Democrats to retake N.Y. senate in 2012

[Brittain33]

I exaggerate--some. The legislature just freshened up a bunch of rotten boroughs far from the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/nyregion/07prison.html?ref=nyregion

[minionofmidas]

So how will they determine where to count them?

[muon2]

So how will they determine where to count them?

I believe that NY will use the address on file at the Dept of Corrections, which should be their last address before incarceration. This effectively ignores any mobility by the prisoner's family to other areas. In the extreme case, people could be residents for years in places that should have no residents. For instance, consider a residential low-income high rise that is redeveloped into an industrial park or office building. With this law, that area would continue to have residents for redistricting purposes long after the area ceased to be inhabited. That area would now benefit from over-representation.

A less partisan approach would be to not use prison populations at all in redistricting. The Census provides for this option but identifying the number of such persons in a given census block. It's also fairer, because neither the area of original residency nor the area of the prison can benefit by the extra population.

[minionofmidas]

A less partisan approach would be to not use prison populations at all in redistricting. The Census provides for this option but identifying the number of such persons in a given census block. It's also fairer, because neither the area of original residency nor the area of the prison can benefit by the extra population.

Yes, that's what I thought as well.

[Brittain33]

A less partisan approach would be to not use prison populations at all in redistricting. The Census provides for this option but identifying the number of such persons in a given census block. It's also fairer, because neither the area of original residency nor the area of the prison can benefit by the extra population.

Yes, that's what I thought as well.

An interesting idea but it could set a very bad precedent. I wonder if it would pass constitutional muster, too; I see the argments you make but people have to count in some way.

[minionofmidas]

Actually... what the constitutional text (as opposed to case law) says is that citizens banned from voting (by state law) for any other reason than "rebellion or other crime" must not be counted for apportionment.
Which was ignored for a century during the days of Jim Crow, but I digress.

[Brittain33]

Actually... what the constitutional text (as opposed to case law) says is that citizens banned from voting (by state law) for any other reason than "rebellion or other crime" must not be counted for apportionment.
Which was ignored for a century during the days of Jim Crow, but I digress.

Interesting, but that appears to apply to apportionment of Congressional seats among the states. I don't know if there is anything in the Constitution unmediated by Supreme Court rulings (Reynolds v. Sims) that applies to districting within a state.

[Bacon King]

In the days of Jim Crow were minorities actually explicitely banned from voting? My understanding was that it was an "informal" ban through poll taxes and impossible-to-pass literacy tests and such, so that constitutional provision wouldn't apply, no?

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

[Brittain33]

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

I want to know in what spirit that was written, particularly given the time when the amendment was passed and that it cited rebellion immediately prior. Was the amendment seriously intended to take people in prison out of the apportionment calculus? If so, why then? Has it been interpreted to have a meaning outside of the aftermath of the Civil War?

[minionofmidas]

In the days of Jim Crow were minorities actually explicitely banned from voting? My understanding was that it was an "informal" ban through poll taxes and impossible-to-pass literacy tests and such, so that constitutional provision wouldn't apply, no?

Why not? I think they fixed it so that you could strictly speaking try to register again and again, which I suppose might technically pass constitutional muster.

[minionofmidas]

In the days of Jim Crow were minorities actually explicitely banned from voting? My understanding was that it was an "informal" ban through poll taxes and impossible-to-pass literacy tests and such, so that constitutional provision wouldn't apply, no?

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

Yeah. Which means laws banning felons from voting (even after their prison sentence) don't lead to that state being denied representation. Hence why I said "it was ignored during Jim Crow", not "is being ignored to this day".

Although I too wonder why that was written the way it was written. The intent was certainly to ban states from banning Blacks or Freedmen from voting.

[jimrtex]

In the days of Jim Crow were minorities actually explicitely banned from voting? My understanding was that it was an "informal" ban through poll taxes and impossible-to-pass literacy tests and such, so that constitutional provision wouldn't apply, no?

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

It is not unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to illiterates, per se.  But the apportionment population should be reduced proportionately.  Following passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress considered adding census questions designed to determine the number of citizen males over the age of 21 who were denied the right to vote, but did not pass any legislation.  The Census Bureau, went ahead and directed the local census takes to gather some aggregate numbers, but the data was piecemeal and not systematic.  When Congress was considering reapportionment, they argued about whether an adjustment could or should be made.  They apparently convinced themselves that it really wouldn't make much if any difference, and satisfied themselves by adding the second section of the 14th Amendment into statute law.

In the case of failure to pay a poll tax, it would be difficult if failure to pay, was due to inability or unwillingness to pay.  If someone voluntarily chose not to pay, how is that different from someone not voting because they are Mennonite?  And if someone can not afford to pay, isn't that due to their voluntary lack of industriousness, rather than not having the cash?

[jimrtex]

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

I want to know in what spirit that was written, particularly given the time when the amendment was passed and that it cited rebellion immediately prior. Was the amendment seriously intended to take people in prison out of the apportionment calculus? If so, why then? Has it been interpreted to have a meaning outside of the aftermath of the Civil War?

What is the difference between taking someone's life or property and taking their liberty?

[minionofmidas]

Also, wouldn't "other crimes" mean any crimes?  

I want to know in what spirit that was written, particularly given the time when the amendment was passed and that it cited rebellion immediately prior. Was the amendment seriously intended to take people in prison out of the apportionment calculus? If so, why then? Has it been interpreted to have a meaning outside of the aftermath of the Civil War?

What is the difference between taking someone's life or property and taking their liberty?

That's like asking what's the difference between banning murder or jaywalking and banning arson.