Friday, July 02, 2010

New York considers law to count prisoners at home

In April we reported Maryland had become the first state to pass legislation requiring prison populations be counted in their hometowns instead of the districts they are housed in, and now similar legislation in New York is starting to gain steam. On Monday The New York Times editorial board endorsed a measure to count prisoners in their hometowns for drawing legislative districts. Advocates for counting prisoners at their last home say it’s a civil rights issue, Newsweek reports, while representatives from prison districts say counting them at prison sites rewards constituents for the inconveniences they incur. (Newsweek graphic)

The New York's proposal's "prospects are good in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, but it may not get through the nearly evenly split State Senate, where seven districts, including those of two Democrats, would need to be redrawn due to insufficient population if they lost their prisoners in redistricting," Newsweek reports. "Senators from those districts contend that their constituents are absorbing a public need, not just government dollars, because the prisoners exact a toll on the surrounding areas."

"Upstate communities accepted prisons for the economic benefit, but there’s also other impacts, both positive and negative," Sen. Joe Griffo told Newsweek. "The fire department, police department, and hospitals all have to respond to the prison and the inmates." State Sen. Betty Little, whose district includes 11 prisons, notes many locals fear that prisoners’ families will move to the area with the prisons but there is little evidence that actually happens. "Although the New York proposal, like the new law in Maryland, would affect only legislative redistricting, not state funding for social services, Griffo argues that political power always translates into government funding, so prison-heavy districts upstate have a real financial stake in preserving their claim on prisoners in redistricting," Newsweek writes. (Read more)

No comments: