Sweat," the poker game consists of four prisoners who sit expectantly around a red card table. A 1,500-pound bull is unleashed, and the last convict to remain sitting wins. Especially thrilling for the audience is the chaotic finale "Money the Hard Way" in which more than a dozen inmates scramble to snatch a poker chip dangling from the horns of another raging bull.

Unlike prisoners of ancient Rome, convicts at the annual Angola and Oklahoma State rodeos aren't physically forced to compete in the games, or even executed after their performance. Instead, they're paid handsomely -- upwards of $200 for winning "Convict Poker," or $100 for successfully grabbing the chip in "Money the Hard Way." A tour guide clarifies the basic economics: "Since $100 is worth about four months' pay to these hardened criminals, be ready for one hell of a scrap for that c-note."

There are of course some ethical concerns. When "someone raises a question about the propriety of the rodeo," a Washington Post article explains, the focus remains on the abuse of bulls and broncos, like the pleas of the animal rights group PETA to cancel the rodeo on animal cruelty grounds. An official from In Defense of Animals writes elsewhere that the event provides inmates with "the right to torment and abuse frightened animals in front of a cheering audience." Moral questions don't arise about the propriety of cheering while bulls pummel convicts.

Prison rodeos may be rare, but it shouldn't be surprising that the mainstream toleration they receive stems from the willingness of the United States to incarcerate 2.2 million of its people. While less than one out of every 20 humans lives in the United States, almost one quarter of the world's prisoners sit in American jails. The U.S. criminal justice system has no parallel in the contemporary world. History, however, reveals the origins of the system's scope, in addition to the national obsession of denying criminal offenders the decency and rights normally afforded to other humans.

More Americans in prison

In the international race to incarcerate, the United States dominates, with few rivals and no rich countries within shouting distance. Incarceration rates across countries are best measured as shares of national populations. Last year, for every 100,000 people in the United States, 738 were in prison. Second-place Russia, whom the United States succeeded in 2000, currently boasts a rate of 603, but the only other OECD country with a rate above 200 is Poland at 229. The U.K. incarceration rate of 145 is the highest of any Western European country. Although African-Americans suffer the greatest relative burden of U.S. imprisonment, the incarceration rate for whites in the United States is still more than three times the OECD average.

To its credit, the United States hasn't always imprisoned such a large share of its population. Incarceration rates were steady, sometimes falling, and always below 200 throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. The prison population rate rose sharply from 1973 to 1980, and then skyrocketed, more than tripling over the past 25 years.

What caused such a tremendous spike in imprisonment? Increases in crime rates surely made some contribution, but the road to prison involves other components of the criminal justice system, like prosecutorial and judicial decisions, and the time served in jail. Isolating these factors during the period from 1980 to 1996, Carnegie Mellon professor Alfred Blumstein and Bureau of Justice statistician Allen Beck conclude that only 12 percent of state incarceration growth resulted from the increased number of offenses. The rest of the prison population growth was due to decisions to incarcerate arrested individuals and their subsequent sentence length -- namely, policy choices made by legal and political representatives.

Coinciding directly with this astounding expansion of the prison population is the U.S. "war on drugs." Nonviolent drug offenses accounted for less than 8 percent of prisoners in 1980, but by 1993 that share had risen to about 25 percent, where it remains today. By contrast, more than half of those imprisoned in 1980 were violent criminals, who now comprise a bit less than half of the prison population. As a proportion of illicit activity, drug use therefore either tripled in just slightly over a decade and then stabilized, or the focus and severity of U.S. penal and sentencing policy shifted dramatically.

International comparisons also reveal the stark and decisive contribution of criminal justice policies to incarceration rates. Cross-country crime surveys from the late 1980s through the present place the United States slightly above average, but well within the range of Western European criminal activity. The United States is now, of course, off the charts in terms of incarceration, imprisoning on a per capita basis six times the average of other OECD countries.

Incarceration rates in the United States and Finland were not dissimilar in the mid-1960s. Over the following 30 years, the United States saw a near fivefold increase in the rate of violent crime and a threefold increase in the rate of imprisonment. Violent crime also rose in Finland by a factor of three, but over roughly the same period, the promotion of sentencing alternatives to incarceration and deliberate reductions in the length of prison sentences helped to cut the Finnish incarceration rate by more than half.

Assessing these trends, criminologist Michael Tonry writes that whereas U.K. punishment policies were originally not out of the ordinary compared with Western Europe, since 1993 England and Wales "have consciously emulated American crime control policies," resulting in the near doubling of the prison population. In Germany, despite a doubling of the violent crime rate between the early 1960s and 1990s, "no radical decisions were made to increase or decrease the imprisonment rate," and so the German incarceration rate stagnated and even fell somewhat over this period. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that incarceration rates are driven primarily by policy choices, not by crime rates or inexorable laws of nature.

Permanent exclusion

Unsatisfied with mere prison sentences, the United States especially has decided that offenders should continue to pay for their crimes even after release. Some states prohibit hiring teachers or child care workers with criminal records, and drug felons are often denied the occupational mobility necessary for employment in general due to required suspensions or revocations of drivers' licenses. Federal law also allows states to deny offenders public housing, or to bar welfare benefits or food stamps from drug felons, sometimes permanently. Drug-related records can invalidate eligibility for student loans or aid. Even exile has its place in the United States: Foreigners with certain criminal convictions are increasingly deported, a practice which grew twelvefold between 1989 and 2004.

Some of these punishments isolate the United States from the rest of the industrialized world. Most states in this country deny current prisoners the right to vote, some bar felons from voting during probation or parole, and a few strip the vote from felons for life. Although the United States is hardly alone in denying voting rights to the imprisoned, many European nations, including Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, even allow current prisoners to vote. Nonetheless, the United States appears to be the only democratic country that indefinitely disenfranchises nonincarcerated felons. The United Nations Human Rights Committee recently proclaimed that these felon disenfranchisement practices violate international law, namely the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party.

Crediting the United States for such exclusionary policies would be unfair. Like prison rodeos and gladiatorial games, these traditions have deep roots in history, as outlaws in ancient Rome and Germanic tribes were likewise deprived of conventional human rights. The United States of today embraces the legal and moral standards of medieval Europe, where disenfranchisement and other practices amounted to what was called "civil death." Criminals there were consequently "dead in law," prevented from performing the normal legal functions of citizenry.

Coupled with the severe and disproportionate toll of the criminal justice system on black America, the reach of civil death is staggering. More than 13 percent of African-American men cannot vote because their felony conviction puts them in prison or on parole, or just simply denies their suffrage. In eight states, at least one out of four black men is disenfranchised. Christopher Uggen at the University of Minnesota and Jeff Manza at Northwestern University calculate that felony disenfranchisement affected a total of 5.4 million Americans in 2004.

Criminal offenders are not only excluded from society by imprisonment and post-prison sanctions, but also due to the subtle fact that those in prison are ignored by most measures of economic well-being. For instance, the unemployment rate measures the nonworking share of the labor force -- those who are actively seeking work. Omitted from this definition, however, are the institutionalized and in particular the incarcerated.

Sociologists Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett note that while Europe is regularly chastised for high labor inactivity, counting the imprisoned as unemployed drastically changes the economic standing of the United States among European countries. In 2004, the standardized U.S. unemployment rate for men was 5.6 percent below the OECD average of about 6.2 percent. Including the prison population as unemployed raises the male U.S. unemployment rate to 7.9 percent, exceeding the modified OECD average (6.6 percent), and placing the United States below only the top five high unemployment countries of Europe.

The point is not that the incarcerated should be counted in the conventional unemployment rate, but rather that vast numbers of able-bodied men are forcibly removed both from civil society in general, and from our very conception of it. Rates for employment, poverty, inequality and virtually every socioeconomic indicator exclude the incarcerated. Prisoners' invisibility to society in conjunction with civil death -- in the United States, at least -- cannot possibly help to ensure their human rights.

Nearly a century ago Winston Churchill remarked that "the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country ... [these actions] mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it." U.S.-style criminal treatment includes disenfranchisement, exile, prison rodeos and innumerable other practices that punish, exclude and effectively erase millions of people. Do these signs constitute our virtue? Are we failing the test of civilization?

Ben Zipperer is a research assistant at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50428/

Posted by lois at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2007

Disenfranchising Ex-Felons By Manning Marable

Disenfranchising Ex-Felons
By Manning Marable
April 9th, 2007

At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, lawmakers who opposed African American voting rights desperately considered ways to remove large numbers of Blacks from their state’s electorates without appearing to violate their constitutional rights.

In the 1960s, many southern and some western states figured out how to accomplish this: to pass state constitutional provisions, or state laws, barring individuals convicted of a felony from voting for the remainder of their lives. Since African Americans were disproportionately prosecuted and convicted of felonies in most state courts, the loss of voting rights would hit Blacks hardest.

This racist scheme – using the criminal justice system not to “rehabilitate” prisoners, but to strip them of their democratic voting rights for life – was successful. In 1968, Florida barred ex-offenders from voting for life. By 2000, approximately 818,000 Florida residents who had prior felony convictions, but who were no longer incarcerated, were disenfranchised.

The vast majority of this disenfranchised population was African-American. None of these citizens ere permitted to vote in Florida’s contested 2000 presidential election, which George W. Bush narrowly “won” by only hundreds of votes.

