September, 02 2016, 09:45am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,press@civilrights.org,Phone: (202) 869-0398
40 Civil Rights Groups Urge Census to Stop Miscounting Prisoners
Practice Leads to a “Discriminatory Census Result”
WASHINGTON
The Census Bureau has come under fire from a coalition of 40 civil rights, faith, and low-income groups for its proposal to continue miscounting prisoners as residents of their prisons, instead of their homes, leading to a "distortion of democracy" and a "discriminatory census result."
In a letter sent to the Census Bureau yesterday, the broad coalition of organizations said: "The Bureau's proposal to continue counting incarcerated people at the facility in which they are housed on Census Day ignores the transient and temporary nature of incarceration...If made final, this proposal will lead to another decade of vital policy decisions based on a census that counts incarcerated people in the wrong place."
The letter, signed by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the NALEO Education Fund, and 36 other groups, was sent to the Census Bureau in response to a formal comment period on the proposal that ended on September 1.
In the letter, the groups list several concerns with the proposal, including that "despite significant changes in the location and composition of the incarcerated population, especially over the last several decades, the policy governing the enumeration of incarcerated persons has not similarly evolved to reflect these consequential shifts in the relationship between the location of incarcerated persons on Census Day and their 'usual residence.'"
"Failure to count incarcerated persons at their home address preserves an unacceptably discriminatory census result that deprives underserved urban neighborhoods of fair representation, while shifting political power to communities that do not represent the interests of incarcerated persons or their families, " the letter states. Because of this, "predominantly African-American and Latino communities will continue to be hit especially hard by an outdated policy that renders so many of their young men invisible for all statistical purposes."
The groups also note the glaring, and yet unexplained, inconsistency of continuing this practice after the Bureau changed its policy to begin counting deployed military service members at their home addresses instead of their military bases.
These concerns were shared by an overwhelming majority of commenters in previous years and in letters sent this week by the past two former directors of the Census Bureau and 35 foundations.
"In what world is prison considered someone's usual residence?" asked Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "Miscounting people who are incarcerated robs them of their identities, their personhood, and their right to proper representation in our democracy. At 1.5 million, there are more people in prison than there are in each of ten states. Miscounting the largest prison population in human history is a statistical failure, a moral failure, and a failure of our democracy."
The letter is linked here and copied below.
-----
Re: 2020 Census Residence Rule and Residence Situations
Dear Ms. Humes:
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the undersigned organizations, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in response to the Census Bureau's Federal Register notice regarding the Residence Rule and Residence Situations, 81 FR 42577 (June 30, 2016).
The Bureau's proposal to continue counting incarcerated people at the facility in which they are housed on Census Day ignores the transient and temporary nature of incarceration. It also is inconsistent with other changes included in the same set of proposed residence criteria for the 2020 Census. If made final, this proposal will lead to another decade of vital policy decisions based on a census that counts incarcerated people in the wrong place. Therefore, we urge you to count incarcerated people as members of the community from which they come and not as members of the community in which they are incarcerated on Census Day.
American demographics and living situations have changed dramatically over the more than two centuries since the first census in 1790. Census methods and operations have evolved in response to many of these changes, in order to continue to provide an accurate portrait of the nation, its people, and its communities. But despite significant changes in the location and composition of the incarcerated population, especially over the last several decades, the policy governing the enumeration of incarcerated persons has not similarly evolved to reflect these consequential shifts in the relationship between the location of incarcerated persons on Census Day and their "usual residence."
The Census Bureau's decision to maintain the status quo ignores overwhelming public comments in favor of an updated policy that recognizes the temporal nature of most incarcerations. Moreover, the proposed method of counting the incarcerated population is inconsistent with how the Census Bureau counts other groups that eat and sleep in a location that is not their usual residence. Finally, the policy that the Census Bureau is proposing to retain will result in census counts that skew the distribution of political representation and our very understanding of the composition and well-being of communities across America, for an entire decade following the census.
