Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Virginia becoming 9th state to end 'prison gerrymanders'

Virginia prison

Supporters of "prison gerrymandering" argue inmates should be counted where they are incarcerated to boost funding for local infrastructure. Above: Virginia's Keen Mountain Correctional Facility.

Virginia prisoners will be counted in their home districts when congressional and state legislative maps are redrawn for the coming decade.

The state is about to become the ninth, and the third this year, to enact laws ending the practice known as "prison gerrymandering," the term coined by critics for counting inmates as residents where they are incarcerated instead of where they used to live.

Proponents of the change say the practice unfairly shifts power to rural districts at the expense of urban areas where a majority of the prisoners are from. But, to date, all the states that have made the switch are under Democratic governance.


Virginia's legislation moved through the General Assembly in February, soon after Democrats took total control of Richmond for the first time since 1993. Gov. Ralph Northam agreed to sign the measure after a technical correction, which legislators made Wednesday.

Those representing areas where prisons are located have opposed such bills nationwide, saying their communities deserve a greater share of government services — often tied to the population totals reported by the census once a decade — because of the people housed in prisons.

Colorado and New Jersey also ended prison gerrymandering this year. Nevada and Washington did so last year. The states that have done so earlier are California, Delaware, Maryland and New York. Bills to reverse the practice died this winter in several states, however, including Connecticut and Oregon.

Some states have changed the way prisoners are apportioned only for legislative mapmaking, while others have made the switch for congressional and local line drawing.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less