In the past decade, social justice, prisoners’ rights and civil rights organizations have campaigned extensively for the repeat of these repressive disenfranchisement laws. From a criminology standpoint, they are counterproductive, because they retard the re-entry and reintegration of ex-prisoners back into civil society. Hundreds of judges and even district attorneys have publicly criticized “mandatory-minimum” sentencing laws, that have been responsible for sending hundreds of thousands of mostly non-violent offenders to long prison sentences, and to disenfranchisement.

As a result, a number of states that had disenfranchised ex-felons for life, such as Texas and Alabama, in recent years reformed their laws to restore voting rights to former prisoners.

By 2007, Florida had disenfranchised 950,000 citizens who had felony convictions – the vast majority of whom were Black, Latino and low-income people. In an unexpected move, Florida Republican Governor Charlie Crist changed his anti-felon position, to declare that the time had come for his state to leave the “offensive minority of states that uniformly denied ex-prisoners voting rights. `On April 5, 2007, Governor Crist persuaded Florida’s clemency board to restore voting rights to about 800,000 former prisoners.

Crist’s action was vigorously opposed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, as well as by former governor Jeb Bush. Under the new rules, about 80 percent of the disenfranchised whose crimes were not classified as “violent” will automatically have heir voting rights restored, so long as they have paid any restitution to victims and have no pending criminal charges.

This measure will largely exclude about two hundred thousand people defined as “violent career criminals,” murderers and sexual offenders, who must submit to an investigation of their cases and a hearing before a clemency board. In practical terms, the vast majority of these former prisoners will never vote again. This raises a basic question about the “limits” of American democracy, and the danger in restricting the electoral franchise.

In every democracy throughout the world, except for most of the United States, everyone who is defined as a “citizen” has a right to vote. A “citizen” who has been convicted of any crime, including murder, remains a citizen, and thus retains his or her voting rights. In Maine and Vermont, for example, prisoner behind bars do vote. The other 48 states are not as democratic. In only a small numbers of states, including Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon, and Utah, felons regain the right to vote after leaving prison.

In states like New York and Colorado, former prisoners who are on parole and still under the jurisdiction of criminal justice authorities can’t vote. In a host of states, mostly in the south and far west, ex-felons who successfully complete years of parole are no longer excluded from voting.

And in Virginia and Kentucky, ex-prisoners are still barred from voting for life. Conservatively, there are now five million Americans who are out of prison, and who have “repaid their debt to society,” but who temporarily or permanently cannot vote.

Recent developments in Florida represent a major, although partial, victory for the forces of democracy. In practical political terms, Governor Crist’s decision adds pressure on states like Virginia and Kentucky that still refuse to reform their ex-felon voting restrictions.

Civil rights and prisoners’ rights advocates need to redouble their efforts now to overturn these legal remnants of the racist, Jim Crow segregation era.

Black Star News columnist Dr. Marable is Professor of Public Affairs, History and African-American Studies, and Director of the Center for Contemporary Black History at Columbia University.
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3200

Posted by lois at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)

April 05, 2007

FL: Clemency board votes to automatically restore felons' rights

Clemency board votes to automatically restore felons' rights

By DAVID ROYSE, April 5, 2007
St. Petersburg Times, FL
Associated Press Writer

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Most Florida felons who complete their sentences will have their voting and other civil rights more quickly restored under a rule approved Thursday by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and the state clemency board.

All but the most violent felons would avoid the need to get on a long list for a hearing before the board, which sometimes takes years. The board voted 3-1 on the immediate change, which also requires felons to pay all court-ordered restitution to their victims before becoming eligible to get their rights back.

Attorney General Bill McCollum, another Republican, strongly objected to altering the Jim Crow-era ban on felons automatically getting their rights back once they finish their sentences.

But Crist was emphatic: "I believe in simple human justice and that when somebody has paid their debt to society, it is paid in full. There's a time to move on, a time to give them an opportunity to have redemption, to have a chance to become productive citizens again."

The change doesn't affect the right to have a firearm, which still wouldn't be automatically restored. It does let felons more quickly get a license for many Florida occupations, a key concern of activists who say that is one of the largest obstacles for people trying reintegrate into society.

The issue of voting rights drew attention after the disputed 2000 presidential election, when many non-convicts were purged from voter rolls because the state's felons database was plagued with errors. Blacks have complained that the ban targeted them unfairly.

Florida was one of three U.S. states along with Kentucky and Virginia that require ex-felons to take action to restore their civil rights no matter how long they've been out of prison. Other states have waiting periods before restoration, most restore rights automatically when felons complete their sentence.

Crist's predecessor, Jeb Bush, had long opposed changing the ban. But Crist has made it clear since before he was governor that was ready to change the law from the 1800s. He rejected McCollum's assertion that it was welcoming the worst of the worst back into society too easily.

Still, Crist's plan was a compromise, carving out murderers and other violent felons who would still have to either go before the board for a hearing or at least be subject to review by board members without a hearing in some cases.

The response from advocates for felons was generally positive, but considerably muted. Many noted that restoration is still not completely automatic.

Under the change, Florida officials will automatically begin the rights-restoration process for felons when they finish their sentences. People who previously completed sentences but are still awaiting restoration of their rights will have to apply on their own because most are not tracked by the state after their release.

"It is not automatic approval - there is a bureaucratic process," said Muslima Lewis, director of the racial justice project for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida. If it were truly automatic, she said, felons could go simply register to vote tomorrow - which isn't the case.

And for those already out, many will probably have to apply to have their rights restored because the state generally doesn't track most of them. Corrections Secretary Jim McDonough said the agency would do its best to find all felons who might be eligible. Many aren't likely to have fixed addresses, though.

Estimates of how many felons who have already left prison and haven't had their rights restored might be out there vary widely, from around 630,000 to nearly a million.

Gretchen Howard, the president of the Florida Network of Victim Witness Services, said advocates for crime victims support the new rule because of the restitution requirement.

"This provides an outstanding incentive," said Howard. She said currently there isn't much incentive, but some people who want to get their rights back might be spurred to try.

The provision requiring restitution to be paid first, however, is a problem for some advocates for ex-convicts, who say that getting their rights back makes it easier to get a job - which then makes it easier to pay restitution, not the other way around.

Voting with Crist for the plan were Republican Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson and state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, a Democrat.

McCollum warned that some criminals who would now have their rights restored automatically were career criminals - half of whom were likely to commit a new crime and be sent back to prison according to state statistics on repeat offenders.

"We are undermining the rule of law ... the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, for that matter the right to have occupational licenses are not things that should be just automatically assumed that everybody's going to have," he said.

McCollum noted that some occupational licenses would give holders the ability to enter into people's homes - such as those for pest exterminators. That could be dangerous, he said.

McCollum was defeated in an effort to change the proposal to require a five-year waiting period before the process would kick in.

"We sitting here don't have the right, the moral right, to add five years to that sentence, to add five weeks to that sentence or to add five minutes to that sentence," Crist said.

Crist has been known for years, going back to his days in the state Senate, as an outspoken advocate for tougher punishment - and reminded critics on Thursday of the nickname he had when he was known for being tough on crime.

"I believe in appropriate punishment, I'm 'Chaingang Charlie,'" Crist said. "But I believe in justice."

That drew an "Amen" from several in the audience at the meeting, including advocates for felons.

A recent federal lawsuit challenged Florida's rights ban on grounds that it disproportionately affected blacks. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in 2005, noting Florida first banned felon voting in 1845 - before blacks were allowed to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court later let that decision stand.

The ban was put into the state constitution in 1868.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_FELONS_RIGHTS_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SE
CTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=state.shtml

Posted by lois at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2007

NY Review of Books: The American Prison Nightmare

Volume 54, Number 6 • April 12, 2007, NY Review of Books

The American Prison Nightmare
By Jason DeParle

Punishment and Inequality in America
by Bruce Western
Russell Sage Foundation, 247 pp., $29.95

Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons
by John J. Gibbons and Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, co-chairs
Vera Institute of Justice,122 pp. (available at www.prisoncommission.org)

Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy
by Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen
Oxford University Press, 359 pp., $29.95

1.

Among the many jarring sights I have witnessed as a reporter writing about poverty, one of the saddest involved a father, a son, and a maximum security prison outside Joliet, Illinois. The son, a voluble thirteen-year-old named Dwayne, wasn't a bad kid but had become increasingly troublesome in class. His father had been locked up since Dwayne was five, but still had influence with the three children he had left behind. Or so their mother hoped. Alarmed at her difficulties controlling the family, she looked to the sound of a father's voice to set things straight. It was a two-hundred-mile round trip from their home in Milwaukee, and I had the only car.

