Data shows prison gerrymandering is a non-partisan issue, increasingly harming rural communities.

Prison Gerrymandering Project for February 27, 2024 The 2020 Census counted 2 million people in the wrong place. How does your voice in government suffer as a result?

For more than two decades, we’ve led a national campaign to end prison gerrymandering, a problem that distorts political representation and hinders criminal legal reform. It is a problem created because the Census Bureau counts incarcerated people as if they were residents of a correctional facility rather than at their homes. When state and local governments use that data to draw new districts, it dilutes the voices of communities already hit hardest by mass incarceration. State and local leaders of all political stripes have steadily joined the effort to address this issue. Below, we share a new analysis that shows how this problem is changing.

What the ten worst prison gerrymanders of the 2020 redistricting cycle tell us about how the problem is changing [[link removed]] New analysis shows that the Census’ flawed way of counting incarcerated people is increasingly harming rural areas — and both political parties. [[link removed]]

by Aleks Kajstura and Mike Wessler

The 2020 redistricting cycle was a turning point in the effort to end prison gerrymandering. Fixing the Census Bureau’s flawed way of counting incarcerated people was once considered a niche issue, but after 2020 is now “ the fastest-growing trend in redistricting [[link removed]],” according to the fiercely bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

Prison gerrymandering is a problem created by the Census Bureau. Every ten years, it erroneously counts incarcerated people at the location of the facility they happen to be on Census Day rather than in their home communities. When state and local governments use this data for redistricting, they inadvertently give communities that contain prisons greater political clout at the expense of everyone else.

We previously looked at the experiences of states that have addressed prison gerrymandering [[link removed]] after the 2020 Census. We wanted to also see what happened in states that haven’t fixed this problem to see what it tells us about how this issue plays out across the country as we look toward the 2030 count.

To do this, we examined the ten state legislative districts where, according to Census data, people held at correctional facilities account for the largest percentage of the district population.

These ten worst prison gerrymanders in the nation show the problem is increasingly harming residents of rural states and defying some of the preconceived notions about partisan impacts.

Rural states bear the burden of the Census Bureau’s error

This analysis shows that prison gerrymandering is a problem increasingly harming residents in some of the most rural states [[link removed]]. While some might be tempted to chalk this up to the political dynamics of those states — we explain later in this piece [[link removed]] why this seems increasingly unlikely — the truth is this is likely more a reflection of the Census Bureau shifting its responsibilities to over-burdened state governments and the series of trade-offs this forces states to make.

If states want to draw fairer districts by ending prison gerrymandering, they have to take on the task of fixing the flawed Census Bureau data to count incarcerated people at their true homes. This takes time, effort, and money, three rare and valuable commodities during redistricting.

To be clear, fixing prison gerrymandering is not a hugely expensive endeavor. ( And it doesn't impact states' federal funding allocations [[link removed]].) But state budgets are a series of trade-offs and compromises. If lawmakers have the chance to spend even a few thousand dollars on direct services to their residents or can use that money to fix the Census Bureau’s mistake that caused prison gerrymandering, which do you think they’re likely to choose?

The experience of Montana, a state that has addressed prison gerrymandering despite its comparably small budget, shows the budgetary tricks or luck that states have to rely on to fix this Census Bureau mistake. During the 2020 redistricting cycle, commissioners in that state were unanimous in their desire to address prison gerrymandering, but it almost did not happen because they didn’t have the money to adjust the Census redistricting data to count incarcerated people at home. Ultimately, they could only implement this change because COVID-related restrictions meant that they could use money initially allocated for travel instead to end prison gerrymandering.

The Bureau’s stubborn refusal to change how it counts incarcerated people is a liability for a rapidly growing swath of the countrySome might be tempted to ask, “Why should the Census Bureau take on this effort instead of the places that want to change the data?” The simple fact is that the Census Bureau has a duty to provide states with redistricting data fit for use — a duty that the emerging consensus among states shows they are not meeting. State and local governments have been loud and clear, they want the Bureau to fix this problem [[link removed]].

Roughly half of all U.S. residents now live in a city, county, or state that has ended prison gerrymandering, with more almost certain to join them before the 2030 redistricting cycle. The Bureau’s stubborn refusal to change how it counts incarcerated people is a liability for a rapidly growing swath of the country and a disincentive for more places to join their ranks.

Additionally, it is important to remember that apart from any concerns about taking on additional burdens and redistricting time, states can only partially solve the problem. Prison gerrymandering is a national problem that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. No city, county, or state can completely fix this issue on its own. Only the Census Bureau can fully solve this problem [[link removed]] nationwide.

Prison gerrymandering is not a partisan issue

Redistricting is notoriously contentious, with politicians working to gain leverage for their party in state houses.

While some have sought to paint the effort to end prison gerrymandering as a partisan tool in those fights, this analysis firmly busts that myth. These data show that both parties are harmed by prison gerrymandering.

Of these ten districts, six are districts controlled by Democrats, while Republicans control four. Notably, the district most distorted by a prison, New Hampshire’s Merrimack 17, is currently held by a Democrat. Prison gerrymandering distorts this district so severely that residents there have twice the political clout of residents of any other district in the state without a prison.

This is the latest piece of evidence that prison gerrymandering reform regularly defies traditional political expectations:

More than 200 rural city and county governments [[link removed]] — many in some of the most conservative parts of the country — have recognized how prison gerrymandering harms their residents and have taken it upon themselves to fix Census data to address prison gerrymandering. Deep “blue” states like California, “purple” states like Maine and Pennsylvania, and deep “red” states like Montana — where prison gerrymandering-reform legislation received wide bipartisan support [[link removed]] — have all taken action to address the problem. In Maryland, the first state in the nation to address the problem [[link removed]], the sponsor of the bill ending prison gerrymandering was a main beneficiary of the Census Bureau’s flawed way of counting incarcerated people but championed the measure anyway, saying, “ To me, it is just a fair way to count [[link removed]].”

This analysis makes clear that neither political party is a guaranteed winner in prison gerrymandering. But, the clear loser in prison gerrymandering is every resident who doesn’t live in a legislative district with a prison.

What does this data tell us about 2030?

The 2030 Census may seem far away, but the Bureau has already begun planning for the count. It will likely decide where to count incarcerated people in the next two to three years.

This new analysis, which shows that the burden to correct flawed Census data increasingly falls on rural states and that prison gerrymandering is an issue that defies traditional partisan assumptions, should weigh heavily on their decision.

As we wait for the Census Bureau to decide, state lawmakers — particularly in these states with the worst prison gerrymanders — should start laying the groundwork to fix this problem should the Bureau fail to act. This means passing legislation now [[link removed]] to ensure the state has the data and expertise it needs to successfully implement reform to end prison gerrymandering during the 2030 redistricting cycle.

***

For more information, including detailed footnotes, see the full version of this briefing [[link removed]] on our website.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Other news: States to the Census Bureau: You created prison gerrymandering, you need to end it. [[link removed]]

Last year, a report from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures examined the experiences of states that addressed prison gerrymandering after the 2020 Census.

As we explain in this blog post [[link removed]], the states were clear: they want to the Census Bureau to take on the task of ending prison gerrymandering.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Our other newsletters General Prison Policy Initiative newsletter ( archives [[link removed]]) Criminal justice research library ( archives [[link removed]])

Update your newsletter subscriptions [link removed].

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website [[link removed]] or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative [[link removed]]

PO Box 127

Northampton, Mass. 01061

Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed] Update address / join other newsletters [link removed] Donate [[link removed]] Tweet this newsletter [link removed] Forward this newsletter [link removed]

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative

PO Box 127 Northampton, Mass. 01061

Did someone forward this to you? If you enjoyed reading, please subscribe! [[link removed]] Web Version [link removed] | Update address [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed] | Share via: Twitter [link removed] Facebook [[link removed] Email [link removed]