The Census Bureau's Proposal is against the Weight of Public Consensus
The Census Bureau blatantly ignored the overwhelming consensus urging a change in the census count for incarcerated persons. When the Bureau asked for public comment on its residence rules last year, 96 percent of the comments regarding residence rules for incarcerated persons urged the Bureau to count incarcerated persons at their home address, which is almost always their legal address. This level of consensus among stakeholders, which is based on a thorough understanding of the realities of an incarceration system that regularly shuffles incarcerated people between facilities, deserves far more consideration than it was given.
The Census Bureau's Proposal Treats Similarly-Situated Populations Inconsistently and Fails to Recognize the Range of Factors that Often Influence the Criteria Governing Different Situations
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that the concept of "usual residence" established by the Census Act of 1790 has not been consistently applied, through time and across living situations. While the Census Bureau notes in its proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria that usual residence "is not necessarily the same as a person's voting residence or legal residence," former Census Director John G. Keane, in testimony before Congress in 1988, added that it is also not necessarily "where a personis found on Census Day" (emphasis added).1
Equally important is the concept of "enduring ties," which the U.S. Supreme Court referenced in its opinion in Franklin v. Massachusetts2, a case that unsuccessfully challenged the Census Bureau's decision to count military personnel serving overseas in the 1990 Census for purposes of congressional apportionment. The majority opinion in Franklin noted that the concept of usual residence "has been used broadly enough to include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place."
The Census Bureau's decision with respect to incarcerated persons is especially troubling in light of its concurrent decision to change the rule governing where it will count deployed military personnel who are stationed or assigned to a U.S. base. Under the Bureau's proposal, deployed service members will be counted at their home address (usual residence) in the U.S., even if they live and sleep elsewherefor most of the time at the time the census is conducted. Like most incarcerated persons, these service members are away from their homes temporarily; the average length of deployments can vary greatly from decade to decade, depending on U.S. engagement in theaters of military conflict overseas. In its summary of comments on the proposed Residence Criteria for the military overseas, the Census Bureau cites concerns about the need for accurate data to support funding, planning, and services in military communities, but is dismissive of similar arguments regarding an accurate portrait of communities that most incarcerated persons consider to be their usual home and to which most will return following their temporary confinement.
Changing one policy, but not the other, illuminates a glaring inconsistency in the proposed 2020 Census Residence Rules that the Census Bureau has not adequately explained.
The Census Bureau's Proposal Will Reduce the Accuracy of Data and Result in Vote Dilution
Failure to count incarcerated persons at their home address preserves an unacceptably discriminatory census result that deprives underserved urban neighborhoods of fair representation, while shifting political power to communities that do not represent the interests of incarcerated persons or their families. Because African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately incarcerated,3 counting incarcerated people in the wrong location is particularly bad for proper representation of African-American and Latino communities. Thus, predominantly African-American and Latino communities will continue to be hit especially hard by an outdated policy that renders so many of their young men invisible for all statistical purposes.
The proposed counting rules will perpetuate the distortion of democracy that results from padding the population counts of communities with prisons. When state and local officials use the Census Bureau's prison count data attributing "residence" to the prison, they give extra representation to the communities that host the prisons and dilute the representation of everyone else. This vote dilution is particularly extreme for urban communities and communities of color that have disproportionately high rates of incarceration.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Residence Rule and Residence Situations as the Bureau strives to count everyone in the right place, to reflect enormous demographic shifts, changes in the prison infrastructure, and the urgent needs of communities. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Corrine Yu, Managing Policy Director, at 202-466-3311.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
9to5, National Association of Working Women
A. Philip Randolph Institute
AFL-CIO
American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity
American Civil Liberties Union
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Andrew Goodman Foundation
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA)
Coalition on Human Needs
Common Cause
Demos
Franciscan Action Network
Hip Hop Caucus
Justice in Aging
Medical Mission Sisters
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NALEO Education Fund
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
National CAPACD
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA)
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Health Care for the Homeless Council
National LGBTQ Task Force
National Low Income Housing Coalition
National Organization for Women
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
People Demanding Action
Prison Policy Initiative
RESULTS
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)
Southern Coalition for Social Justice
State Voices
Union for Reform Judaism
Voices for Progress
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society - an America as good as its ideals.