The Stateville Correctional Center is a gloomy fortress with high concrete walls that could serve as a prison movie set. About half its inmates were in for murder, including Dwayne's father, a low-level crack dealer who had acted as the lookout during an attack on a rival in which a teenage girl was accidentally killed. Eight years later, Dwayne's mother still missed him too much to settle down with another man. Dwayne claimed to give him little thought, though a school essay suggested otherwise. He had written about an abandoned mouse who was surrounded by predators, only to realize the abandoned creature was himself. "That's about my Daddy!" he said.[1]

After sleeping through the drive, Dwayne struck a pose of boredom as we approached the main cell block, while his mother looked stoic and his siblings seemed alarmed. A guard led us to a room ringed by vending machines where a worn-looking prisoner said he was thankful for the rare chance to see his kids. I left them to a private visit, and when they reappeared Dwayne was sobbing and the others looked like they had witnessed a death. "They miss their father," was all their mother could say. They piled in for a mournful ride home, a study in how many lives can be linked to one prison cell.
NYR-Oxford Conference

Bruce Western makes a crucial point at the start of his important book, Punishment and Inequality in America: "If prisons affected no one except the criminals on the inside, they would matter less." But with more than two million Americans behind bars, the impact of mass incarceration is impossible to contain. Their fate affects the taxpayers who support them, the guards who guard them, the families they leave behind, and the communities to which they return. Not even the war in Iraq escapes the reach of prison culture; Sergeant Charles Graner, the villain of Abu Ghraib, worked as a Pennsylvania prison guard.

Everyone is affected, but not equally. Black men in their early thirties are imprisoned at seven times the rate of whites in the same age group. Whites with only a high school education get locked up twenty times as often as those with college degrees. Among the many impediments to reform has been the gap between the people who make criminal justice policy—mostly educated whites who favor imprisonment, especially during twelve years of Republican congressional control—and those who live with the consequences.

There is another impediment to reform: mass incarceration seems to have made the streets safer. The vast increase in the prison and jail population from about 380,000 in 1975 to 2.2 million today overlaps with equally stunning declines in crime. The homicide rate in the 1990s fell by 43 percent. Many critics of incarceration argue (a bit too quickly) that crime would have fallen without the prison boom. Perhaps. Still the value of safer neighborhoods is immediate, while the costs of excessive imprisonment are theoretical and vague.

Western's achievement—a large one —is to make them less vague. He identifies mass incarceration as a major cause of modern inequality, with large and uncounted collateral effects. Imprisonment does more than reflect the divides of race and class. It deepens those divides—walling off the disadvantaged, especially unskilled black men, from the promise of American life. While violent criminals belong in jail, more than half of state and federal inmates are in for nonviolent crimes, especially selling drugs. Their long sentences deprive women of potential husbands, children of fathers, and convicts of a later chance at a decent job. Similar arguments have been made before, but Western, a Princeton sociologist, makes a quantitative case. Along the way, his revisionist account of the late 1990s detracts from its reputation as an era of good news for the poor. Its appearance coincides with several other instructive new studies of American incarceration.
2.

For much of the twentieth century, about one American in a thousand was confined to a cell. The proportion of Americans behind bars started rising in the mid-Seventies, and by 2003 had done so for twenty-eight consecutive years. Counting jails, there are now seven Americans in every thousand behind bars. That is nearly five times the historic norm and seven times higher than most of Western Europe.

The penal population grew because crime increased; because the number of police and prosecutors grew (which raised the odds of punishment); and because policymakers, disillusioned with the ethos of rehabilitation, imposed tougher penalties. The increase in severity occurred on the front end with longer sentences and reduced judicial discretion to shorten them, and on the back end by making fewer prisoners eligible for early release.

Meanwhile, the "war on drugs" led to the arrest of growing numbers of small-time users and dealers. By the late 1990s, 60 percent of federal inmates were in for drug offenses. The result is an ever-growing prison system, populated to a significant degree by people who need not be there. It was no liberal advocate but Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who offered a damning view of criminal justice in the United States: "Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long."

Despite the crackdown, white men with college degrees are only slightly more likely than previously to end up in prison. Among black men with college degrees, the odds of imprisonment have fallen. But by 2000, high school dropouts of either race were being locked up three times as often as they had been two decades before. And racial disparities have become immense. By the time they reach their mid-thirties, a full 60 percent of black high school dropouts are now prisoners or ex-cons. This, Western warns, has resulted in "a collective experience for young black men that is wholly different from the rest of American society."

Much about black underclass life is tragic, but the racial imbalance in the prison population is particularly extreme. For example, while blacks are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed, they now go to prison eight times as often. We are used to thinking of prison as at least partially a byproduct of the larger tragedy of poverty; Western depicts it as a cause. Through mass incarceration, he writes, "the poor are made poorer and have fewer prospects."

This happens in part because an inmate's earnings prospects fall. Most men in their twenties and thirties experience rapid earnings growth, as their skills and contacts expand. Those in prison atrophy and leave stigmatized. Devah Pager, a Northwestern University sociologist, conducted an experiment in which pairs of otherwise identical men applied for jobs with one identifying himself as an ex-con. The disclosure of a prison record reduced the chances of getting a second interview by half for whites and by two thirds for blacks. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Western estimates that a prison record reduces a man's annual earnings by 30 to 40 percent, through less work and lower pay. For the average black man, the lifetime loss comes to $86,000. (Whites, with more to lose, lose more: $114,000.)

Incarceration taxes family life, too, leaving disadvantaged men with even weaker prospects as husbands and fathers. A prison record reduces a black man's chances of getting married by 11 percentage points. Married or not, most jailed men have kids, making the prison boom a growing source of disadvantage for young people. As the gloomy trip to the Joliet prison made clear, the whole family does the time. From 1980 to 2000, the number of children with fathers behind bars rose sixfold to 2.1 million. Among white kids, just over 1 percent have incarcerated fathers, while among black children the figure approaches 10 percent.

It may be tempting to view these men—dope sellers, petty thieves—as fathers in name only, with few ties to their kids. But nearly half are living with their children at the time of their arrest. And the perpetual surprise about bad parents is how much their children need them anyway. In marginalizing so many men, in the cause of stabilizing their community, the prison boom risks destroying the communities it aims to save. Mass imprisonment, Western writes, "may be a self-defeating strategy for crime control."

There is a rejoinder, of course— locking them up makes streets safer, especially the streets of poor neighborhoods. Western acknowledges that "the 1990s crime drop provided a remarkable improvement in public safety and quality of life, particularly for the disadvantaged." But his analysis gives the prison boom just 10 percent of the credit. The theory is partly one of diminishing returns: we are locking up people who pose little threat, and keeping others long past their most dangerous years (typically ending in their mid-thirties). And prison time, Western says, can turn minor offenders into hardened criminals, through the influence of other inmates and the denial of later opportunities.

My own sense is that Western may be underestimating the role that increased imprisonment has played in reducing crime. A fivefold increase in prison rates is a huge change; it may have had effects that statistical models missed. Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and William Spelman of the University of Texas have each done statistical analyses that give rising incarceration about a third of the credit for reduced crime.[2] Whatever the number, one can accept that imprisonment has helped reduce crime, while appreciating Western's disclosure of the costs and sharing his sense that the urge to incarcerate has gone too far.

The 1990s were said to be a time when rising tides finally did lift all boats. Western warns that part of the reason, statistically speaking, is that many poor men have been thrown overboard—the government omits prisoners when calculating unemployment and poverty rates. Add them in, as Western does, and joblessness swells. For young black men it grows by more than a third. For young black dropouts, the jobless rate leaps from 41 percent to 65 percent. "Only by counting the penal population do we see that fully two out of three young black male dropouts were not working at the height of the 1990s economic expansion," Western warns. Count inmates and you also erase three quarters of the apparent progress in closing the wage gap between blacks and whites.

Western is not just tinkering with the numbers. He is rewriting one of the era's major story lines. "This is the first recovery in three decades where everybody got better at the same time," President Clinton said just before leaving office. "I just think that's so important." Punishment and Inequality in America shows that among one vital group of the poor, the opposite was true: as official unemployment hit record lows, joblessness among young black dropouts rose to record highs. The prison expansion reflected inequality. The prison expansion created inequality. The prison expansion hid inequality from view.
3.

Given how many people they affect, one would expect prison conditions to draw more scrutiny. While two prison stories have made recent news, both prisons were overseas—at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Hoping to direct interest back to the US, the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York policy institute, convened what it called the first national commission on prison conditions in three decades.

The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons was presented as a left–right affair, with Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, the former attorney general, occupying the Democratic half of the co-chairmanship, in partnership with John J. Gibbons, a Republican and former federal appeals court judge. With money from, among others, the Ford Foundation, twenty commissioners held four regional hearings with ninety-eight witnesses and issued its unanimous report in June 2006. Confronting Confinement is notable less for the originality of what it says than for showing the continuing need to say it.

The report tells us that America's prisons are dangerously overcrowded, unnecessarily violent, excessively reliant on physical segregation, breeding grounds of infectious disease, lacking in meaningful programs for inmates, and staffed by underpaid and undertrained guards in a culture that promotes abuse. What is more, prisoners' ability to legally challenge their living conditions has been curtailed by a congressional roadblock called the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, which has cut in half the number of inmates filing civil rights complaints.

There is some good news. Since 1980 the murder rate inside prisons has fallen more than 90 percent, which should give pause to those inclined to think that prisons are impossible to reform. But programs for inmate education, training, and drug treatment have been made scarce. (If policymakers were once too credulous about rehabilitation, they are now too dismissive.) And physically separating some inmates from the rest of the population (often in conditions amounting to solitary confinement) has become a punishment of first resort, leading to what the commission called "tortuous conditions that are proven to cause mental deterioration." From 1995 to 2000, the number of inmates in isolated cells rose 40 percent to 81,000. Despite the decline in homicide, serious violence is common and recordkeeping so poor it often escapes notice. As the commission met in Los Angeles for its final hearing, two thousand prisoners at the North County Correctional Facility erupted in a race riot.

Like Bruce Western, the authors of Confronting Confinement emphasize that few of the problems inside prisons truly stay confined. Ninety-five percent of those who go in also come back out. The problems that arise inside prisons, the authors write, go home "with prisoners after they are released and with corrections officers at the end of each day's shift." The most obvious example involves the 1.5 million people who are released from prisons and jails each year with an infectious disease—tuberculosis, hepatitis, HIV, and drug-resistant staph infections. They are a threat to everyone, but especially to the minority neighborhoods from which they are disproportionately drawn. Meanwhile, the increasing number of prisons that require inmates to pay for part of their own medical care, an innovation intended to deter malingerers, has been found to reduce clinic visits by up to 50 percent.

Some of the worst news is the most familiar: prisons are the modern mental wards. By the most conservative estimate, the mentally ill account for 16 percent of the prison population, or about 350,000 people on a given day; their true numbers may be twice as high. Aside from adding to their misery, their presence in such large numbers makes cell blocks harder and costlier to police. The solution is not merely to improve the woefully inadequate mental health treatment of prisoners. It is "to improve and expand community mental health treatment" on the other side of the prison walls. But how many blue-ribbon panels have already told us that?
4.

Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, who understand the vastness of the jailers' reach, follow the story out of the cell and into the voting booth. Locked Out examines how the disenfranchisement of felons shapes American democracy—hardly a hypothetical matter in an age of split electorates and hanging chads.

The subject caused a stir in 1998 when a prophetic report by two advocacy groups, the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch, showed that four million Americans had lost the right to vote. "This is an issue that can potentially affect some elections," warned Marc Mauer, a coauthor, with a prescience he could not have grasped.[3] Surprised at how little was known about the practice of disenfranchisement, Manza and Uggen, sociologists at Northwestern University and the University of Minnesota, set out to investigate it. Exacting and fair, their work should persuade even those who come to the subject skeptically that an injustice is at hand.

"Disenfranchised felon" is a term that encompasses three groups. Some 27 percent are still behind bars. Others, 34 percent, are on probation or parole. And the largest share, 39 percent, are what the authors call "ex-felons," whose sentences have been served. Voters are least receptive to letting the first group vote and most receptive to the last. But state practice varies greatly. Maine and Vermont offer ballots to those still behind bars; thirteen states strip the franchise not only from current prisoners but also from probationers, parolees, and some or all ex-felons. By Election Day 2004, the number of disenfranchised felons had grown to 5.3 million, with another 600,000 effectively stripped of the vote because they were in jail awaiting trial. Nationally, they made up less than 3 percent of the voting-age population, but 9 percent in Florida, 8 percent in Delaware, and 7 percent in Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia.[4]

We often hear that the transgressions of felons are so severe that they forfeit the moral right to vote. Yet as with many aspects of criminal justice, the United States is out of step with its international peers. At least twenty democracies, including Canada and Israel, allow current prisoners to vote. More to the point, the United States is out of step in this matter with its own historical logic, by which it has been making its democracy progressively more inclusive. We have, over many years, found fit to enfranchise the landless, African-Americans, women, and eighteen-year-olds, and we admit into the polling place any number of others whose political judgments might be compromised—addicts, illiterates, the heavily medicated. But not if they once were caught selling a bag of dope.

Manza and Uggen write with an appealing evenhandedness, searching out arguments that challenge their own. They find few people articulating the case for felon disenfranchisement, which appears to thrive more as practice than theory. Still, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the Republican minority leader, made the case on the Senate floor in 2002, while defeating a Democratic effort to let ex-felons vote in federal elections:

States have a significant interest in reserving the vote for those who have abided by the social contract that forms the foundation of a representative democracy. We are talking about rapists, murderers, robbers, and even terrorists and spies. Do we want to see convicted terrorists who seek to destroy this country voting in elections? Do we want to see "jailhouse blocs" banding together to oust sheriffs and government officials who are tough on crime?

The authors do not dismiss worries about "jailhouse blocs." They simply find no evidence that such blocs have ever formed. (Rape, murder, and robbery, the crimes McConnell cites, account for about 8 percent of felonies, while drug crimes account for a third.) They do find evidence that disenfranchisement is linked to the less hypothetical problem of race. The more African-Americans a state contains, the more likely it has been to ban felons from voting. Tracing the statutes' history in states such as Virginia and Florida, Manza and Uggen find that they were enacted along with grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and literacy tests as "another means through which the African American vote was restricted."

The practice continues to skew the racial composition of the voting rolls today. By denying the vote to felons, the average state disenfranchises 2.4 percent of its voting-age population—but 8.4 percent of its voting-age blacks. In fourteen states, the share of blacks stripped of the vote exceeds 10 percent. And in five states (including Kentucky), it exceeds 20 percent. Focusing on black men, Marc Mauer has estimated that felony laws keep nearly one in seven from voting nationwide. (See chart)

Do felons care? The authors warn against overestimating felon apathy. Locked Out estimates that about 35 percent of disenfranchised felons would vote in presidential elections (compared to 52 percent of the general public). Indeed, the authors attach such importance to the franchise that they see it as a crime-prevention strategy—part of the "civic reintegration" needed to weave "former criminals back into the fabric of law-abiding society." Anything that builds civic interest is welcome, but Manza and Uggen offer little evidence for the thesis that voting heals.[5] While it would be nice if voting builds character, that is not the reason to give felons the vote. The reason is that to do otherwise—to exclude 5.3 million people from the rolls—is to offend the principle of universal suffrage and undermine democratic legitimacy.

However much voting matters to felons, their voting matters to the country. If felons were allowed to vote, the United States would have a different president. Disproportionately poor and black, felons choose Democrats in overwhelming numbers —giving them between 70 percent and 85 percent of their votes in presidential elections. Had they been allowed to vote in 2000, the authors estimate, Al Gore's margin in the popular vote would have doubled to a million. If Florida had allowed just ex-felons to vote—those who can claim to have paid their debt to society—Gore would have carried the state by 30,000 votes and with it the electoral college. (This estimate uses conservative assumptions: a 27 percent turnout with a 69 percent Democratic preference).

Nor is the impact limited to the presidency. Manza and Uggen find that seven modern Republican senators owe their election to laws that keep felons from voting: John Warner of Virginia (1978), John Tower of Texas (1978), Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (1984), Connie Mack of Florida (1988), Paul Coverdell of Georgia (1992), Jim Bunning of Kentucky (1998), and Mel Martinez of Florida (1998). According to the authors' estimates of turnout and candidate preference among the disenfranchised, four would have lost even if only the ex-felons in their states had voting rights.

These represent a small share of the four-hundred-plus elections held since 1978. But since the Senate has been so closely divided, a fuller enfranchisement might have shifted some years of partisan control to the Democrats. (This outcome depends on how long one assumes the Democratic victors would have held the seat.) It certainly would have bolstered the Democrats' power in the minority. Consider just one result of Senate legislation—the upward distribution of wealth through the Bush-era tax cuts—and one sees anew how mass incarceration abets inequality.
5.

In December, Senator Sam Brownback announced he was running for president. A few days later, the conservative Kansas Republican chose to spend the night in a cell at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. "We don't want to build more prisons," he said. "We don't want to lock people up." He was there to advertise his support for the prison's religious programs. Still, his move represented, to say the least, a break with past presidential campaign practice, which includes advertising the crimes of a black rapist (George H.W. Bush), executing a brain-damaged man (Bill Clinton), and mocking the fears of a soon-to-be-executed woman (George W. Bush).

The current President Bush, who as governor oversaw 152 executions in Texas, made a surprising proposal in his 2004 State of the Union speech, when he called for a modest expansion of services to help newly released prisoners. "America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life," he said. The bill for expanding services is still pending, but it has support among religious conservatives influenced by the account of personal redemption put forward by Charles Colson, the Watergate felon turned prison minister.[6]

A few months earlier, at the urging of Colson and other religious conservatives, a Republican Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which monitors and guides state efforts to eliminate sexual assaults on prisoners. As the law was signed, Colson argued in a column that "whatever a prisoner may have done, he is still created in the image of God, a being whose dignity is to be protected."[7]

As the rape bill was heading to President Bush's desk, Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, chided the members of the American Bar Association for their failure to show more interest in prisoners' fates. He warned,

A decent and free society, founded in respect for the individual, ought not to run a system with a sign at the entrance for inmates saying, "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here."[8]

Elsewhere on the conservative landscape, several right-of-center think tanks have attacked the prison boom as wasteful of dollars and lives. The Texas Public Policy Foundation recently called for an expansion of parole, which "recognizes that inmates may change."[9] And the new Democratic Congress, with the support of federal judges to the left and right, is talking of hearings to reexamine mandatory sentencing laws.

The US remains a law-and-order society in a law-and-order age. But with skillful leadership modest change may now be possible. The commission on prison safety report got a plug from a Washington newspaper—not from the Post but from the editorial page of the conservative tip sheet The Washington Times. Prisoners deserve punishment, it said. "But we shouldn't forget that a vast majority will also be returned to society, which has as much at stake in their rehabilitation as they do."[10]
Notes

[1] I was following Dwayne's family for my book about the welfare system: American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare (Viking, 2004).

[2] Other possible explanations include changes in demographics, an improved economy, an expanded police presence, gun control laws, the shrinking impact of crack, and perhaps most controversial, the legalization of abortion.

[3] Tamar Lewin, "Crime Costs Many Black Men the Vote, Study Says," The New York Times, October 23, 1998.

[4] Although most prisoners cannot vote, they do subtly affect elections through the drawing of legislative districts. Those districts are based on the decennial Census, which counts prisoners as residing where the prison is located. Since inmates largely come from inner cities and prisons are often rural, Manza and Uggen argue that "this practice results in a small but measurable transfer of political power and money from urban centers to rural towns." They note that 60 percent of Illinois's prisoners come from Cook County, though only 1 percent are incarcerated there.

[5] Manza and Uggen cite data from a single source, the Youth Development Study, a longitudinal panel in St. Paul, Minnesota. Among people with arrest records, 12 percent of those who voted were rearrested, compared to 27 percent of nonvoters. But once they controlled for other factors, like race and sex, the differences were not statistically significant. Still, the authors call the pattern "suggestive."

[6] For an interesting look at the importance of conservative evangelicals to criminal justice reform, see Frank O. Bowman III, "Murder, Meth, Mammon, and Moral Values: The Political Landscape of American Sentencing Reform," Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Spring 2005). Through them, Bowman, a former federal prosecutor, argues, "Republican politicians ...can be brought to see that taking the Gospels seriously means forgiveness of at least some criminal sinners and the possibility of redemption for those sinners in this life as well as the next."

[7] Chuck Colson, "Jesus' Special Interest: Prison Rape and the Law," Townhall.com, September 4, 2003.

[8] Anthony M. Kennedy, speech at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, August 9, 2003.

[9] Marc Levin, "The Role of Parole in Solving the Texas Prison Crowding Crisis," Policy Perspective, November 2006.

[10] "Snapshots Behind Bars," The Washington Times, June 8, 2006.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20056?email

Posted by lois at 03:49 PM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2007

ALABAMA VOICES: Fight for voting rights continues

ALABAMA VOICES: Fight for voting rights continues

March 5, 2007

By Kenneth Glasgow

Politicians, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, religious leaders and civil rights activists, including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, gathered to honor the struggle for voting rights in Alabama at events marking the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

I am comforted by the important gains made by African Americans over the past 40 years, but reminded that the dream of equality Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. imagined is yet to be realized.

On March 7, 1965, marchers seeking voting rights for disenfranchised blacks in the South were beaten by police officers who wanted to stop the Selma to Montgomery protest. The tragic event mobilized broad support for the elimination of racist policies that created obstacles to African-American voting, and helped trigger the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The law was a vital step towards achieving the fundamental democratic principal of universal suffrage.

Despite the historic change, millions of Americans are still excluded from the polls because of restrictive felony voting laws that reflect the dramatic growth of the prison system in recent decades. At the time the Voting Rights Act was implemented, 1.5 million Americans could not vote because of a felony record. Today, more than 5.3 million people are disenfranchised nationally. This rise in the number of disenfranchised adults is an unfortunate reminder that the fight for voting rights goes on.

Alabama has the third highest disenfranchisement rate in the nation because its constitution imposes a lifetime ban on voting for people with certain felony convictions, and as a result nearly a quarter-million of our citizens cannot vote. Alabama is one of only 12 states to permanently bar some citizens from voting even after the completion of their full sentence. Of those disenfranchised in Alabama, nearly 90 percent have been released from prison, and live and work in the community.

Among African-Americans in Alabama, the rate of disenfranchisement is particularly stark. One of every seven African-American adults in Alabama is disenfranchised, a rate nearly twice the national average. Because Alabama imprisons African-Americans at a rate nearly four times that of whites, the racial influences that impact Alabama's criminal justice system contribute to African-Americans' high rates of disenfranchisement.

The result is that black communities have a diminished political voice. Even people without convictions lose political clout because the concerns of the community are not equally represented at the polls.

Since 1997, 16 states have taken steps to reform disenfranchisement laws, resulting in more than 600,000 people regaining the right to vote. Four years ago, the Alabama Legislature sought to improve its voter restoration process as well, by restoring voting rights to eligible people within 50 days of submitting an application.

It was a move in the right direction, but the bureaucratic confusion and inefficiency that arose has illegally denied voting rights to thousands of Alabama citizens. A voter restoration system that applies automatically after release from prison would ease the administrative burdens that delay restoration.

This is in sharp contrast to Attorney General Troy King's recent proposal to make Alabama's voter system even more backward by requiring all citizens with felony convictions to apply through the bureaucratic restoration process.

The men and women who have redeemed themselves by serving their time in prison should be embraced and welcomed home. Restoring their right to vote is a crucial part of giving them a second chance. As a person who has been previously incarcerated, I know that voting connects you to your community by building responsibility for your neighbors and advancing common goals of democracy. Research has also shown that former offenders who vote are less likely to be rearrested than non-voters.

As we commemorate our advancements, I hope our country's leaders do not forget that the struggle for democracy continues for more than 5 million Americans who cannot vote because of past mistakes. The effort to expand voting rights to people with felony convictions is the new frontier of the civil rights movement. I hope those who marked this anniversary will join it.

Rev. Kenneth Glasgow is state coordinator of Alabama Restore the Vote and executive director of The Ordinary People Society.

Posted by lois at 11:00 PM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2007

NY Times Editorial: Free to Vote in Florida

March 6, 2007
Editorial, NY Times
Free to Vote in Florida
Florida is notorious for running elections badly, but its new governor is trying to fix one of the state’s most unjust and undemocratic practices. He has called for tearing down the barriers that prevent as many as 950,000 ex-offenders from voting.

The United States stands alone in the free world when it comes to laws that strip convicted felons of the right to vote — sometimes for life — even after they complete their sentences and go on to crime-free lives. Of the more than five million citizens who were barred from the polls in the last presidential election, virtually all would have been free to vote in nations like Canada, France or Britain.

Northern and Midwestern states are gradually backing away from voting bans for ex-offenders. But these antidemocratic laws remain entrenched in the Deep South, where they were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as part of a broad effort to restrict the political influence of African-Americans. And Florida has the most restrictive laws and the highest number of disenfranchised ex-offenders of any state in the country.

As it stands now, Floridians who want their voting and civil rights restored must apply to a slow-moving state clemency board that meets only four times a year and has an enormous backlog of cases. The state attorney general recently suggested enlarging the overall staff and having the clemency board meet more frequently, but more substantial action is needed.

Gov. Charlie Crist has a better idea: automatically restoring voting rights to felons who complete their sentences. In a recent speech, Mr. Crist pledged to lead the movement for the restoration of voting and civil rights for ex-offenders in Florida and hinted that he might do so by issuing an executive order.

That’s an excellent proposal. It would take the restoration issue out of the hands of a sluggish bureaucracy that has clearly failed to do its job and vault Florida to the forefront of a national movement that aims to extend democracy to ex-offenders. It would also help put an end to one of the most shameful episodes in American electoral history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06tues2.html

Posted by lois at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2007

Prisoners of the Census Bureau: How and where the U.S. counts inmates has huge, and unsettling, consequences.

February 19, 2007 Monday, Los Angeles Times
Editorial Pages Desk; Part A; Pg. 19

Prisoners of the Census Bureau: How and where the U.S. counts inmates has huge, and unsettling, consequences.

Marie Gottschalk, MARIE GOTTSCHALK, an associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote "The Prison and the
Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America."

TODAY, MORE THAN 2 million people, or nearly one out of every 100 adults, is sitting in a jail or prison in the United States -- an incarceration rate unprecedented in U.S. history.

The total number of prisoners is not in dispute. But how to tabulate them is emerging as perhaps the most vexing issue of the 2010 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau counts prisoners as residents of the towns and counties where they are incarcerated, even though most inmates have no ties to those communities and almost always return to their home neighborhoods upon release.

This has enormous and unsettling political and economic consequences, especially for California. The state banishes many of its urban offenders to prisons clustered in rural areas and intends to send at least 5,000 of its inmates out of state to cope with the prison overcrowding crisis.

In California and 47 other states, imprisoned felons are barred from voting. Yet these disenfranchised prisoners are included in the population tallies used to draw legislative and congressional districts.

This practice dilutes the votes of urban areas such as Los Angeles. Nearly one-third of the 172,000 inmates in California's state prisons come from Los Angeles County, but only about 3% are incarcerated in the county.

The evidence of political inequities in redistricting because of how the Census Bureau counts prisoners is "compelling," according to a recent National Research Council report.

A provocative analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative estimates that if prisoners held in upstate New York were counted in their home neighborhoods, at least four state Senate seats -- all Republican -- would be in jeopardy after redistricting. Last May, a federal appeals court suggested that counting the thousands of black and Latino prisoners from New York City as upstate residents may be a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Nearly 200 counties nationwide, including seven in California, have at least 5% of their "residents" in prison. Lassen County, home to two large state prisons and one federal penitentiary, has a whopping 25% of its residents behind bars. Those prisoners also distort demographic data. Lassen County is 87% white, but only 82% if you count the 10,000 prisoners. Indeed, more than 90% of blacks in the county are incarcerated.

