Census decision could shift more power to cities

posted at 11:36 am on February 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration has made a subtle but important change in the timing of Census Bureau reports involving prisoners, one long sought by big cities that farm out their prisoners to the hinterlands.  The Census will now report prison counts based on home residency of each prisoner back to states before redistricting decisions are made.  The change could allow cities to fight in redistricting efforts to shift power to large urban areas in Congressional redistricting — a move that would tend to help Democrats gain more seats in Congress:

Prisoners will soon be bigger players in those high-stakes redistricting fights, even if unwittingly, thanks to a change in federal policy governing how they’re to be counted in the 2010 census.

Prison populations have historically been included in national headcounts, but now Census officials will make data on inmate populations available to states earlier than in the past.

This change will allow states to decide whether to count inmates for purposes of redistricting. If a state makes that choice, it would have to decide where inmates should be considered residents — in rural towns, where prisons are often built, or in cities, where many prisoners come from.

Until now, the bureau provided breakdowns on group quarters, like prisons, only after states had finished their redistricting. That resulted in districts with prisons getting extra representation in their legislatures, despite laws in some states that say a prison cell is not a residence.

Several years ago, the New York Times editorial board adopted this as a hobby horse in a fact-challenged crusade to count felons in their home cities.  Until now, no one has heard much about the issue since, but the motives here are obvious.  Most large cities do not maintain prisons in their jurisdictions, but farm prisoners out to rural areas.  The move allows cities to shed the burden of costs and security, as well as use valuable real estate for tax-generating purposes, while delivering a mixed bag of revenue opportunities and security risks for the local residents.

The cities basically want to eat their cake and have it, too.  They want credit for the prison population without actually having to house and maintain the prisoners.  The Times cast the status quo ante as some sort of Republican plot to steal representation (and federal government largesse) from urban areas, with one of its columnists at the time claiming that mandatory sentencing and three-strikes laws were part of a Republican conspiracy to steal both from Democrats in urban areas.

The solution to this was obvious: New York City could have built its own prison and housed its own reprobates, as could Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Denver, and so on.  (Major cities maintain jails for processing criminal defendants and short sentences, but not usually prisons for longer-term convicts.)  As it is, though, the cities routinely transfer the costs and burdens of prisoners outside of their jurisdictions.  There is no justification for granting them credit for the prisoners as residents of the cities, because quite literally, they aren’t residing there while they’re in prison.  States can pass all the laws they want, but it doesn’t change the laws of physics: a prisoner locked up for several years in one place cannot be said to be residing simultaneously miles away.

The Census Bureau now wants to play along with the cities to make it easier for them to demand redistricting that favors them next year, based on phantom populations that obviously are nowhere near where the cities claim.  That will bear watching in each state as the Census Bureau reports its data and the states start working on drawing new maps for Congressional districts.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Democrat power hinges on felons. Who could have guessed?

daesleeper on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

How could you think they would try and game the system to their poilitical advantage?

I’m shocked.

Mr. Bingley on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Has Snake Plissken been asked for comment?

TugboatPhil on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

This means Durham County will “win” big!!

SouthernGent on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM

The Democrat Party – giving rapists, robbers, murderers and felons more rights than you since 1960.

You must be proud, crr6. Those are your peeps in those cell blocks.

Good Lt on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Hey, it’s jailbait.

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM

This could be significant in Pennsylvania. But luckily we will have a Republican Governor and legislature by then.

:-)

rockmom on February 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Great, let’s give more political power to the most anarchic cities that produce the most felons. And we’ll do it by counting people who don’t even live there.

forest on February 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM

This isn’t just about redistricting either, it is about distribution of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds, which are based on population. Cities want to claim as many residents as possible to qualify for more funds. There may be other formula-based programs that depend on population as well.

rockmom on February 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Says the head Cockaroach of Downtown Detroit.

portlandon on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

States can pass all the laws they want, but it doesn’t change the laws of physics: a prisoner locked up for several years in one place cannot be said to be residing simultaneously miles away.

They’re temporarily in the prison, but they’re still domiciled in the city. They still have an intention to reside in the city indefinitely (when they get out of prison). Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Why are felons (who can’t even vote right?) even counted in the Census as being part of a population for redistricting purposes?

