U.S. Department of Justice, Office Of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships - Safer Neighborhoods
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Working for Youth Justice and Safety
skip navigationAbout OJJDPE-NewsOJJDP resources organized topicallyFundingProgramsState representatives and organizations that administer OJJDP programsPublicationsleft navigation groupPublications SearchNCJRS LibraryTypes of PublicationsList of All PublicationsOJJDP's Statistical Briefing BookOJJDP conferences, teleconferences, and juvenile justice-related eventsToolsHome
   Home > Publications > Abstract

    Publication Abstract

OJJDP News @ a Glance, September/October 2013
(NCJ 243534) October 2013
OJJDP News @ a Glance , Newsletter, 1 page(s)
This means that the State should stop using U.S. Census Bureau data that count incarcerated people at correctional facility locations and begin counting them as residents at their home addresses for redistricting purposes. The process of drawing voting districts that each contain approximately the same number of people breaks down when a State relies on data that count an entire population in the wrong place. Crediting many thousands of incarcerated people to census blocks where they do not live as residents significantly enhances the weight of votes cast in districts that contain prisons; and it dilutes the votes cast in every other district. Connecticut State law provides that “No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in any town by reason of his absence therefrom in any institution maintained by the State.“ Although Connecticut law prohibits people incarcerated for a felony from voting, approximately 28 percent of the prison population retains the right to vote either because those individuals are not convicted and awaiting trial, or because they were sentenced for a misdemeanor. The State statutes are explicit that when these individuals vote, they must do so as residents of their home communities. 1 table and appended discussion of “Prison Gerrymandering and Existing Population Deviations in Connecticut”