Should prisoners be counted in their prison locatior most recent residency spot.

[lfromnj]

https://truthout.org/articles/prison-gerrymandering-could-inflate-population-counts-during-2020-census/


I think the argument in the article is unfair,considering it could be applied to other areas like areas with high amounts of underage people who can't vote or high non citizens..

[Tender Branson]

International and national census and statistics law says that you need to be registered and counted „in the place where you live most of the year“.

This is clearly the place of the prison in the case of inmates ...except if you are on parole or wearing an electronic ankle device of course and reside at home.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They need to be counted under the most recent place of residency, especially for redistricting.

[Indy Texas]

Everyone should be counted where they are physically present.

If you are incarcerated in a prison in Kentucky, that is where you live. That is where you should be counted for Census purposes.

When you get released, you can go live wherever you want and be a resident of that state.

[Oryxslayer]

I think it depends. The US census matters for 10 years. So if your sentence will not last a majority of those ten years or parole is expected, than your home address, if available, should count. If your sentence is expected to continue for most of or all ten years, then you are a resident of the prison.

[jimrtex]

There are two issues being conflated.

The Census definition is where you sleep most the time, and has been so since 1790.

Voting should be tied to domicile. Districts for equal protection purposes should be based on eligible voters (citizens over age 18, excluding felons and others with legal disabilities).

[Tintrlvr]

Setting aside arguments about redistricting, which I think are relevant but are not the point: Most recent place of residence prior to imprisonment.

Yes, imprisoned people stay overnight in prison. On the other hand, they are clearly not part of society in the location and don't use the resources provided by government where they are imprisoned. They are provided for entirely through the prison system (whether state, local or federal) that is imprisoning them, so they are essential irrelevant for determining things like allocation of typical government services. The Census is used for more than redistricting; it is also used in, for example, determining whether a county should be treated as rural or urban for purposes of national or state policy initiatives, for allocating resources on issues like schools or roads, etc. Prisoners are irrelevant to these considerations in the place where they are imprisoned because they don't attend school or have children attending school in the place where they are imprisoned, they don't drive on roads, they don't farm or commute, they don't do anything except be imprisoned. On the other hand, the location of their most recent prior residence is by far the most likely location for them to relocate after prison; possibly not to the same Census block group or tract but at the very least the same municipality, county or neighborhood, and their personal ties and costs to the government will be incurred in that location. Therefore, for allocation of resources, resources should be allocated on the basis of their prior residence, not their place of imprisonment. This isn't really the case, by the way, for any other group that I can think of; e.g., college students definitely do use general pool resources in the college town where they are presently residing, even if it's just temporary for them.

There is also a fundamental difference in the political argument compared to other non-voters is that the government clearly has control over where prisoners are (and can manipulate where prisoners are for political advantage); it's not a case of counting people where they naturally appear.

[Indy Texas]

There are two issues being conflated.

The Census definition is where you sleep most the time, and has been so since 1790.

Voting should be tied to domicile. Districts for equal protection purposes should be based on eligible voters (citizens over age 18, excluding felons and others with legal disabilities).

That has never been done. We counted slaves as 3/5 of people. We counted women before they were given the vote.

[jimrtex]

This is the Federal Register criteria, which includes the reasoning of the Census Bureau.

Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria (PDF)

Setting aside arguments about redistricting, which I think are relevant but are not the point: Most recent place of residence prior to imprisonment.

Yes, imprisoned people stay overnight in prison. On the other hand, they are clearly not part of society in the location and don't use the resources provided by government where they are imprisoned. They are provided for entirely through the prison system (whether state, local or federal) that is imprisoning them, so they are essential irrelevant for determining things like allocation of typical government services. The Census is used for more than redistricting; it is also used in, for example, determining whether a county should be treated as rural or urban for purposes of national or state policy initiatives, for allocating resources on issues like schools or roads, etc. Prisoners are irrelevant to these considerations in the place where they are imprisoned because they don't attend school or have children attending school in the place where they are imprisoned, they don't drive on roads, they don't farm or commute, they don't do anything except be imprisoned. On the other hand, the location of their most recent prior residence is by far the most likely location for them to relocate after prison; possibly not to the same Census block group or tract but at the very least the same municipality, county or neighborhood, and their personal ties and costs to the government will be incurred in that location. Therefore, for allocation of resources, resources should be allocated on the basis of their prior residence, not their place of imprisonment. This isn't really the case, by the way, for any other group that I can think of; e.g., college students definitely do use general pool resources in the college town where they are presently residing, even if it's just temporary for them.

There is also a fundamental difference in the political argument compared to other non-voters is that the government clearly has control over where prisoners are (and can manipulate where prisoners are for political advantage); it's not a case of counting people where they naturally appear.

The Census Bureau wants an accurate count. It wants everyone resident in the US, excluding foreign diplomats to be counted, counted once and only once (the only group subject to overcount are whites in their late teens, who get counted by their parents and away at college).

93.2% of persons (a number I just made up) are easy to determine residence (whether they are easy to count is another matter). So you need to have some rules that are relatively easy to apply.

Lots of people sleep in hotels on March 31st (or maybe April 1). You have to go to the manager to determine which might be usually resident. Some are renting by the week or month. Others might be between residences. I have moved between cities and for a few weeks was living in a hotel - long enough that my employer who was paying moving expenses raised a concern. There may be a program to have guests report their address of usual residence so that it can be verified whether they are reported there.

Since most persons are reported as part of households, would you have those households report for the person?

Person 6: Name: John Doe
Relationship to Persons 1: Former unmarried partner of spouse
Temporarily Sleeping away from Home: Yes.
Where, How long: Angola Prison, 5 years.

The only constitutional purpose of the census is to apportion representation A small number of persons in federal prison will be counted in the wrong state. Should prisoners who had lived in Alabama, but were temporarily living in a motel in Texarkana, TX, before holding up a liquor store in Texarkana, AR be counted? What if they were incarcerated for 6 months in Arkansas before being sent to prison?

If a government agency is using raw numbers for policy initiatives, then that is their problem. If they expect a lot of young school children because of a lot of persons in their early 20s. disproportionately Black and Hispanic, the problem is their formula.

The Census Bureau no longer designates as urban clusters areas where the population is based solely on prison population (if the prison is adjacent to a populated area that qualifies by itself, then the prison can be attached). This is a correct approach.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a state keeping records of prisoners, including relatives, persons to warn if the prisoner is released, etc., which might help them rehabilitate upon release..

It is kind of like using census data for school planning, when you have extremely accurate student counts available directly?

[jimrtex]

There are two issues being conflated.

The Census definition is where you sleep most the time, and has been so since 1790.

Voting should be tied to domicile. Districts for equal protection purposes should be based on eligible voters (citizens over age 18, excluding felons and others with legal disabilities).

That has never been done. We counted slaves as 3/5 of people. We counted women before they were given the vote.

You appear to be arguing if an area of the state had 100,000 free persons, with no slaves; and another area had 100,000 free persons and 100,000 slaves.

That Area A with 100/260 of the Census Population should have 19/50 of legislative districts.

If we assume universal adult male suffrage, and half the adult population female, and half the population under 21.

Then in Area A there would be 1316 voters per district; and in Area B, 806 voters per district.