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Obamanation!

Christian Conservative on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

rockmom on February 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM

So it’s about “free stuff”?

thomasaur on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

So this mean that ALL the illegals in our prisons are now going to be counted as citizens now?
L

letget on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Why are felons (who can’t even vote right?) even counted in the Census as being part of a population for redistricting purposes?

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Yeah! I mean at most they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person, right?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

crr6′s rush to flop down in defense of this is the biggest unintentional confession it has probably made here.

daesleeper on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM

They’re temporarily in the prison, but they’re still domiciled in the city. They still have an intention to reside in the city indefinitely (when they get out of prison). Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Sounds like you hace some first person experience with this situation.

thomasaur on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Simple- every state that finds its prisoners vanishing into the ether of the Census simply sends those prisoners back to the cities where the Census says they are residing.

Jay Mac on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM

This census is already a joke.

brak on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Everyone temporarily resides where they currently live.

There’s no guarantee I won’t move to a new district within the next 10 years, either. I should really get to decide for myself where I belong, right?

Idiots.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

They still have an intention to reside in the city indefinitely (when they get out of prison). Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

1) What would the statistics say about the family of the prisoner moving to the town the prison is in? If the family moves, then does the prisoners residency change?

2) How many prisoners do go back into the city that they came from?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

They’re temporarily in the prison, but they’re still domiciled in the city. They still have an intention to reside in the city indefinitely (when they get out of prison). Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Spoken like a lawyer. Common sense thrown out the window.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

So the gangbanger doing life in Attica still “resides” in the South Bronx?

Wow, that’s a lot to buy, Lefties. That’s a lot to buy.

Techie on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Sounds like you hace some first person experience with this situation.

thomasaur on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Yep. I went to undergrad in a different state from where I grew up. I intended to return to my home state when I graduated. My residency didn’t change simply because I was temporarily attending college in a different state.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Why are felons (who can’t even vote right?) even counted in the Census as being part of a population for redistricting purposes?

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

That is an excellent question; one I want the answer to also.

BobOfTexas on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Yo, law student wanna be! Aren’t you supposed to be in class or studying?

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Yeah! I mean at most they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person, right?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Wow, it didn’t take you long to resort to pulling out the “you’re a racist” card. I guess I must be winning the argument.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM

If they’re going to count prisoners using their home cities, why not our armed forces on military bases?

You would not believe the fighting that went on when we counted the soldiers at Ft. Campbell Kentucky, half of which is technically in the state of Tennessee.

Knucklehead on February 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Everyone temporarily resides where they currently live.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Brilliant lorien, brilliant.

Look up how residency is determined, then comment.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

OT: uh oh NJ Dems panties in a knot!

sonnyspats1 on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Prisoners don’t get to vote they ought not to count in the census while they are incarcerated.

johnsteele on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

A drop in the bucket compared to all the “Doodad Pros” that will be counted in the cities.

I guess resident is all relative, anyway. We can look for to many illegal residents that will dwarf the prison population, in addition to imaginary residents.

The left can see the writing on the wall, and at the rate that they are losing independents, they need to create votes any way they can.

reaganaut on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Why do you always smell like prison sex…?

Seven Percent Solution on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I think crr6 is on to something here – why don’t we organize ourselves are change our ‘domiciles’ to enough states where we’ll get solid control of the Senate. Don’t worry you don’t have to change your residency though – just your ‘domicile’.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Wow, it didn’t take you long to resort to pulling out the “you’re a racist” card. I guess I must be winning the argument.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Libs always keep it handy.

VegasRick on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Exactly. The prisoners currently reside in a different district (assumed) thus they obviously don’t reside in the district where they “live”.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Yeah! I mean at most they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person, right?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Tipped your racist mitt there didn’t you.

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM
____________________

No. You should change your residence to VA while you are going to school and change it back IF you move back to NY.

You are basically saying that residence should be determined by the INTENTION of somebody in the future, and not their current location now.

Yeah, that makes sense.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Crap!