Such data make rural prison communities appear, on paper, more ethnically diverse and less affluent. Prisoners' negligible pay artificially depresses the per-capita income of prison towns, which ironically then become more eligible for social programs for the poor.

Federal and state governments and nonprofit organizations use census data to allocate tens of billions of dollars for education, transportation, job training, public health and other social services. Cook County, Ill., is losing nearly $10 million a year in federal benefits because 26,000 Chicago-area residents are counted in prison communities elsewhere in the state.

Last year, in a report to Congress, the Census Bureau recoiled from counting prisoners in their home communities. The bureau cited prohibitive costs as well as security concerns, because inmates might have to be individually interviewed by census personnel. But these objections are unconvincing. In many ways, prisoners are cheaper, easier and safer to count than other populations, such as migrant workers or the homeless.

The 2010 census is rapidly approaching, and it may be too late to force a stubborn Census Bureau to change its ways for this go-round. But states can do some things on their own. California legislators could require the state to collect the home addresses of inmates and to adjust the census data before redistricting accordingly. Or the state could subtract its prisoners from the census data before redistricting.

At least a dozen counties in upstate New York already do this before drawing their county legislative districts. State legislators in California and elsewhere also should demand that the Census Bureau conduct a major test in the 2010 census of alternative ways to tally inmates -- as was recommended by the National Research Council.

States that send offenders to out-of-state prisons already have been pushing for a change in the rules, as have legislators from urban areas. As Michigan state Rep. LaMar Lemmons (D-Detroit), a proponent of census reform,
said: " Prison is not a residence; it is a condition."

Posted by lois at 01:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 31, 2007

VA Senate passes a proposed consitutional amendment to restore voiting rights to people convicted of non-violent felonies

Measure on felons' voting rights OK'd
Richmond Times-Dispatch Friday,
January 26, 2007

The Virginia Senate passed 29-10 yesterday a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the General Assembly to set procedures in law for restoration of voting rights to nonviolent felons.

Currently, only the governor can restore felons' civil rights. People seeking to have their rights restored must go through a laborious process to have the governor review their case. Felons in Virginia automatically lose their right to vote when they are convicted. More than 200,000 have lost the right, and the largest number live in Richmond. Sen. Yvonne B. Miller, D-Norfolk, sponsor of the proposal, said some of those convicted have plea-bargained away their rights in return for a lighter sentence. Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, noted that some people were convicted of felony drug charges in the 1970s. Today, with more tolerant community standards, those same crimes would be a misdemeanor, he said. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, objected. He said the governor can devote more personal attention to each case. The amendment would not affect the governor's restoration powers. -

Posted by lois at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)

January 19, 2007

reply brief was filed this week in response to the Hayden v. Pataki

January 19, 2007 Disenfranchisement: News/Updates from the Sentencing Project
New York: Legal Defense Fund Urges Court to Reconsider Decision

A reply brief was filed this week in response to the Hayden v. Pataki case urging the Second Circuit to reverse the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's constitutional claims. The case challenged the state’s disenfranchisement law that bars people with felony convictions from voting while they are in prison or on parole. The court dismissed the case in February 2005 concluding that “Congress did not intend the Voting Rights Act to cover such [felon disenfranchisement] provisions” and that such an application “would alter the constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government.” The Second Circuit will not schedule oral argument on the appeal before the end of January.

Posted by lois at 05:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2007

NY Times Editorial: Ending the Prison Windfall

January 17, 2007
Editorial, NY Times
Ending the Prison Windfall

The Census Bureau typically uses the decennial census to test data-collection methods that become routine later on. The 2010 census should include a test run at counting the nation's 1.4 million prison inmates at their permanent addresses instead of in prisons. That would help bring an end to a corrosive but little known practice that distorts the political process in virtually every corner of the country.

Inmates are denied the right to vote in all but two states. But state lawmakers treat them as residents of the prisons when drawing legislative maps, to inflate the head count in lightly populated rural areas where prisons are typically built. This creates legislative districts where none would ordinarily be, shifting political influence from the heavily populated urban districts where inmates live.

Once inflated, these towns and counties siphon an outsized portion of state and federal aid. Politicians in districts with prisons sometimes brag openly about the windfall, as they mock "constituents" who are powerless to remove them from office and are packed onto buses and driven hundreds of miles to their real homes the minute they leave the prison walls.

The Census Bureau was made pointedly aware of this problem last fall. A report it commissioned noted that counting inmates at prisons distorted the political process and raised legitimate concerns about the fairness of the census itself. That report, by the National Research Council, recognized that the methods would not be simple to change, but urged the bureau to seeks ways to do it.

Collecting and verifying residential information for prison inmates is a complicated job. But the report suggested a perfectly reasonable interim solution. The bureau could publish detailed counts of the prison populations, so that the inmates could be subtracted at redistricting time. These figures would illuminate corrupt redistricting committees that use prison counts to pad districts that fall short of federal population requirements.

The Census Bureau has a crucial role to play in putting and end to this despicable practice. The 2010 census is as good a time as any to get started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/opinion/17wed3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=sl
ogin

Posted by lois at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2006

Incarceration Nation

Incarceration Nation
Marc Mauer
December 11, 2006, TomPaine.com

Marc Mauer is the executive director of The Sentencing Project and the author of Race to Incarcerate and co-editor of Invisible Punishment (both from The New Press).

Two remarkable developments in Washington in the past week highlight the extent to which the United States has become the land of mass incarceration.

First, the Supreme Court denied the appeal of Weldon Angelos for a first-time drug offense. Angelos was a 24-year-old Utah music producer with no prior convictions when he was convicted of three sales of marijuana in 2004. During these sales he possessed a gun, though there were no allegations that he ever used or threatened to use it. Under federal mandatory sentencing laws, the judge was required to sentence Angelos to five years on the first offense and 25 years each for the two subsequent offenses, for a total of 55 years in prison. In imposing sentence, Judge Paul Cassell, a leading conservative jurist, decried the sentencing policy as “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.”

The Angelos decision came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics report finding that there are now a record 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails. These figures represent the continuation of a “race to incarcerate” that has been raging since 1972. With a 500 percent increase in the number of people in prison since then, the United States has now become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, locking up its citizens at 5-8 times the rate of other industrialized nations. The strict punishment meted out in the Angelos case and thousands of others explain much of the rapid increase in the prison population.

The composition of the prison population reflects the socioeconomic inequalities in society. Sixty percent of the prison population is African American and Latino, and if current trends continue, one of every three black males and one of every six Latino males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in his lifetime. The overall rates for women are lower, but the racial and ethnic disparities are similar and the growth rate of women’s incarceration is nearly double that of men over the past two decades.

While the United States has a higher rate of violent crime than comparable nations, the substantial prison buildup since 1980 has resulted from changes in policy, not changes in crime. The “get tough” movement, which embraced initiatives designed to send more people to prison and to keep them for longer periods of time, contributed to massive prison construction and a corrections budget now totaling $60 billion annually. These policy changes included mandatory sentences that restrict judicial discretion while imposing “one size fits all” penalties, “three strikes and you’re out” laws that allow life terms upon a third felony conviction, and the “war on drugs.”

Drug policies have been responsible for a disproportionate share of the rise in the inmate population, with the 40,000 drug offenders in prison or jail in 1980 increasing to a half million today. A substantial body of research has documented that these laws have had virtually no effect on the drug trade, as measured by price or availability of drugs. Most of the drug offenders in prison are not the “kingpins” of the drug trade. Indeed, the low-level sellers who are incarcerated are rapidly replaced on the streets by others seeking economic gain.

While crime rates have been declining nationally for a decade, research to date demonstrates that expanded incarceration has, at best, been responsible for only a quarter of this decline. Other factors that played a key role include a strong economy in the 1990s that provided employment opportunities for low-skill workers, a marked decline in crack cocaine use and its associated violence by the early 1990s, and strategic community policing. New York City, which experienced a two-thirds reduction in homicides from 1990 to 2002, did so despite a one-third decline in its jail population during that period. And conversely, while Idaho led the nation with an astonishing 174 percent rise in its prison population, it nevertheless experienced a 14 percent rise in crime.

With a new Democratic Congress in place, there is hope that long-festering criminal justice policy inequities can finally be addressed. Long-time reform champions Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Bobby Scott, D-Va., are poised to take over the chairmanships of the House Judiciary Committee and its Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security subcommittee, respectively. But we should be cautious in our expectations given the Democratic Party’s record of complicity in endorsing “get tough” measures. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill, for example, was loaded with harsh sentencing provisions and $8 billion in new prison construction. Progressives would be wise to continue to build bipartisan support for criminal justice reform measures. In recent years this has led to alliances with conservative Senators Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions who sponsored bills for prisoner reentry and crack cocaine sentencing reform respectively.

As we look to the new Congress, high on any reform agenda should be the following:

• Crack cocaine sentencing reform—During the last 20 years, the federal sentencing laws for crack cocaine offenses have subjected thousands of low-level defendants to mandatory five- and 10-year prison terms, while exacerbating the racial dynamics of incarceration. More than 80 percent of the persons charged with these offenses are African Americans, who receive much stiffer terms than those meted out to powder cocaine defendants.

• Mandatory sentencing reform—Congressional mandates to impose harsh sentences with no judicial input have created unfair and overly harsh penalties, and have been decried by the American Bar Association and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among many others.

