Brenda Wright, an attorney with the public policy group Demos — which backed the lawsuit along with the Prison Policy Initiative — said the the litigation was aimed at getting localities to account for prisoners where it truly counts.
The ruling concluded that Cranston artificially inflated the population of Ward 6 by treating all inmates of the ACI as residents of the prison for redistricting purposes.
``I’m thrilled that our fight for equal representation has been successful,’’ said Karen Davidson, lead plaintiff, in a news release. ``Fairness in redistricting is a fundamental right and I’m glad the court has vindicated our claims.’’
Lagueux gave the city thirty days to redraw the districts.
“This is a big win for democracy,” said Adam Lioz of Demos, counsel for the plaintiffs. “Prison gerrymandering distorts representation and should no longer be tolerated. This decision should pave the way for other courts to address this long-standing problem.”
Plaintiffs argued that the "prison gerrymandering" improperly considered ACI prisoners as constituents of local elected officials when they are instead "residents of their pre-incarceration communities for virtually all legal purposes, including voting."
"I'm thrilled that our fight for equal representation has been successful," said lead plaintiff Karen Davidson, of Cranston. "Fairness in redistricting is a fundamental right and I'm glad that the court has vindicated our claims."
Political leverage is another factor separating the top 20 percent from the rest of America. The top quintile is equipped to exercise much more influence over politics and policy than its share of the electorate would suggest. Although by definition this group represents 20 percent of all Americans, it represents about 30 percent of the electorate, in part because of high turnout levels.
"First, studies suggest that rights restoration decreases recidivism rates, by allowing returning citizens to fully participate in society," Sean McElwee, a research analyst for think tank Demos, previously toldMic. "Second, because numerous studies show that turnout is correlated with government transfers and responsiveness, voting rights restoration would force politicians to respond to returning citi
Wednesday’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of two non-profit organizations, including the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless. Brian Davis, the director of that organization, said in a statement that homeless voters are illegally shut out of the democratic process because of Ohio’s recent purges.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to block Ohio from conducting purges in the future, and for the restoration of the illegally purged voters to the rolls.
But Sean McElwee recently argued for Slate that “No, Jeb Bush’s failed campaign doesn’t mean Citizens United doesn’t matter”:
Saying that money doesn’t matter in politics because Jeb didn’t win the nomination is like saying because all the advertising in the world can’t make prune juice the best-selling drink in the United States, it’s worthless for Pepsi to buy Super Bowl spots.
The advocates' letter threatens legal action if the state doesn’t cooperate.
Scott Novakowski, an attorney with Demos, said the groups hope to come to an understanding with the state and map out short-term and long-term solutions for the problems.
Nevada still is mired in a lawsuit filed in 2012 by some of the same groups concerning a different part of the law, which requires public assistance agencies to register people to vote.
Adam Lioz, who is counsel and senior adviser for the campaign finance reform advocacy group Demos, agrees, telling Truthout he is confident that the president will select a nominee with a strong record on campaign finance reform, but is more worried about whether the president will be able to move forward any potential nominee at all.
The 2016 election is the first Presidential election that will occur since the Supreme Court struck down key provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Partially because of the weakened VRA, 10 states passed harsh new voting restrictions that will be in full force for 2016, including seven new voter ID laws. New studies suggest that the motivation of these laws is suppressing non-white voters, and worryingly, that they will be successful at doing so.
The 2016 election is the first Presidential election that will occur since the Supreme Court struck down key provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Partially because of the weakened VRA, 10 states passed harsh new voting restrictions that will be in full force for 2016, including seven new voter ID laws. New studies suggest that the motivation of these laws is suppressing non-white voters, and worryingly, that they will be successful at doing so.
Political scientists who have studied voter registration have found generally that young and highly mobile people are the ones least likely to be registered. They tend to have lower incomes as well.
For example, in a 2015 report, ‘Why Voting Matters,’ a research associate at Demos, Sean McElwee, found that “white Americans, and particularly affluent white Americans” are much more likely to vote than “people of color, low-income people, and young people.”
Advocates of automatic voter registration won two legislative battles in Oregon and California this year, and lost another in New Jersey when GOP Governor Chris Christie vetoed automatic registration legislation last month.
The elections board said registration activity is back to levels from previous odd-numbered years. Part of the issue, the board said, was local social service agencies had been printing registration forms that were not coded as coming from these agencies. Issues related to DMV's online address updates also are being addressed, Strach said.
“Alabama’s recent settlement with the Department of Justice doesn’t address the state’s photo ID law,” Lisa Danetz, the legal director for Demos, which before the deal played a leading role in raising concerns about Alabama’s compliance with Motor Voter, confirmed. “Instead, it relates to the federal requirement that the state must provide voter registration during driver’s license transactions.”
Higher turnout has the possibility of weakening the donor class’s grip on policy. It could also reduce the influence of the extreme right wing on politics. It’s not surprising that the GOP, which benefits from a low-turnout, strong-donor environment, supports voting laws that tend to reduce turnout.
According to Sean McElwee, a researcher who studies voting rights at the progressive think tank Demos, some studies suggest up to 2.5% of the population is unable to vote thanks to such laws.