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

– Thomas Jefferson

WashJeff on February 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Residency is where you reside…the dems tried this by signing up college students illegally to vote.
It would take a liberal to figure out how to try to scam the system.
The census can’t predict where you will live in the future.
Going to college, you graduated and you have three offers from Miami, Houston, San Diego, and you are from New York. Where are you going to live? So where is the census numbers applied to?
A prisoner is recommended not to go back to New York, in the three years his family has relocated, it can’t be predicted…the only absolute is where he resides as of the census.
How about the hardened criminal on parole in New York, chances are he will be in jail and not be able to vote, so he shouldn’t be counted?
This is a typical liberal scam…it figures you would embrace it.

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM

1) What would the statistics say about the family of the prisoner moving to the town the prison is in? If the family moves, then does the prisoners residency change?

2) How many prisoners do go back into the city that they came from?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM

1) I don’t know.
2) Good question. I don’t have any statistics on that, but I’d be willing to bet most go back to their home when they’re out, rather than staying in whatever rural sh**hole their prison is located in, where they know absolutely no one.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I think we should do like those people who didn’t want residency checks for voter registration. Just register to vote where you “live” and where you really live.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

The census should count where people are actually living as much as possible, not where they intend to be or where they would rather to be.

That might be tricky with some college students and “snow birds”, but it should be very easy with long term prisoners. Just count them where they actually are.

forest on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Yeah! I mean at most they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person, right?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM
____________________

They should count as 1 person, where they are, not where they might be sometime in the future, since there is no way to believe or prove that someone intends to move back to the city.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Screw this, they want the prisoners to be counted then they have to take them back. Eat your cake and choke on it cities. Obama, politicizing the Census, not surprised. This needs to be made into a major issue or challenged in the courts because showing such favoritism to urban areas over rural goes against everything this country was founded. The whole reason we even have an electoral college instead of a popular vote to elect the President is to protect rural areas.

Daemonocracy on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Can these prisoners even vote (ever)? If not, then are they being counted for redistricting reasons?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Not presumably. They were found guilty in a court of law.

Your NYC to college in Virginia analogy fails because the NYC mover is not a felon. Why does this even need to be explained to you? Don’t bother answering, it’s rhetorical and we all know the reason.

shick on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

So if prisoners are to be counted where they should reside if not in prison, then it follows that the same is true for illegal aliens.

WashJeff on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

2) Good question. I don’t have any statistics on that, but I’d be willing to bet most go back to their home when they’re out, rather than staying in whatever rural sh**hole their prison is located in, where they know absolutely no one.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM
___________________

Base residency on what liberals want, not reality. Good job.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

You are basically saying that residence should be determined by the INTENTION of somebody in the future, and not their current location now.

Yeah, that makes sense.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM

That’s the law. If you stay with your family in California for a month, should your residency in NY change?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

After my wife’s fellowship is up, we’re relocating to either NJ, NY, MA, or GA.

Maybe we should count for all of those. I mean, we MIGHT live in them sometime in the future.

Techie on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

WashJeff on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

True. True. LOL

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Yeah! I mean at most they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person, right?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Your racism is gets really tiring…I guess you think all criminals are black?
You are a typical liberal racist hack…

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Can these prisoners even vote (ever)? If not, then are they being counted for redistricting reasons?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM
___________________________

You don’t have to be a felon to be in prison. But regardless, only a handful of states permenantly strip felons of their right to vote.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

1) I don’t know.
2) Good question. I don’t have any statistics on that, but I’d be willing to bet most go back to their home when they’re out, rather than staying in whatever rural sh**hole their prison is located in, where they know absolutely no one.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I have family in a rural sh**hole prison town (I think 3 prisons/jails in total). One reason it’s such a sh**hole is because the prisoners entire family will move to the sh**hole and then leach off of the system and contribute to the crime rate. I don’t have statistics, but neither do you… so all I can go on is experience. You?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

What if the prisoner will essentially never be let out of prison? He doesn’t reside in the prison even in this case?

This is fantastic – cities with really high crime rates are now due more representation because they can move out their criminal ‘residents’ and people will move into the space they occupied.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Yes.