(202) 466-3311LATEST NEWS
Plot to Triple Nuclear Power by 2050 Decried as 'Dangerous Distraction' at COP28
"Investing now in nuclear energy is an inefficient route to take to reduce emissions at the scale and pace needed to tackle climate change," said one campaigner.
Dec 02, 2023
Climate campaigners scoffed Saturday at a 22-nation pledge to triple nuclear power capacity by mid-century as a way to ward off the increasing damage of warming temperatures, with opponents calling it a costly and "dangerous" distraction from the urgent need for a fossil fuel phaseout alongside a rapid increase in more affordable and scaleable renewable sources such as wind and solar.
The Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy—backed by the United States, Canada, France, the Czech Republic, and others—was announced as part of the Climate Action Summit taking place in Dubai as a part of the two-week U.N. climate talks known as COP28.
While the document claims a "key role" for nuclear energy to keep "a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach" by 2050 and to help attain the so-called "net-zero emissions" goal that governments and the fossil fuel industry deploy to justify the continued burning of coal, oil, and gas, critics say the false solution of atomic power actually harms the effort to reduce emissions by wasting precious time and money that could be spent better and faster elsewhere.
"There is no space for dangerous nuclear power to accelerate the decarbonization needed to achieve the Paris climate goal," said Masayoshi Iyoda, a 350.org campaigner in Japan who cited the 2011 Fukushima disaster as evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear power.
"There is no space for dangerous nuclear power to accelerate the decarbonization needed to achieve the Paris climate goal."
Nuclear energy, said Iyoda, "is nothing more than a dangerous distraction. The attempt of a 'nuclear renaissance' led by nuclear industries' lobbyists since the 2000s has never been successful—it is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming. We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency."
When word of the multi-nation pledge emerged last month, Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and co-founder of The Solutions Project which offers a roadmap for 100% renewable energy that excludes nuclear energy, called the proposal the "stupidest policy proposal I've ever seen."
Jacobson said the plan to boost nuclear capacity in a manner to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis "will never happen no matter how many goals are set" and added that President Joe Biden was getting "bad advice in the White House" for supporting it.
In comments from Dubai, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said that while he agrees nuclear will be a "sweeping alternative to every other energy source," but claimed that "science and the reality of facts" shows the world cannot "get to net-zero by 2050 with some nuclear."
Numerous studies and blueprints towards a renewable energy future, however, have shown this is not established fact, but rather the position taken by both the nuclear power industry itself and those who would otherwise like to slow the transition to a truly renewable energy system.
Pauline Boyer, energy transition campaign manager with Greenpeace France, said the scientific evidence is clear and it is not in favor of a surge in nuclear power.
"If we wish to maintain a chance of a trajectory of 1.5°C, we must massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the coming years, but nuclear power is too slow to deploy in the face of the climate emergency," she said.
"The announcement of a tripling of capacities is disconnected from reality," Boyer continued. Citing delays and soaring costs, she said the nuclear industry "is losing ground in the global energy mix every day" in favor of renewable energy options that are cheaper, quicker to deploy, and more accessible to developing countries.
In 2016, researchers at the University of Sussex and the Vienna School of International Studies showed that "entrenched commitments to nuclear power" were likely "counterproductive" towards achieving renewable energy targets, especially as "better ways to meet climate goals"—namely solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower–were suppressed.
In response to Saturday's announcement, Soraya Fettih, a 350.org campaigner from France, which relies heavily on nuclear power, said it's simply a move in the wrong direction. "Investing now in nuclear energy is an inefficient route to take to reduce emissions at the scale and pace needed to tackle climate change," said Fettih. "Nuclear energy takes much longer than renewable energy to be operational."