• Racial impact statements—Just as fiscal impact statements aid lawmakers in assessing the financial implications of sentencing policies, the preparation of racial impact assessments could provide similar benefits to policymakers. Had such assessments existed in 1986, we could have had a debate on the racial dynamics of the crack cocaine laws prior to their enactment, not 20 years later.

• Felon disenfranchisement reform—Five million Americans could not participate in the November election due to a current or previous felony conviction. Laws that govern these practices are enacted by the states, but Congress has the authority to require uniform voting rules in federal elections. Legislation proposed by John Conyers in the House would require states to permit voting by any non-incarcerated person in federal elections, even if barred from participating in state elections.

Three decades of prison expansion have led to rates of imprisonment that are shameful for a democratic nation. Both public safety and community health would be better served through investments in policies that promote job creation, high school graduation and substance abuse treatment. It’s time to reverse the race to incarcerate.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/11/incarceration_nation.php

Posted by lois at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

November 01, 2006

NY Times Editorial: Building Better Citizens

October 28, 2006
Editorial, NY Times
Building Better Citizens

Rhode Island voters will have a chance on Nov. 7 to do the right thing and amend their state Constitution to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their prison sentences. Allowing former convicts to vote strengthens democracy, and helps them to integrate into society and move beyond a life of crime.

Rhode Island, like many states, restores felons’ voting rights only after they have completed not only their prison sentences, but parole and probation. This policy keeps thousands of citizens, many of whom were in for nonviolent crimes, from voting, sometimes for decades. Andres Idarraga, a Brown University student who served more than six years in prison on drug and gun charges, is disqualified from voting for the next 30 years.

Ex-felons go to school, work and pay taxes. Their views about who should represent them should be respected in a democracy. Restoring their right to vote will also help with the critical issue of “re-entry,” helping them fit into society so they do not return to crime. The chief of the Providence police wrote in The Providence Journal that denying released prisoners the vote “weakens the long-term prospects for sustainable rehabilitation.”

If the amendment passes, a new state statute would also take effect requiring the prison system to help former prisoners register when they are released. Across the country, far too little is done to inform ex-prisoners of when their right to vote is restored, and how to go about qualifying to vote. Election officials often do not know the intricacies of the law, and give out incorrect advice. The combination of the constitutional amendment and the statute would make Rhode Island a model for the nation.

Felon disenfranchisement is a relic of another America. It was often done to keep blacks from voting, or to stigmatize ex-offenders. Rhode Island, which was founded by religious dissenters, can strike an important blow for inclusion by allowing people who have paid their debt to society to participate in democracy.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Posted by lois at 05:50 PM | Comments (0)

October 23, 2006

TX: League of Women Voters: Voting Residence Change Would Restore Equal Access

Opinion: Viewpoints- Dallas Morning News
Dallas, Texas
League of Women Voters: Voting strength troubles
Prisoner data fix would restore equal access
Saturday, October 21, 2006

Equal representation in Congress and the Legislature is fundamental to democracy. Yet a little known quirk in the Census rules is being allowed to undermine that doctrine.

Like most states, Texas relies on Census Bureau data to draw its legislative boundaries so that each will contain the same number of people. Equally sized districts ensure that each resident has an equal access to a representative to advocate for his or her needs. The Census counts everyone ­ including people who can't vote, such as prisoners and children.

Since children have a stake in their communities, no distortion of representation arises from counting them. The same, however, cannot be said for prisoners.

The Texas Election Code recognizes that prisoners are residents of the communities where their homes and families are, not where they are incarcerated. Section 1.015 defines residence as "One's home ... to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

It specifically states, "A person who is an inmate in a penal institution ... does not ... acquire residence at the place where the institution is located." Nevertheless, the Census Bureau counts prisoners as residents of the community in which they are incarcerated.

In 1970, when Texas imprisoned only 14,293 people ­ 128 per 100,000 population ­ ignoring the residence of inmates had little consequence. In the last 40 years, since the drug war began, Texas has imprisoned its citizens at an unprecedented rate.

On Aug. 31, 2005, 152,213 people were residing in Texas prisons and state jails. Per 100,000 population there were 2,300 blacks, 600 Hispanics, 400 whites and 100 of other ethnicities.

The Legislative Budget Board estimates that Texas will have 11,200 more prisoners by 2011.

The place of residence used to count this many people has a significant effect on representation.

Voters in the largely rural communities where prisons are located have increased legislative power. In fact, last year, inmates made up more than 20 percent of the populations of six Texas counties ­ Anderson, Bee, Hartley, Jones, Mitchell and Walker. So, for example, the counted but disenfranchised inmates give each legitimate resident of Anderson County the voting strength of 1.31 constituents.

Conversely this voting strength is lost to the inmates' home communities. Forty-five percent of Texas inmates came from six other Texas counties ­ Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis and El Paso. After adjusting for the inmates held in Harris and Dallas counties, more than 28,000 constituents of Harris County and 16,000 constituents of Dallas County are counted as residents in other counties.

Texas cannot change the Census Bureau's methodology to count the incarcerated at their homes.

The state is highly unlikely to give inmates the right to vote as do Vermont, Maine, 18 European states and Iraq.

However, Texas could and should remedy the distortion between urban and rural counties by adjusting the Census Bureau data to meet the Texas Election Code.

The League of Women Voters of Texas strongly supports the right of each citizen to equal access to congressional or legislative representatives. For many years, it advocated for passage of the Texas Election Code. That code became law in 1986, recognizing prisoners as residents of the communities where their homes and families are.

This principal should not be undermined for bureaucratic convenience, blurring and distorting representation ratios so that one person equals 1.31 constituents and another person loses access to his or her representative.

League of Women Voters of Dallas President Katherine Homan and board member Suzanne Wills may be reached through lwvdallas.org.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN
-homan_21edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e604bb.html

Posted by lois at 07:16 PM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2006

New Sentencing Project Report: Mixed Picture on Felony Disenfranchisment

October 11, 2006
Mixed Picture on Felons' Voting Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Almost 4 million Americans who have completed their prison terms remain unable to vote because of laws in most states that prevent them from doing so, according to a new report. But moves to restore those voting rights are spreading -- even making the Nov. 7 ballot in Rhode Island.

The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a report Wednesday that 16 states have expanded voting access for ex-convicts in the past 10 years, enabling more than 600,000 people to regain voting rights.

Most of the changes have been made by legislatures, including those in New Mexico and Nebraska, which repealed lifetime prohibitions on felons voting.

This Election Day, however, a statewide electorate will have a say for the first time on a measure specifically aimed at expanding such voting rights. Rhode Islanders will consider a proposed state constitutional amendment that would allow felons to vote upon release from prison; they currently cannot vote until completing probation and parole, as is the case in more than 30 states.

The measure is supported by a coalition of civic groups, as well as by Police Chief Dean Esserman of Providence, the state's largest city. Its opponents include Republican Gov. Don Carcieri, who argues that felons haven't fully paid their dues to society until they complete parole.

Ryan King, the Sentencing Project policy analyst who authored the new report, predicted the Rhode Island measure would pass, and contended that most Americans support voting rights for people who've served their sentences.

''A lot of citizens find this policy (of disenfranchisement) doesn't mesh with their vision of America, that every person should have the right to vote,'' King said in a telephone interview.

In some states, the debate over voting rights has been complicated by partisan skirmishing. A disproportionate number of disenfranchised felons are black -- a generally pro-Democratic voting bloc -- and there has been some debate over whether reforms would aid Democratic candidates.

However, King noted that some of the recent reform measures have been signed by Republican governors and enjoyed broad bipartisan backing.

According to his report, 5.3 million Americans will be unable to vote on Nov. 7 because of laws affecting felons. About 1.4 million are in prison, the rest have been released.

The report also said that, in 2004, roughly 1 in 12 African-Americans was disenfranchised because of a felony conviction, a rate nearly five times that of non-blacks.

Only two states -- Maine and Vermont -- allow prison inmates to vote. In 36 states, felons on parole cannot vote, while 11 states have lifetime voting bans that affect at least some felons.

''Any reason for optimism on the policy front should be tempered by the reality that United States disenfranchisement laws remain some of the most restrictive in the world,'' King wrote in the report. ''Continued momentum to expand voting rights is essential.''

Among those who would benefit if the Rhode Island measure passes is Andres Idarraga, who served more than six years in prison for drug dealing and gun possession, and is now a student at Brown University studying literature and economics. Under the current law, he would not be able to vote until completing probation in 2037.

''But I want to make a difference now,'' he said in a campaign ad. ''I need a voice.''

^------

On the Net:

Sentencing Project: http://www.sentencingproject.org/

Posted by lois at 01:44 PM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2006

TN: Meetings to Explain New Voting Rights Law for People With Felony Convictions

Meetings explain new felon voting rights law
The Jackson Sun, Sept 5, 2006
NASHVILLE - Two civil rights organizations are canvassing the state with town hall meetings - including one Thursday in Jackson - to explain a new election law intended to make it easier for felons to restore their voting rights.

But even advocates of the bill passed in May say Tennessee still has one of the most restrictive and confusing procedures for allowing former felons to regain the right to vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the state conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have meetings scheduled this week in Jackson, Clarksville and Murfreesboro. The Jackson meeting will be from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday in the Madison County Agricultural Complex Auditorium, at 309 North Parkway.
The meetings consist of representatives from local bar associations and county election officials, along with former felons and members of the National Right to Vote campaign.

The League of Women Voters in Tennessee also will be at the meetings to help former felons begin the process to restore their voting rights.

"For many of these people, if they start before Oct. 7, they'll be ready to vote in the Nov. 7 election," said Terry McMoore, spokesman for the Tennessee NAACP.

Denver Schimming, 48, of Goodlettsville, is a former felon convicted of bank robbery who campaigned at the Capitol to get the new bill passed. He is one of the planned speakers at the meeting in Jackson.

Schimming said voting allows ex-felons to take control of and responsibility for their lives after they've completed their sentences.

"You don't have to let your felony conviction define your life," said Schimming, who had his rights restored after completing his sentence in 1996. "You don't have to be a failure the rest of your life. You can get back into the mainstream and make your voice heard."

The bill was a compromise that permanently denied voting rights for more types of felons and placed financial obstacles in the process to register, said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU in Tennessee.

"What I continue to emphasize is that this is a first step," Weinberg said. "We had to be practical. There was lots of debate and dialogue about what we were willing give up in order to get a streamlined process."

In the past, some former felons had to go to court and often had to pay attorney fees to restore their voting rights. Under the new rules, all former felons can bypass the court and complete a certificate of restoration at county election commission offices.

But the bill also expanded the felonies that permanently prohibit a person from ever voting. Starting July 1, anyone convicted of a sexual offense will not be eligible to restore voting rights. Previously only felons convicted of rape were excluded.

Also added late in the legislative process were two provisions of the bill that require former felons to be current on child support payments and to pay any financial restitution that is part of their sentences.

"When the bill was first introduced, it only required completion of sentences, probation and parole," Weinberg said. "The child support provision is unfair and penalizes poor mothers and fathers, who may never have the money to buy back their franchise."

Under the new requirements, the county circuit court where the felon was convicted verifies the restitution has been paid and the Department of Human Services verifies the child support payments.

"We are in the process of identifying individuals who were adversely affected by the child support provision," Weinberg said. "We are committed to righting this wrong, either by seeing it repealed, or going into court and challenging it."

The NAACP and the ACLU estimate there are 98,000 convicted felons in the state of Tennessee. The state Division of Elections does not have a count of how many felons have had their voting rights restored.

The changes to the felony voting law only apply to convictions after May 18, 1981. Felons who were convicted between Jan. 15, 1973, and May 17, 1981, are allowed to register to vote, regardless of the type of conviction. Felons convicted prior to Jan. 15, 1973, have a different set of rules regarding felony voting rights.

On the Net:

www.aclu-tn.org

tennessee.gov/sos/election/

http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060905/NEWS01/609050306/1002

Posted by lois at 05:17 PM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2006

NATIONAL ACADEMIES REPORT CALLS FOR CENSUS BUREAU TO COLLECT ALTERNATIVE ADDRESSES FOR PEOPLE IN PRISON

[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/fact-14-9-2006.shtml ]

September 14 -- The National Research Council of the National Academies today released a report calling for the Census Bureau to begin collecting the home addresses of people in prison and to study whether this alternative address should be used in the Census. The report, authored by leading demographers, statisticians and sociologists, was commissioned by the Census Bureau to reexamine where people should be counted in the Census.

With the exception of counting people in prison, the panel generally agreed with the Census Bureau's method of counting people as residents of the place where they sleep most of the time, although it suggested that the residence "rules" should be structured as "principles" as a more flexible and easily understood method of identifying residence. To this end, the report recommended that the Bureau start collecting a secondary "any residence elsewhere", for the entire population, including people in prison.

The panel expressed deep concern about where people in prison were counted, stating that "the evidence of political inequities in redistricting that can arise due to the counting of prisoners at the prison location is compelling". The panel cited an article by Eric Lotke and Peter Wagner that "nearly 9% of all African-American men in their twenties and thirties live in prison" and that most prisons are located in largely White rural areas.

The report's recommendations address both short and long-term reforms that could improve redistricting and democracy. The report discusses a compromise proposal that would identify prison populations in the Census Bureau's PL91-171 Redistricting Data File and give state and county data users the option of removing the prison populations prior to redistricting.

The National Research Council report called for the Census Bureau to initiate a major "research and testing program, including experimentation as a part of the 2010 Census" to evaluate assigning incarcerated people to other addresses outside the facility. The panel also recommended that that the Census Bureau rely less on administrative records and more on specialized forms and interviews to count people in prison.

"This report, from the Census Bureau's own experts, refutes the Census Bureau's claim that changing how it counts people in prison would be too difficult, too expensive and not necessary," said Prison Policy Initiative Executive Director Peter Wagner.

Wagner continued: "The National Research Council has defined what a good faith examination of the feasibility of counting incarcerated people at their pre-incarceration addresses would look like. The Census Bureau should get to work today."

The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public.

The Prison Policy Initiative documents the impact of mass incarceration on individuals, communities, and the national welfare. The Easthampton, MA based organization produces accessible and innovative research to empower the public to participate in creating better criminal justice policy.

Posted by lois at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)

Maryland: Executive Director, Activist Cannot Vote in Primary Election

Kimberly Haven: Who’s not voting in Maryland?

Kimberly Haven, The Examiner
Sep 13, 2006 5:00 AM

BALTIMORE - Tuesday was primary day in Maryland, and I could not vote. Maryland law bars me from voting until 2009 because I have been previously convicted of a felony. I cannot vote even though I work every day, live in and support my community, lead an honest life and value the power of voting. I, and more than 100,000 others like me, are barred from the polls because of a felony conviction.

Maryland is one of only 11 states that permanently disenfranchise some or all persons convicted of a felony who have completed their sentence, making it one of the most restrictive states in the nation.

The result is that thousands of Maryland citizens who have done their time in prison are still unable to vote when they re-enter society.

Disenfranchised citizens are living, working and raising families all across Maryland.

Though we pay taxes and care about the future of our communities, we have no voice in our government.

In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush noted, “America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.”

Instead of opening a path to a better life, Maryland’s disenfranchisement law sends a loud and clear message to people with a felony conviction who are trying to rebuild their lives that no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you contribute, you will remain a second-class citizen.

Removing the stigma of past mistakes and encouraging people to participate as full citizens is far more likely to promote their successful reintegration into their communities.

Indeed, the ability to vote fosters a sense of responsibility and belonging, two critical elements of reintegration.

Studies have shown that people with felony convictions who vote are less likely to be re-arrested than those who do not vote. Thus, restoring the vote not only helps individuals with criminal records, but more broadly promotes public safety.

States are increasingly recognizing that it makes sense to lower the barriers to full civic participation.

Since 1997, 14 states, including Maryland, have either made legislative or policy changes restoring the vote to at least some people with criminal convictions or eased restoration procedures.

Yet, nationwide, more than 5 million Americans remain ineligible to vote based solely on a felony conviction.

To continue to deny a basic right of citizenship undermines the future of people like me who have come home from prison.

For those of us who are struggling to leave our pasts behind and be good parents, employees and taxpayers, laws that prevent us from voting serve as a constant reminder that we are unwelcome in our communities.

Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior ... and deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express displeasure at a citizen’s conduct ... .”

I believe in his sentiment. A truly democratic government of the people incorporates all of our voices and values the positive contributions of all its citizens.

It is important that if you truly believe in democracy, that you let your elected officials know that you support the restoration of voting rights and want to see legislation passed in 2007.

In the meantime, on behalf of myself and the 100,000 others currently disenfranchised, please vote in the upcoming election — for those of us who can’t.
Kimberly Haven is executive director of Justice Maryland and its voter re-enfranchisment initiative, Maryland Got Democracy? Justice Maryland is waging campaigns to restore voting rights to Maryland’s more than 140,000 disenfranchised former felons (www.gotdemocracy.org). She will be eligible to vote in 2009 and can be reached at kimberly@gotdemocracy.org.
Examiner

Posted by lois at 10:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2006

Beyond Prisons: New Book Offers Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Prison System

Beyond Prisons: New Book Offers Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Prison System

9/14/2006 8:00:00 AM

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization and co-recipient of the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize, announces "Beyond Prisons: A New Interfaith Paradigm for Our Failed Prison System," a comprehensive analysis and a strong indictment of our penal system undertaken by two respected experts.

Bound to stir debate and reflection, Beyond Prisons traces the history and offers strong ethical and moral assessments of our penal system. The book lays out a new paradigm based on restorative justice - a system of remediation and reconciliation rather than retributive incarceration - and puts forward a 12- point plan for immediate changes. It also examines the ways that race and poverty drive public policy and law enforcement.

"The current system isn't working to provide justice or public safety. We need to start saying so, loudly and clearly," says co- author, Laura Magnani, assistant director for justice of AFSC Oakland, Calif. and a respected expert in the field of criminal justice. Magnani is also author of "America's First Penitentiary: A 200-Year-Old Failure."

"Too often we see the term restorative justice applied to extra punishment added onto existing sentences - such as restitution added to a prisoner's sentence so that he or she has a financial debt to pay upon release," says co-author, Harmon Wray, a minister and director of Restorative Justice Ministries, a project of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, based in Nashville, Tenn. Wray wrote a book the subject for the United Methodists in 2002.

"Beyond