Darth Executor on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

You don’t have to be a felon to be in prison. But regardless, only a handful of states permenantly strip felons of their right to vote.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM

OK, so in these states… what happens?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

That’s the law. If you stay with your family in California for a month, should your residency in NY change?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM
______________

Really? YES, because you are living in CA, not NY.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

rather than staying in whatever rural sh**hole their prison is located in,

crr6, ladies and gentlemen. All class.

Techie on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

The Democrat Party – giving rapists, robbers, murderers and felons more rights than you since 1960.

Good Lt on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Comment of the Day™

steveegg on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

How would the people on death row or in for life be counted as to where they ‘live’?
L

letget on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM

States can pass all the laws they want, but it doesn’t change the laws of physics: a prisoner locked up for several years in one place cannot be said to be residing simultaneously miles away.

Actually my understanding of quantum mechanics(which is limited) actually does state that an object can be in 2 places at once. (Of course this is only observable for very small objects but it’s literally true on the quantum level.)

Dave_d on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

OK, so in these states… what happens?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM
_____________

I’m a felon who will never be able to vote again unless the Governor of Virginia grants that right back to me.

I’m still counted.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

It’s why we have a senate. It’s why states have a bicameral legislation. Play all the games you want with population. The senate is supposed to balance that out. (As if.)

Skandia Recluse on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Why are felons (who can’t even vote right?) even counted in the Census as being part of a population for redistricting purposes?

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

So there’ll be enough convenience stores for them to hold up when they get out.

TugboatPhil on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

They’re temporarily in the prison, but they’re still domiciled in the city. They still have an intention to reside in the city indefinitely (when they get out of prison). Why would you change their domicile because they were (presumably) involuntarily placed in an alternate location?

Think of it this way. If you are from NYC, but go to college in Virginia with plans to return to NYC when you graduate, should your residency be changed form NYC to Virginia? Of course not.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I just love it when libs demonstrate how shallow and faulty their thinking is.

Midas on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

That’s the law. If you stay with your family in California for a month, should your residency in NY change?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

So now you are changing it from 4 years of college to one month?
Kinda of losing the battle aren’t you?
Keep posting you are F’in brilliant…it’s residency, not vacation, or “visiting”….just got to say it, we are all laughing at you, keep posting.

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I think we should do like those people who didn’t want residency checks for voter registration. Just register to vote where you “live” and where you really live.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Democracy crr6 style! Liberals and criminals get twice the votes as everyone else!

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

So there’ll be enough convenience stores for them to hold up when they get out.

TugboatPhil on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM
____________

You’re retarded.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM

you know crr6, I was going to go all-in agreeing with your definition of residency v. domicile (yep, I went to law school), but after you said prisons are in rural sh*tholes, you’ll never get an atta boy from me.

we have one prison in Lunenburg county. one prison in Nottoway co & also the sexual predator unit there.

they are big employers.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Can these prisoners even vote (ever)? If not, then are they being counted for redistricting reasons?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Convicted felons cannot vote, or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be……….

ya know what I mean?

Knucklehead on February 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Convicted felons cannot vote, or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be……….

ya know what I mean?

Knucklehead on February 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM
___________________

No.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM

and in Virginia, the current law is that the prison population is counted as population where the prison is–not where the criminals came from.

and it is not necessarily true that all prisoners in Va prisons are from Virginia.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I’m a felon who will never be able to vote again unless the Governor of Virginia grants that right back to me.

I’m still counted.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

But how do you affect the census? For example do you (well, a single person won’t make a huge difference) affect redistricting even though you don’t vote?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

By this tortured logic, I intend to live in my home state of Georgia again at some point. School took me to MA and then work currently has taken me to MI. However, since I intend to go back to Atlanta at some point, I should count as a resident there for census purposes.

Right?

Techie on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Can these prisoners even vote (ever)? If not, then are they being counted for redistricting reasons?

MeatHeadinCA on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Depends on the laws in your state. In Florida, convicted felons lose their voting rights. We also have that groovy “castle law” thingy. crr6 drop by any time.

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM

That’s the law. If you stay with your family in California for a month, should your residency in NY change?

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Wow, you *are* thick.

A month? LOL

The people in question reside in rural prisons longer than most people ‘outside’ live in one place.

If someone sends them mail, where does it go?

If you want to visit them, where do you go?

Want to send them a birthday package, where is it sent?

All of the above go where they *live*, you idiot. And that’s where they should be counted.

Midas on February 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I think we should do like those people who didn’t want residency checks for voter registration. Just register to vote where you “live” and where you really live.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

One more, where you want to live…

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM

also, in Va., a convicted felon must petition the governor to have voting rights restored. of course, our former Gov & DNC chair Timmy Kaine, restored lots of voting rights to felons right before the presidential election.

hey, you didn’t think bambi won Virginia fair & square, did you?

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM

and it is not necessarily true that all prisoners in Va prisons are from Virginia.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Good point. What about federal prisoners? They’re not likely be held in the same state they committed their crime.

But I guess crr6 prefers all this confusion and some sort of bureaucratic structure to fail at successfully managing it all instead of doing the simple effective fair and common sense things: you’re counted where you currently exist in the space-time continuum.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 12:04 PM

and it is not necessarily true that all prisoners in Va prisons are from Virginia.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

True.

And for the number of years that they *are* in prison in VA, where do they *live*?

VA.

Midas on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Good. crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The Democrats’s natural constituency: murderers, rapists, theives, druggies… Funny how allowing our basest citizens to vote or be counted in the census would benefit the Democrats.

Akzed on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

the residency v. domicile test is slightly more complex than mere “intent”. but “intent” is a big part of it.

mostly, it can be argued any which way but loose.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Also you have the problem of what if 2 cities adopt different policies. The same people could be counted twice.

And that’s the problem with making confusing, dumb changes like this. If the goal is truly a count of the population, then its not necessary. The people -are- being counted. If the goal, however, is to rig certain districts, then this makes sense.

lorien1973 on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

By this tortured logic, I intend to live in my home state of Georgia again at some point. School took me to MA and then work currently has taken me to MI. However, since I intend to go back to Atlanta at some point, I should count as a resident there for census purposes.

Right?

Techie on February 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Why not all 3! Don’t forget to vote in all 3 states. Our friendly ACORN representative will get back with you on how to pull this off!

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

What about prisoners held across state lines?

What about prisoners voting? If they’re counted where they came from, I guess they should vote by absentee ballot.

This whole thing is sick.

zmdavid on February 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM

midas: yes, prisoners held in Va. Prisons are counted for Va. purposes as being residents of the locality where prison sits.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Why not all 3! Don’t forget to vote in all 3 states. Our friendly ACORN representative will get back with you on how to pull this off!

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Depends on which party you plan to vote for, I suspect.

Midas on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I am pretty sure crr6 is not going to be posting much more…they pretty much got laughed off the thread.
In one thread showed how liberals are racists, bigots, think about rural cities, how important criminals are to their cause, and does not understand simple definitions of words like “resident”; other words pretty ugly stupid is what crr6 is showed us.
But great for a laugh.

right2bright on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Gosh, when it gets down to considering prisoners as that big of a game-changer, I’d say we’re over-imprisoning in this country.

AnninCA on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I can’t wait for Rush Limbaugh to buy a house in each of the 57 states and be counted 57 times.

gwelf on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I’m a felon who will never be able to vote again unless the Governor of Virginia grants that right back to me.

I’m still counted.

uknowmorethanme on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Yes, you are counted where you actually reside. Check with a legal aid advocate to get your voting rights back. Depends on the felony.

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

midas: yes, prisoners held in Va. Prisons are counted for Va. purposes as being residents of the locality where prison sits.

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM

As it should be, which is my point – rather than trying to count them as a resident of a non-Virginia area that they may have come from before prison.

Midas on February 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Good.

crr6 on February 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Ladies, and gents. A prime example of brain damage being a terrible thing to waste.

capejasmine on February 12, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Crooks.

publiuspen on February 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM

annica: my husband is circuit court judge in virginia. highest trial court in virginia. what should he do with convicted child molesters, rapists, etc? i think they should go to prison.

i guess the sticky wicket is what should be done with those that sell marijuana? or possess cocaine?

kelley in virginia on February 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3