Writing on the subject in 2019, Harvard University professor Naomi Orseskes and renowned author and psychohistorian Robert Jay Lifton observed how advocates of nuclear power declare the technology "clean, efficient, economical, and safe" while in reality "it is none of these. It is expensive and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being."
"There are now more than 450 nuclear reactors throughout the world," they wrote at the time. "If nuclear power is embraced as a rescue technology, there would be many times that number, creating a worldwide chain of nuclear danger zones—a planetary system of potential self-annihilation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter' Denounced as Greenwashing Scheme by Fossil Fuel Arsonists
"Voluntary pledges cannot be a substitute for a formal negotiated outcome at COP28 for countries to address the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels."
Dec 02, 2023
Hundreds of civil society groups and frontline voices from around the world on Saturday condemned a voluntary pledge heralded by government leaders and fossil fuel giants, calling the "Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter" unveiled at the COP28 climate talks in Dubai nothing but a cynical industry-backed smokescreen and greenwashing ploy that will allow for the continuation of massive emissions of carbon, methane, and other greenhouse gases.
"The Oil and Gas Decarbonization Accelerator is a dangerous distraction from the COP28 process," warned David Tong, the global industry campaign manager for Oil Change International, in a statement from Dubai. "We need legal agreements, not voluntary pledges. The science is clear: staying under 1.5ºC global warming requires a full, fast, fair, and funded phase-out of fossil fuels, starting now."
Backed by approximately 50 state-run and private oil and gas companies, the stated aims of the pledge, also being referred to as the Decarbonization Accelerator, is to cut upstream emissions of methane to "near-zero" levels and end "routine flaring"—that is, emissions involved with production but not consumption—by 2030 while aiming for a "net-zero operations" target by 2050.
"Voluntary commitments are a dangerous distraction from what is needed at COP28. Oil and gas companies meeting to sign a pledge that only deals with their operational emissions is like a group of arsonists meeting to promise to light fires more efficiently."
What's key, say the Charter's critics, is both the voluntary nature of the scheme and the glaring fact that it does not include 80-90% of the emissions produced by the industry, namely the downstream consumption of their products—the burning of coal, oil, and fracked gas.
An open letter released by 320 groups on Saturday accuses Sultan al-Jaber, president of COP28 and the chief executive of the host nation's national oil company, of missing a "historic opportunity" by allowing the pledge to grandstand as meaningful progress while the planet experiences its hottest year in 125,000 years.
"The COP28 Presidency appears to have been encouraging fossil fuel companies to make yet another set of hollow voluntary pledges, with no accountability mechanism or guarantee the companies will follow through," the letter states. "Releasing another in the long succession of voluntary industry commitments that end up being breached will not make COP28 a success. Voluntary efforts are insufficient, and are a distraction from the task at hand."
By only aiming to reduce "oil and gas operational emissions without sharp reductions in overall fossil fuel production," the groups argue, the Charter "will fail to achieve the cuts in methane emissions necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change."
Citing recent findings from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Climate and Clear Air Coalition released in October, the letter states that the only way to meet the 1.5ºC target established by the 2015 Paris agreement is to phase out fossil fuels completely—and rapidly.
"Cutting methane pollution from the oil and gas supply chain is an important component of near-term emissions reductions—but it is not enough on its own," the letter states.
Alongside the industry-backed Charter, 118 nations on Saturday also pledged a tripling of renewable energy by 2030, but green groups say that while welcome, this kind of effort means so much less if fossil fuels are not phased out during that same period.
"The future will be powered by solar and wind, but it won't happen fast enough unless governments regulate fossil fuels out of the way," said Kaisa Kosonen, leading Greenpeace International's COP28 delegation in Dubai.
Oil Change's Tong also pointed to national promises on renewables in the context of the overall greenwashing effort underway trying to tell the world it can have a renewable energy revolution while also allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue its existence.
"If your company digs stuff up and burns it, you’re the problem. It’s time to wind down your business."
"Bundling up the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter with a renewable energy commitment appears to be a calculated move to distract from the weakness of this industry pledge," Tong said.
"Promising to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency is welcome and indicates momentum for a final agreement at this year's U.N. climate talks," he added, "but voluntary pledges cannot be a substitute for a formal negotiated outcome at COP28 for countries to address the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels."
Journalist and veteran climate organizer Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org and now Third Act, said it "isn't hard" to know what needs to be done or to identify who is at fault for the current crisis.
"If your company digs stuff up and burns it, you’re the problem. It’s time to wind down your business. Past time," McKibben said.
The green critics of the Charter are clear that the chief culprits should have little say in the way governments and society at large choose to manage the transition from a dirty energy economy to a more sustainable and clean one.
As the letter from the coalition argues, "Voluntary commitments are a dangerous distraction from what is needed at COP28. Oil and gas companies meeting to sign a pledge that only deals with their operational emissions is like a group of arsonists meeting to promise to light fires more efficiently."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Appeals Court Tells Texas to Remove Rio Grande Buoy 'Death Traps'
"Despite this small victory, the razor buoys are only a fraction of Gov. Abbott's racist and murderous Operation Lone Star," one group noted.
Dec 01, 2023
A federal appellate court panel on Friday delivered a blow to Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's anti-migrant regime, ruling 2-1 that the state must remove from the Rio Grande a buoy barrier intended to block people from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas and Abbott over the buoys, which are part of the governor's Operation Lone Star, in July. U.S. Judge David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, ordered the state to remove the barrier and prohibited new or additional blockades in September.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit initially blocked Ezra's ruling while it considered the case, but Judges Dana Douglas and Carolyn Dineen King—respectively appointed by President Joe Biden and former President Jimmy Carter—affirmed his decision that the buoys violate federal law on Friday. Judge Don Willett, an appointee of ex-President Donald Trump, dissented.
"I've seen Gov. Abbott's border buoys for myself. They're illegal and dangerous."
The lower court "considered the threat to navigation and federal government operations on the Rio Grande, as well as the potential threat to human life the floating barrier created," Douglas wrote for the majority. "All of the district court's findings of fact were well supported by the record, and its conclusion... was not an abuse of discretion."
American Immigration Council policy director Aaron Reichlin-Melnick suggested on social media that the case turned out the way it did, even though the 5th Circuit is the most conservative U.S. appeals court, "in part because the panel draw was a very good one for the DOJ."
Abbott said Friday that the decision "is clearly wrong," that he and GOP state Attorney General Ken Paxton "will seek an immediate rehearing by the entire court," and that they will seek intervention from the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court "if needed."'
Despite the governor's determination to continue the legal battle, opponents of 4-foot-wide orange spherical buoys—which span 1,000 feet of the river near Eagle Pass—celebrated the appeals court decision.
"I've seen Gov. Abbott's border buoys for myself. They're illegal and dangerous," said U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who led a congressional trip to the barrier and a letter urging the Biden administration to act. "I applaud the Justice Department for today's hard-fought victory in the conservative 5th Circuit and look forward to seeing these death traps removed from the Rio Grande."
The immigrant youth-led group United We Dream also welcomed the "small victory" but stressed that "the razor buoys are only a fraction of Gov. Abbott's racist and murderous Operation Lone Star," pointing to a new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report.
HRW revealed earlier this week that "dangerous chases of vehicles thought to contain migrants under the Texas government's Operation Lone Star program led to crashes that killed at least 74 people and injured at least another 189 in a 29-month period."
Alison Parker, HRW's deputy U.S. director, declared that the state operation "is maximizing chaos, fear, and human rights abuses against Texans and migrants, which might be a cynical way to win political points but is not a responsible way to run a government."
The report and ruling on Texas' operation come as congressional Republicans attempt to force through what migrant rights advocates are calling "unconscionable" changes to asylum policy in exchange for funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular