ldf ny senate comment letter w exhibits

8/2/2019 LDF NY Senate Comment Letter w Exhibits

1/32

1

COMMENT UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

T. Christian HerrenChief, Voting Section

Civil Rights Division

Room 7254 NWBU.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

April 23, 2012

Re: Section 5 Submission No. 2012-1445 (Submission by the State of New

York Regarding State Senate Redistricting Plan)

Dear Mr. Herren:

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) urges the Attorney

General to object to the pending Section 5 submission by the New York State Senate of

its redistricting plan, S.6696 (the Senate Plan or the Plan). The State Senate hasfailed to meet its burden of showing that its Plan will not have a retrogressive effect, or

that its adoption was free from discriminatory purpose.

This letter addresses one particular feature of the Senate Plan: the proposal to

increase the number of State Senate districts in New York from 62 to 63 total districts.

With respect to this particular aspect of the Senate Plan, LDF concurs with severalcontentions raised by others, including: (1) that the State must identify its changing

methodologies for computing the size of the State Senate as a separate voting change

requiring preclearance; and (2) that increasing the size of the Senate will have a

retrogressive effect on minority voters in the eleven majority-minority districts containedin New Yorks covered counties, whose influence will necessarily be diminished under

the Senate Plan.1

1 See Letter from Eric Hecker to T. Christian Herren, dated April 5, 2012, at 5-11

(hereinafter Hecker Comment Letter); Letter from Juan Cartagena, LatinoJustice, to T.

Christian Herren, dated April 5, 2012 (hereinafter LatinoJustice Comment Letter), at 1-5; Letter

from Margeret Fund, et al, Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, to T. Christian

Herren, dated April 10, 2012, at 1-2; Letter from Joan Gibbs, Center for Law and Social Justice,


2/32

2

In addition to these concerns, which have been explained well by others and do

not require repetition here, this comment letter focuses on an additional factor that

provides an independent basis for an objection to the Senate Plan: that the proposal toincrease the size of the Senate to 63 districts appears to have been designed in direct

response to an important civil rights reform enacted two years ago to protect minorityrepresentation in New York: N.Y. Laws of 2010, Ch. 57, Part XX (Part XX).

Part XX ended the practice known as prison-based gerrymandering in the New

York state legislature, and, as explained below, was fully implemented earlier this year as

an effort to protect minority voting rights and enhance the representation of minoritycommunities, including those in the New Yorks covered counties. The decision to

increase the number of districts in the Senate, and the placement of a new district outside

of the covered counties, appears to be a direct effort to reverse these gains. Indeed, thetiming of the Senates announcement that it would increase the number of its districts,

which occurred only days after the implementation of Part XX, gives rise to a possible

inference of discriminatory intent under theArlington Heights framework.

Analysis

I. Background on New Yorks Covered Counties

The implementation of all proposed statewide voting changes in New York issubject to the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a).

Because three counties in New York are covered by Section 5 (New York County /Manhattan; Kings County / Brooklyn; and Bronx County), statewide voting changes in

New York are subject to Section 5s preclearance requirements.2

According to 2010 Census data, the three covered counties have an aggregate

population of 5,475,681, or 28.3% of New Yorks total population of 19,378,102.3 The

majority of state senate districts in these three counties are majority-minority districts.

to T. Christian Herren, dated April 2, 2012, at 1-2. In particular, we note that we agree with the

analysis from other comment letters with respect to: (1) the fundamental difference between

increasing the number of seats in a self-contained legislative body, as opposed to increasing the

number of representatives in a states congressional delegation (see Hecker Comment Letter at 8,

LatinoJustice Comment Letter at 4); and (2) the significance of the fact that New Yorks

population increases have largely occurred amongst minority communities in the New York Cityarea (see Hecker Comment Letter at 10, LatinoJustice Comment Letter at 4).

2See Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 283-84 (1999) (statewide voting changes

are subject to Section 5 review where a state is partially covered by Section 5).

3 See U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, New York, available at

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html. The population totals of the covered counties

as reported in the 2010 Census are as follows: New York County, 1,585,873; Kings County,

2,504,700; Bronx County, 1,385,108.


3/32

3

New Yorks covered counties are represented by 16 Senate districts: Senate districts 17-22 and 25-34.4 Under the benchmark plan, 11 out of 16 of these districts are majority

minority (Districts 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34).5

II. Background on Part XX and the Elimination of Prison-BasedGerrymandering in New York

As discussed in further detail below, the addition of a 63rd Senate District appears

to have been a direct response to the implementation of Part XX. To understand this

chain of events, some background on Part XX is instructive.

Part XX, which itself was the subject of a previous Section 5 submission by the

State (Submission No. 2011-0652), was designed to end the practice known as prison-based gerrymandering, or the counting of incarcerated individuals where they are

confined, rather than in their home communities (where they remain legally domiciled),

for redistricting purposes.

6

Generally speaking, the problem of prison-basedgerrymandering has been described as civil rights issue: prison populations are

disproportionately comprised of people of color, and are generally held far from their

home communities; thus, the counting of prisoners as if they were ordinary constituentsin the places where they are confined, rather than in their home communities, has the

effect of reducing population counts in minority communities relative to other areas,

diluting minority representation.7

These general patterns were replicated in New York, where prison-based

gerrymandering had the effect of artificially inflating the reported population numbers ofthe disproportionately white areas where most state prisons are located. At the same

time, prison-based gerrymandering reduced population numbers in the minority

communities that are home to a disproportionate share of New Yorks incarceratedpopulation.8 These two distinct, but interrelated phenomena resulted in a dilution of

political power for minority communities. As explained in more detail below, Part XX

4See New York Senate,Member Directory as of 2/1/2012, available at

http://www.nysenate.gov/report/member-directory-212012.

5See New York Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment,

2010 Census Data by District, at S-5 to S-9, available at

http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/data/2010files/sen-prof.pdf.

6

See Ex. A, Letter from Dale Ho to T. Christian Herren, dated March 18, 2011(hereinafter LDF Comment Letter to Submission No. 2011-0652), at 1-2.

7 See, e.g., Dale Ho, Captive Constituents: Prison-Based Gerrymandering and the

Current Redistricting Cycle, 22 Stanford Law & Policy Review 355, 360-62 (2011).

8See id. at 387-91; Ex. A, LDF Comment Letter to Submission No. 2011-0652, at 2-4

(citing studies by the Prison Policy Initiative, and explaining that minority communities and

residents of New Yorks covered counties are disproportionately represented among New Yorks

prison population).


4/32

4

was particularly beneficial for minority communities in the covered counties in NewYork.

Part XX was therefore an important civil rights reform that restored representationand political power to New Yorks minority communities, and was heralded by civil

rights organizations and good government groups.

9

Accordingly, the Attorney Generalprecleared Part XX on May 9, 2011. At that time, Part XX became part of the benchmarkfor purposes of analyzing state legislative redistricting plans in New York.

Since the implementation of Part XX, the reported data from the prison

reallocation process clearly illustrates the positive effect of Part XX on minorityrepresentation in the covered counties. According to data from New Yorks Legislative

Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment,10 a total of 46,003

incarcerated individuals were reallocated back to their home districts pursuant to PartXX. As noted above, New Yorks covered counties are represented by Senate districts

17-22, and 25-34; under Part XX, these districts received an aggregate increase in

population numbers of 17,280, or approximately 37.6% of all reallocated individuals, asillustrated on the next page in Table 1:

9 See Ex. A, LDF Comment Letter to Submission No. 2011-0652, supra note 6, at 4

(citing attachments to Submission No. 2011-0652). Cf.Fletcher v. Lamone, No. RWT11cv3220,

2011 WL 6740169, at *7 (D.Md. Dec. 23, 2011) (three judge court observing that Marylands

analogous law on prisoner allocation was was the product of years of work by groups dedicated

to advancing the interests of minorities); id. at *19 (Williams, J., concurring) (Marylands

analogous law was heralded as a civil rights bill focused on eradicating prison-basedgerrymandering. . . . [T]he Act received the full support and advocacy of the NAACP of

Maryland, the ACLU of Maryland, and the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland.).

10 The prisoner counts as reported by the New York Legislative Task Force on

Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR) are attached here as Exhibit B, which

shows the total number of individuals reallocated to each Senate District in New York as a result

of Part XX. See Ex. B, LATFOR, Prisoner Counts By 2002 Legislative District, available at

http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/data/?sec=2010amendpop


5/32

5

Table 1: Prisoners Allocated to Covered Counties

County Senate District Prisoners Added

Kings 17 1,516

Kings 18 2,100

Kings 19 1,858

Kings 20 1,193

Kings 21 709

Kings 22 236

Kings and New York 25 708

New York 26 193

Kings 27 283

New York 28 1,776

New York 29 362

New York 30 2,242

Bronx and New York 31 817

Bronx 32 1,567

Bronx 33 1,300

Bronx 34 420

TOTAL ALLOCATED TO COVERED COUNTIES 17,280

STATEWIDE TOTAL 46,003

PERECENTAGE ALLOCATED TO COVERED COUNTIES 37.56%

Source: Ex. B, LATFOR, Prisoner Counts By 2002 Legislative District, supra note 10

As noted above, the Census calculated that the three covered counties account for

approximately only 28.3% of New York States total population; but these countiesreceived 37.6% of the reallocated prison population. In other word, these counties are

disproportionately represented among New Yorks incarcerated population, andtherefore, under Part XX, received a substantial increase in population numbers relative

to the rest of the state.

But even that analysis does not fully capture the effect of Part XX on New Yorks

covered counties. One interesting feature of the implementation of Part XX is that the

number of individuals reallocated to their home districts (46,003) is smaller than the totalnumber of prisoners in New York who were subtracted from the districts where they

are incarcerated (60,708). This is because Part XX provides that certain incarcerated


6/32

6

individuals be excluded from the redistricting data set altogether.11

Thus, when takinginto account the number of incarcerated individuals subtracted from each individual

district, we find that Part XX resulted in a net decrease of 14,705 of the states total

reported population for redistricting purposes. In the covered counties, however, Part XXresulted in a net increase in the reported population counts of 16,781, as illustrated below

in Table 2:

Table 2: Net Population Change under Part XX

County Senate District Prisoners Added Prisoners

Subtracted

Net Population

Change

Kings 17 1,516 0 1,516

Kings 18 2,100 0 2,100

Kings 19 1,858 0 1,858

Kings 20 1,193 0 1,193

Kings 21 709 0 709

Kings 22 236 0 236

Kings and New

York

25 708 0 708

New York 26 193 0 193

Kings 27 283 0 283

New York 28 1,776 0 1,776

New York 29 362 165 197

New York 30 2,242 334 1,908

Bronx and New

York

31 817 0 817

Bronx 32 1,567 0 1,567

Bronx 33 1,300 0 1,300

Bronx 34 420 0 420

TOTAL ALLOCATED TO

COVERED COUNTIES

17,280 499 16,781

STATEWIDE TOTAL 46,003 60,708 -14,705

Source: Ex. B, LATFOR, Prisoner Counts By 2002 Legislative District, supra note 10

11 Part XX provides that the following individuals be excluded from the redistricting data

set: (1) all incarcerated persons whose residential address prior to incarceration was outside of

the state; (2) all those whom the task force cannot identify their prior residential address; and

(3) all persons confined in a federal correctional facility on census day. See Part XX, 2.


7/32

7

Thus, although Part XX resulted in a net decease in the states total reportedpopulation, it caused an increase in the reported population of the covered counties. The

net effect, therefore, was to increase the reported population numbers in New Yorks

covered counties in relation to the rest of the state. In so doing, Part XX created thepossibility of enhanced representation for minority communities in the covered

counties.

12

Heading into the current redistricting process, therefore, the anticipated effect of

Part XX was the possibility of drawing additional state legislative districts to represent

minority communities in the covered counties. This was especially likely given that: (1)

the bulk of New Yorks population growth during the last decade occurred in New YorkCity, of which the covered counties are a part13; and (2) 2010 Census data revealed that

13 out of the 16 Senate Districts the covered counties were overpopulated, with 4 of those

districts exceeding a 5% deviation from ideal population size.14

As explained below, however, this progress would be set back by the Senates

proposal to increase the number of its districts to 63. Although by itself, increasing thesize of the Senate does not directly affect the counting of prisoners under Part XX, adding

a 63rd Senate district located outside of the covered counties would essentially have the

effect of undoing the gains to minority representation that had been effectuated under thebenchmark as embodied in Part XX. Moreover, the timing of the States decision to

increase the size of the Senate, just days after the effective implementation of Part XX, is

curious and merits close scrutiny under Section 5s purpose prong.

III. Retrogressive Effect

Section 5 prohibits voting changes that would result in a retrogression in the

position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoralfranchise.15 Here, the Senate Plan has a retrogressive effect insofar as it attempts to undo

the gains to minority voting power effectuated by through the benchmark practice under

Part XX. As noted above, one of the principal effects of Part XX was to boost minorityvoting power in New Yorks covered counties, in part by ending the artificial inflation of

population numbers inand thus, the overrepresentation ofupstate communities.16 As

several commentators observed, however, the addition of a 63rd Senate district, and itsplacement outside of the covered counties, amounts to an effort to undo the gains to

minority representation that had been effectuated by Part XX:

12

Cf. Ex. A, LDF Comment Letter to Submission No. 2011-0652, supra note 6, at 2-3.13See Hecker Letter at 10.

14 See LATFOR, 2010 Census Data by District, at S-5 to S-9, supra note 5 (listing

districts 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,. 30, 32, 33, and 34 as overpopulated, with districts 17,

25, 29 and 32 overpopulated by 9.2%, 7.4%, 6.7%, and 6.8%, respectively).

15Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976).

16See Ex. A, LDF Comment Letter to Submission No. 2011-0652, supra note 6, at 2-5.


8/32

8

Adding a 63rd Senate seat, as the Republicans have proposed, would significantly

reduce the number of nonviable upstate districts reversing the impact of

prisoner reallocation with additional impact to spare. In a Senate with 63 seats,only seven districts as currently drawn would fall below the Constitutional

threshold.

17

Another commentator similarly noted that a 63rd Senate Seat could help nullify the

effects of prisoner reallocation.18

To be clear, the addition of a 63rd

Senate District does not directly affect thechanges to the redistricting population counts brought about by Part XX. That important

reform remains the law of New York. Adding a 63 rd district, however, shrinks the ideal

population size of Senate districts, enabling the creation of an additional Senate districtoutside of the covered counties, which essentially seeks to cancel out the boost to

minority voting power that had occasioned the implementation of Part XX. In sum, by

seeking to undo the gains to minority voting power effectuated by Part XX, the proposalto increase the size of the State Senate to 63 districts would be retrogressive, and should

be rejected by the Attorney General.

IV. Discriminatory Purpose

Assessing a jurisdictions motivation in enacting voting changes is a complex taskrequiring a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be

available.19 The important starting point for assessing discriminatory intent under

Arlington Heights is the impact of the official action whether it bears more heavily on

17Sasha Chavkin and Michael Keller, Proposed 63rd Senate Seat Would Negate Impact

of Counting Prisoners at Home,N.Y. World, Jan. 10, 2012 (emphasis added) (attached as Exhibit

C).Available athttp://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/01/10/redistricting/.

18Colby Hamilton, The Senate GOP's Extra Seat: Hidden Method or Manipulation?

WNYC, Jan. 10, 2012, available athttp://www.wnyc.org/blogs/empire/2012/jan/10/the-senate-

gops-extra-seat-hidden-method-or-manipulation/#more-12952.

19 Village of Arlington Heights v. Met. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 at 266 (1977).

In determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor, courts have

looked to the Arlington Heights framework, at least in part, to evaluate purpose in the 5 context.

See, Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 644, (1993) (citing Arlington Heights standard in context ofEqual Protection Clause challenge to racial gerrymander of districts); Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S.

613, 618 (1982) (evaluating vote dilution claim under Equal Protection Clause using Arlington

Heights test), and has also been used, in part, to evaluate purpose in this Courts earlier 5 cases.

See also Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U.S. 462, 469-470 (1987) (considering city's

history in rejecting annexation of 489 black neighborhood and its departure from normal

procedures when calculating costs of annexation alternatives); see also Busbee v. Smith, 549

F.Supp. 494, 516-517 (D.C. 1982); Port Arthur v. United States, 517 F.Supp. 987, 1019, aff'd,

459 U.S. 159 (1982).


9/32

9

one race than another.20

Other considerations relevant to the purpose inquiry include,among other things, the historical background of the [jurisdictions] decision; [t]he

specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision; [d]epartures from the

normal procedural sequence; and [t]he legislative or administrative history, especially [any] contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body.21 Numerous

cases arising under Section 5 have employed this standard to help ferret outdiscriminatory intent in the Section 5 process.22

Here, the timing and sequence of events surrounding the Senates decision to

increase the number of its districts to 63 is problematic in several respects, but

particularly in relation to the implementation of Part XX. That is, the Senate did notannounce its intention to increase the number of its districts until January 6, 2012, just

days after the implementation of Part XX, despite the fact that: (1) the population data

that purportedly justified the increase in districts had been available for over nine months;and (2) the New York legislature had been holding public hearings and meetings on

redistricting for over six months. In other words, there had been months of opportunities

and numerous redistricting public meetings and hearings during which the issue of thesize of the Senate could have been discussed or debated by members of the legislature,

but it was not until shortly the implementation of Part XX that the Senate abruptly

announced its intention to increase the number of its districts. Indeed, multiple newsreports and commentators drew a direct connection between the implementation of Part

XX and the Senates decision shortly thereafter to increase the number of its districts,

inferring that the latter move was a direct response to Part XXs implementation.

As explained in other comment letters, in its Section 5 submission, the Senate

attempts to justify its decision to increase the number of its districts based upon the 2010Census population numbers for New York State.23 That data was released on March 24,

2011.24 The first public meeting on redistricting held by LATFOR, New Yorks

legislative task force with delegated authority over redistricting, took place on July 6,

20Arlington Heights, 429 U.S., at 266 (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)).

21Id. at 268.

22 See, e.g., Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 117 S. Ct. 1491 (1997) (applying the

Arlington Heights test to assess whether a voting system was enacted for a discriminatory

purpose); City of Pleasant Grove v. U.S., 479 U.S. 462, 478 (1987) (approving use ofArlington

Heights as tool to prove purposeful discrimination in the voting context); U.J.O. of

Williamsburgh v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977) (noting that the Arlington Heights factors areprobative evidence of purposeful discrimination).

23See, e.g., Hecker Comment Letter at 2-5.

24 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census Bureau Delivers New York's 2010 Census

Population Totals, March 24, 2011, available at

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn122.html


10/32

10

2011; the first public hearing took place on July 19, 2011.25

LATFOR continuously heldpublic meetings and hearings over the next six months, holding a total of 5 public

meetings and 14 public hearings through the end of 2011.26 During those meetings and

hearings, there was some minor discussion of the size of the Senate during those hearing,but no member of LATFOR or the New York Senate took a firm position that there was a

constitutional requirement to increase the number of districts in the Senate, or advocatedsuch an increase.

During this period of time, Part XX was subject to a constitutional challenge in

state court. On December 1, 2012, however, a state trial court rejected that constitutional

challenge, upholding Part XX, and paving the way for its implementation.27

Shortlythereafter, LATFOR officially announced that it would implement Part XX during a

hearing held on December 22, 2011.28

During the first week of January, LATFOR officially implemented Part XX, by

adjusting New Yorks redistricting data to allocate prisoners to their home districts; but

only [d]ays later, a lawyer for Senate Republicans released a memo calling to expandthe size of the Senate to 63 seats.29 This abrupt decision, which occurred quickly on

the heels of the implementation of Part XX, followed almost no mention of the purported

need to increase the size of the Senate during the preceding six months. Variouscommentators and African-American members of the legislature immediately grasped the

significance the proximity of these two events, drawing a direct connection between the

implementation of Part XX with its attendant benefits for minority representation, and the

increase of the number of districts in the Senate to preserve non-minority voting power.30

25 See LATFOR, Hearings and Meetings, available at

http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/hearings/.26

See id.

27SeeLittle v. LATFOR, Index No. 2310-2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County Dec. 1,

2011), available athttp://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/little/Decision_and_Order.pdf.

28See Jimmy Vielkind, Panel Shifts Inmate Count in New York Redistricting, Albany

Times-Union, Dec. 22, 2011, available at http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Panel-shifts-

inmate-count-in-New-York-2421310.php

29Chavkin and Keller, supra note 17. The memo setting forth the purported legal

justification for the increase in the number of districts is dated January 5, 2012; it was made

public on January 6, 2012. See LATFOR Makes It Official: Were Going To 63, Capital

Tonight, Jan. 6. 2012, available at http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/01/latfor-makes-it-official-were-going-to-63/ (describing the legal memorandum, dated January 5, 2012, setting

forth the purported legal rationale for increasing the size of the Senate).

30 See Chavkin and Keller, supra note 17. See also Stephon Johnson, Mapped Out:

Minority Voting Power Under Attack, Amsterdam News, Feb. 2, 2012 (quoting African-

American State Senator John Sampson as stating that, If you want to be honest, there wouldnt

be [an attempt to] justif[y] the 63rd seat if it wasnt for the prison issue, by which he meant

last years upholding of a state law that requires inmates to be counted as part of the home

districts population and not in the district where theyre held behind bars.) (available at


11/32

11

Despite what appears to be obvious chain of causality, a spokeman for the Senate

denied that there was any connection.31 But the proximity of these two events,

particularly in light of the fact that the decision to increase the Senate was not discussedin any detail previously, despite ample opportunity during six months of public hearings,

is highly unusual and probative of intent underArlington Heights.

Conclusion

For the reasons identified above, we urge the Attorney General to interpose anobjection to the Senate Plan, as the Senate has failed to meet its burden of showing that it

will not have a retrogressive effect, nor that it was adopted free of discriminatory

purpose. At a minimum the Department should: (1) require a separate preclearancesubmission for the new methodology adopted by the Senate for calculating the size of the

Senate; and (2) issue a More Information Request to learn more about the connection

between the implementation of Part XX and the Senates decision to increase thenumbers of its districts.

Should you have any questions regarding the information presented in thisComment Letter, please contact Dale Ho at 212-965-2252.

Sincerely,

Dale Ho, Assistant Counsel

Ryan Haygood, Co-Director, Political Participation Group

Natasha Korgaonkar, Assistant CounselLeah Aden, Assistant Counsel

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

http://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/local/mapped-out-minority-voting-power-under-

attack/article_e77ad29c-4dc1-11e1-86f0-001871e3ce6c.html?mode=story).

31 See Chavkin and Keller, supra note 17 (quoting Scott Reif, a spokesperson for the

Senate majority, as stating that the proposal to add a 63rd Senate seat was unrelated to the effects

of prisoner reallocation).


12/32

EXHIBIT A


13/32

1

Chief, Voting Section

Civil Rights DivisionDepartment of Justice

Room 7254 NWB

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530

March 18, 2011

Re: Comment Letter Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,Submission No. 2011-0652

Dear Chief Herren,

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. submits this comment letter urgingthe Attorney General to approve legislation enacted by the New York State Legislature

that changes how incarcerated individuals are allocated during the redistricting process.

See N.Y. Laws of 2010, Ch. 57, Part XX (Part XX). Part XX was submitted to theDepartment of Justice for preclearance by the Office of the Attorney General of the State

of New York on March 7, 2011 (the Submission Letter), and has been designated

Submission No. 2011-0652.

Under the benchmark practice, New York State previously relied on data that counts

incarcerated individuals in the locations where they are confined, in direct contravention

of the States legal rules concerning residence and voting.1

This practice has beenreferred to as prison-based gerrymandering. Here, the state seeks to revise the

benchmark practice by providing that, [u]ntil such time as the United States bureau of

the census shall implement a policy of reporting each such incarcerated person at suchpersons residential address prior to incarceration, the State shall, for redistricting

purposes, count incarcerated populations at their respective residential addresses priorto incarceration rather than at the addresses of such correctional facilities.

1See N.Y. Const. art. II, sec. 4 (For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have

gained or lost a residence, by reason of his or her presence or absence . . . while confined in any

public prison.).


14/32

2

It is our view that Part XX will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters in NewYork. In fact, the opposite is true: Part XX will enhance opportunities for effective

minority representation. Given the demographics of New Yorks prison population and

the comparative demographics of the communities where the vast majority of NewYorks prisons are located, counting prisoners as residents of the communities where they

are housed has a discriminatory effect on African Americans and other communities ofcolor, and, in particular, those minority communities located in Bronx, Kings andManhattan Counties, the three New York counties covered by Section 5. The benchmark

practice harms minority voters in two distinct but related ways: (1) by reducing the total

representation of those communities in the state legislature; and (2) by limiting the access

that constituents in those communities have to their representatives.

As an initial matter, New York States prison population is disproportionately comprised

of African Americans and Latinos. While New York is approximately 30% African-American or Latino,2 77% of its prison population is African-American (51.3%) or

Latino (25.9%).3 The vast majority of New Yorks prisons, however, are located in

disproportionately white areas of the state.

4

Thus, the practice of counting incarceratedindividuals where they are confined has the effect of inflating the population count, and

thus the political representation, of the disproportionately white areas where New Yorks

prison populations are concentrated, largely at the expense of the fair representation ofNew Yorks communities of color.

More directly pertinent to the question presented under Section 5 analysis, the vast

majority of incarcerated individuals in New York come from New York City,5 whichincludes the three Section 5-covered counties in New York State noted above.6 Notably,

the most recent available data shows that each of these three counties is majority-

2

See U.S. Census Bureau: American FactFinder, New York Data Set,http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP5&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=qt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=04000US36&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en (last visited Nov. 1, 2010).3

See N.Y. State Dept of Corr. Servs., HUB System: Profiles of Inmates under Custody onJanuary 1, 2008, at i (2008), available athttp://www.docs.state.ny.us/Research/Reports/2008/Hub_Report_2008.pdf.4 In New York, 98% of prison cells are located in disproportionately white State Senatedistricts See Peter Wagner, 98% of New Yorks Prison Cells Are in Disproportionately WhiteDistricts, Prisoners of the Census (Jan. 17, 2005),http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2005/01/17/white-senate-districts/. For example, NewYorks 114th State Assembly District holds the highest percentage of state prisoners of anydistrict in the legislature, 6.99%; of the 5594 African Americans who are counted asconstituents in that district, 82.6% are incarcerated. See Peter Wagner, Prison Policy Initiative,Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in New York, IV (Apr. 22, 2002),available athttp://www.prisonpolicy.org/importing/.5 The most recent available data indicates that New York City produces 66% of all prisoners in

New York State, but 91% of these prisoners are incarcerated outside of the city See Wagner,supra note 4, I. The net result is that, during the 2000 Census, approximately 43,000 New YorkCity residents were counted in various upstate communities for redistricting purposes. See id.6 See Submission Letter at 5.


15/32

3

minority,7

and that the majority of state legislative districts in these three counties aremajority-minority districts.8 There is no sizable prison population physically located in

any of these counties.9

Although precise figures for the home address information of the New York prison

population as of 2011 and are not yet available, recent data from last year indicates thatthe three Section 5-covered counties are the counties of residence for approximately20,000 incarcerated individuals.10

It is therefore clear that a reallocation of incarcerated individuals from the districts where

they are confined back to their districts of home residence will result in a substantial netincrease in the redistricting population base in the three Section 5-covered counties in

New York. This will, in turn, enhance opportunities for effective representation for

minority voters residing in the districts located within the Section 5-covered counties.Their level of representation in the state legislature will no longer be diluted by the

artificial inflation of population numbers in other parts of the state, but will instead be

tied directly to the actual number of individuals who are legally domiciled in thosecounties.11

The second, but related, point is that Part XX will enhance equal access to electedrepresentatives for minority constituents living in the three Section 5-covered counties.

When incarcerated individuals have concerns as constituents, they undoubtedly must look

to the legislators representing their home districts rather than those who represent the

7 See Wagner, Importing Constituents, supra note 4 Fig. 14, available at

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/importing/fig14.html (showing that, as of the 2000 Census, Bronx

County is 14.53% non-Hispanic white; Kings County is 34.66%; and New York County is

45.79%).8 For instance, Kings County (Brooklyn) is home to 21 State Assembly districts (nos. 40-60).

Eleven of those districts are majority minority (nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58).

See Wagner, Importing Constituents, supra note 4, Fig. 15, available at

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/importing/fig15.html. Similarly, New York County has 12 State

Assembly districts (nos. 64-75). Six of those districts are majority minority (nos. 64, 68, 69, 70,

71, and 72). See id. Bronx County contains 11 state assembly districts (nos. 76-86). All eleven

are majority-minority. See id.9

See Wagner, Importing Constituents, supra note 4, Fig. 14, available at

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/importing/fig14.html (showing that, as of the 2000 Census, Bronx

County, with a population of 1.3 million, holds 232 prisoners; Kings County, with 2.5 million

people, hold no prisoners; and New York County, with 1.5 million people, holds 1,263 prisoners).10 See Submission Letter at 7.11

We further note that the net increase in the population base of the Section 5-covered counties

could result in an increase in the number of districts in those counties. Thus, the sheer increase of

the population count of those counties may directly increase the level of representation afforded

those counties in the state legislature. But even if the total number of districts representing

individuals from these counties remains unchanged, the crucial factor is that the districts

representing these communities will be drawn such that political influence is distributed more

fairly.


16/32

4

districts where the prisons are located.12 As noted, the majority of incarceratedindividuals in New York State come from New York City, with approximately 20,000

incarcerated individuals from the three Section 5-covered counties. The interests of those

20,000 individuals are represented by legislators from Bronx, Kings, and New YorkCounties.

Under the benchmark method of counting prisoners, however, the legislators whorepresent districts in those counties are effectively spread thin they must respond to the

concerns of their constituents who are physically present in their districts, as well as those

20,000 constituents who are incarcerated elsewhere. Put another way, minority

constituents of those districts lack the same level of access to their representatives thatindividuals in other districts have. By reallocating incarcerated individuals to their home

addresses, Part XX will better equalize the number of true constituents in election

districts throughout the state, and thus ameliorate the long-standing discriminatory effectthat the benchmark practice has had on minority constituents in the covered jurisdictions.

Finally, we note that there is no real risk that the reallocation of incarcerated individualsback to their home communities will result in the creation of phantom majority-

minority districts. The process of drawing districts that provide for effective minority

voting opportunities always requires an attention to the particular facts unique to adistrict, such as registration disparities, turnout rates, and levels of racial polarization.

Linedrawers seeking to create districts that afford minority voters with an opportunity to

elect candidates of their choice will take into account the fact that incarcerated

individuals who are reallocated to their home districts are non-voters. Doing so will be arelatively simple matter, given that, under the proposed law, linedrawers will know

exactly how many incarcerated individuals are being reallocated and to which censustracts. The proposed voting change therefore carries no risk of retrogressing minority

strength by producing ineffective minority voting rights districts.

In sum, Part XX will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters in New York.

This legislation received the support of various organizations that advocate on behalf of

minority communities, including many that have constituencies in the three Section 5-covered jurisdictions.13 All evidence suggests that the state's intention was to enhance,

and not impair, opportunities for effective political participation for minority voter.

Enclosed please find several newspaper clippings and a media advisory related to the

proposed change.

12 For instance, State Senator Dale Volker, who represents New Yorks 59th State SenateDistricta district that can only satisfies the minimum population threshold because of its prison,see Wagner,Importing Constituents, supra note 4, 5has stated that his community has morecows than people, and that he would choose the cows over incarcerated people as hisconstituents because they would be more likely to vote for me. Jonathan Tilove, MinorityPrison Inmates Skew Populations as States Redistrict, Newhouse News Serv., Mar. 12, 2002,available at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/news/newhousenews031202.html.13

See Submission LetterExs. F, O.


17/32

5

New York has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that this proposed change has neithera discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S.

526 (1976); see also Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.25).

Therefore, we respectfully submit that the Attorney General should preclear Part XX.

Sincerely,

Dale HoAssistant Counsel

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.

99 Hudson St., Suite 1600

New York, NY 10013(212) [email protected]


18/32

Published on NAACP LDF(http://naacpldf.org)

Home > Our Work > News Updates > Legal Defense Fund Applauds Legislation Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering in New York

8/04/10

Related Case or Issue:

Prison-Based Gerrymandering [1]

(New York) --The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) congratulates theNew York State Senate for passing legislation to end prison-based gerrymandering in NewYork. Their courageous decision will bring New Yorks redistricting process in line with basicprinciples of democracy, and will serve as a model for other states in the effort to countincarcerated populations correctly in the next round of redistricting.

Until now, New York counted prison populations during the redistricting process as most statesdo: by counting them where they are incarcerated, a practice known as prison-basedgerrymandering. Prison-based gerrymandering violates the principle of one person, one voteenshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires thatelection districts be roughly equal in size, so that elected officials each represent the samenumber of constituents.

Prison-based gerrymandering artificially inflates population numbers and thus, political

influence in districts where prisons are located, at the expense of all other districts. Withapproximately 60,000 incarcerated persons in New York State, the proper counting ofincarcerated individuals is critical to ensuring fair representation throughout the state.

African-Americans living in New York are incarcerated at a rate that is more than eight timeshigher than that of whites. African-Americans and Latinos are 30% of the states population, butover 70% of its prisoners. 98% of New Yorks prison cells, however, are located indisproportionately white State Senate districts.

Because incarcerated persons in the United States are disproportionately African-Americansand other people of color, the current counting of incarcerated persons at their place of

incarceration, rather than at their pre-arrest residence, severely weakens the voting strength ofentire communities of color. Ending prison-based gerrymandering in New York will enable stateand local officials to better fulfill their obligations under the federal Voting Rights Act, said JohnPayton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

New Yorklike nearly every other statedefines a persons domicile as a place where thatperson voluntarily resides. Article II, Section 4 of the New York Constitution makes clear that anincarcerated person retains the place of residence he or she had prior to arrest. This rulecomports with common sense: incarcerated persons do not choose the districts where they areconfined, and can be moved at any time at the discretion of the Department of Corrections

Defense Fund Applauds Legislation Ending Prison-Based Gerryman... http://naacpldf.org/print/press-release/legal-defense-fund-applaud

3/18/2011


19/32

Services. They have no opportunities to interact with or develop enduring ties to the surroundingcommunities. They cannot use local services such as parks or libraries. And, of course,incarcerated persons cannot vote in those communities. They are not constituents of thosedistricts in any ordinary sense of the word.

By contrast, incarcerated persons remain legal residents at their pre-incarceration addresses.They maintain ties to the outside world through their families and other relationships in theirhome communities. At the end of their sentences, they are released to those communities. The

average length of incarceration is less than three years, but the prison count remains in effectfor a decade. By counting incarcerated residents of these communities elsewhere, prison-basedgerrymandering deprives these districts of the proper level of political representation to whichthey are entitled.

LDF, the nations oldest civil rights law firm, is committed to the full and equal participation of allpersons in our democracy, and applauds the passage of this landmark legislation in New York,which follows similar bills in Maryland and Delaware earlier this year. We urge GovernorPaterson to sign this important legislation into law, and call on other states to enact similarlegislation before the next redistricting cycle begins, said Dale Ho, Assistant Counsel in LDFsPolitical Participation Group. Moving forward, the Census Bureau should ease the burden on

state and local governments by changing its enumeration methods to count prisoners in theirhome communities in the next decennial census.

Source URL: http://naacpldf.org/press-release/legal-defense-fund-applauds-legislation-ending-prison-based-

gerrymandering-new-york

Links:

[1] http://naacpldf.org/case/prison-based-gerrymandering

Defense Fund Applauds Legislation Ending Prison-Based Gerryman... http://naacpldf.org/print/press-release/legal-defense-fund-applaud

3/18/2011


20/32

By Stephon Johnson, Special to the NNPA from the Amsterdam News

NEW YORK (NNPA) - The New York State Senate has passed legislation that could end prison gerrymandering

once and for all. Passed as part of the revenue bill, the legislation states that people in prison be counted in their

home communities and not the communities where theyre incarcerated for the purpose of redrawing district lines.

The bill awaits Gov. David Patersons signature.

Im really just excited, said State Sen. Eric Schneiderman when speaking with the AmNews. I spoke to the

governor and the governors council and Im sure hell sign it. Once its signed, I will work with him and I will also

work with the incoming administration to make sure that the ball doesnt get dropped.

Across the country, sentiments have been expressed that prisoners being counted at institutional addresses is

unfair to their home communities. Redistricting lines can determine the racial and economic balance of a political

district. Also, census counts determine funding to specifical neighborhoods.

Its not a complicated process, Schneiderman said. Its about making sure the [Department of Correctional

Services] enters the right information into the new census blocks.... The politics are hard. The technologys easy."

Schneiderman couldnt help but redirect the attention to the amount of time that he and a coalition of groups and

individuals put in to help this bill see the light of day. He also mentioned promoting the idea of prison

gerrymandering bills with other states in time for reapportionment.

The other thing is that we have a coalition that we built over the past five or six years that includes the NAACP,

David Jones and the Hip Hop Action Network, and Eddie Ellis and Edith Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative,

said Schneiderman. What were going to do is get together and figure out how to use this and try to get otherstates in on this as well before the 2012 [redistricting] lines are drawn.

The NAACPs Legal Defense Fund released a statement praising the passing of the bill and marking the vote as a

new day in New York State.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund congratulates the New York State Senate for passing

legislation to end prison-based gerrymandering in New York, read the statement. Their courageous decision will

bring New Yorks redistricting process in line with basic principles of democracy and will serve as a model for

other states in the effort to count incarcerated populations correctly in the next round of redistricting. ...

Prison-based gerrymandering artificially inflates population numbersand thus, political influencein districts

where prisons are located at the expense of all other districts, continued the statement. With approximately60,000 incarcerated persons in New York State, the proper counting of incarcerated individuals is critical to

ensuring fair representation throughout the state.

Schneiderman believes that Andrew Cuomo, the reported front-runner for New York State governor, will carry the

torch that this bill lit to ensure its enforcement.

I think Cuomo understands this and he will come through, said Schneiderman. If [Republican gubernatorial

candidate] Carl Paladino became governor, Id be worried. But I dont think thats going to happen.

MONDAY, 09 AUGUST 2010 08:49

prison Gerrymandering Bill Passes in New York http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/news-wire/44823-anti-pr

3/18/2011


21/32

This is a big deal, Schneiderman stated. Things like this and repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws makes me

feel like banging my head against the wall in Albany for all these years and suffering in the Senate was worth it.

< Prev Next >

prison Gerrymandering Bill Passes in New York http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/news-wire/44823-anti-pr

3/18/2011


22/32

Reprints

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution toyour colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visitwww.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

August 22, 2010

Gov. David Paterson of New York took a stand for electoral fairness earlier this month when he

signed legislation that bans prison-based gerrymandering the cynical practice of counting prison

inmates as residents, to pad the size of legislative districts. The new law, which requires that

prison inmates be counted at their homes, deserves to be emulated all across the country.

Prison-based gerrymandering mattered little when inmate populations were small. But by the

1990s, when more than a million people nationally were behind bars, lawmakers had perfected the

art of inflating the political clout of underpopulated areas by drawing legislative districts around

prisons.

More than a dozen New York counties with large prisons already take inmates out of the count

when they draw districts for county offices. According to an analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative,

a New York-based research group, seven New York State Senate districts could now have trouble

meeting federal population requirements, which means that those districts will have to be drawn

along different lines.

The new law could lead to a political realignment in places like Rome, the upstate city where

inmates at the Mohawk and Oneida correctional facilities make up about half the residents of one

City Council district. Currently each resident there has twice the voting power of a resident who

lives elsewhere in that city.

Republican politicians who represent upstate prison districts have predictably tried to portray the

new law as a power grab by New York City Democrats. But only about half of the nearly 60,000

people held in New York prisons come from the city while nearly 40 percent of inmates are from

upstate areas. They will now be rightfully counted in the places they come from and to which

they will eventually return. By upholding the principle of one person, one vote, the new law will

benefit citizens in all parts of the state.

rial - An End to Prison Gerrymandering - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23mon3.html?pagew

3/18/2011


23/32

rial - An End to Prison Gerrymandering - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23mon3.html?pagew

3/18/2011


24/32

Reprints

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution toyour colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visitwww.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

August 6, 2010

By STEPHEN CEASAR

The people who spend their nights at 639 Exchange Street in a rural slice of upstate New York

have long officially been counted as residents of Wyoming County.

This seems to make perfect sense, except that 639 Exchange Street is the Attica Correctional

Facility, and more than half of its over 2,000 inmates are temporary guests whose last home was

hundreds of miles away, in New York City and its suburbs.

The practice of counting inmates where they are incarcerated rather than at their last official

address has long been criticized as disenfranchising poor, urban and largely minority

neighborhoods by undercounting their populations, thus reducing their political clout when

legislative districts are drawn.

But under a provision in the budget legislation that state lawmakers approved on Tuesday, New

York will become the second state, after Maryland, to end the practice, a change that could sharply

affect the states political map.

Republicans have been the main beneficiaries of counting prisoners as residents of the counties

where they serve their sentences because the prisons sit in communities that lean Republican.

The elimination of prison populations of upstate districts will have a net impact of restoring

populations to Democratic districts in New York City and the downstate suburbs, said Doug

Forand, a Democratic political consultant.

The law will now count more than 34,000 of the states nearly 60,000 inmates as residents of New

York Citys five boroughs or urban communities in Rockland County, Westchester County andLong Island.

When state lawmakers redraw the boundaries of legislative districts using the results of this years

census, the law could affect how these districts are formed. When districts were last drawn, in

2002, seven upstate districts met population requirements as a result of people behind bars,

according to an analysis conducted by the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit advocacy group that

has studied the issue.

Law on Prisoner Residency May Help Democrats - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/nyregion/07prison.html?pag

3/18/2011


25/32

The removal of these inmate populations, combined with the continuing movement of people from

upstate districts, may leave some districts with too few residents to continue as they are.

Should that happen, the districts will be redrawn and stretched farther east and south, causing a

ripple effect that will extend those and other districts into Democratic-rich areas like New York

City and increasingly Democratic areas like the Hudson Valley, Mr. Forand said.

While Republicans are a decided minority in the Assembly and have poor prospects of winning the

governors office in November, they are neck and neck with Democrats in the State Senate, which

the Democrats control by a 32-to-30 majority. So Republicans are guaranteed to fight any

redistricting move that could cost them seats considered safe for their party.

But Democrats argue that the issue is not about politics but about equality.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, who sponsored the legislation in the

Assembly, said, The practice of inmate-based gerrymandering fundamentally undermines the

principal of one person, one vote, by reallocating political power to a handful of upstate, rural

communities.

Republicans accuse Democrats of being purely motivated by the ballot box.

Senator Elizabeth OC. Little, a Republican from Queensbury whose upstate district relied on the

nearly 13,000 prisoners housed there to meet the minimum population required when it was

drawn in 2002, said Democrats were trying to use redistricting to increase their clout.

Inmates in her district, Ms. Little added, use the same community resources as other residents,including the courts, hospitals and utilities.

To not count them there is absolutely absurd, she said.

Senator Joseph A. Griffo, another Republican whose district relied on its prison population, said

that the change in law underscored how the Legislature was dominated by Democrats from New

York City.

The measure also lacks consistency, Mr. Griffo said, noting that other transient groups, like college

students and military families, are still counted where they sleep.

This is another attempt by New York City leadership to silence the upstate voices, he said.

Which districts will be most affected will not be clear until the census data is final. The population

each district will need to meet the minimum threshold is based on the states total population, said

Peter Wagner, executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative.

No matter the political implications and the battles that ensue, some government watchdogs


3/18/2011


26/32

saluted the change in the law.

Its a very significant step, righting a historical wrong, said Susan Lerner, executive director of

Common Cause New York. Its a first step to a fair, equitable and nonpolitical redistricting process

this year.


3/18/2011


27/32

EXHIBIT B


28/32

Prisoner_counts_by_2002_Legislative_district

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3132

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

4344

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

A B C D E

SD Census2010 Total Population Prisoners Added Prisoners Subtracted Adjusted Total Population

001 341,254 564 0 341,818

002 314,159 162 0 314,321

003 322,962 655 0 323,617

004 309,135 568 0 309,703

005 316,844 180 0 317,024

006 307,789 521 0 308,310007 311,141 190 0 311,331

008 305,226 541 0 305,767

009 304,372 206 0 304,578

010 314,840 925 0 315,765

011 320,102 207 0 320,309

012 302,224 416 414 302,226

013 324,533 431 0 324,964

014 323,939 964 0 324,903

015 322,621 326 0 322,947

016 322,463 219 0 322,682

017 341,278 1,516 0 342,794

018 316,903 2,100 0 319,003019 315,070 1,858 0 316,928

020 302,990 1,193 0 304,183

021 298,327 709 0 299,036

022 321,754 236 0 321,990

023 332,657 894 0 333,551

024 320,917 223 917 320,223

025 335,683 708 0 336,391

026 325,280 193 0 325,473

027 313,038 283 0 313,321

028 321,361 1,776 0 323,137

029 333,345 362 165 333,542

030 318,569 2,242 334 320,477031 292,157 817 0 292,974

032 333,737 1,567 0 335,304

033 314,246 1,300 0 315,546

034 315,408 420 0 315,828

035 313,382 549 0 313,931

036 328,256 1,473 127 329,602

037 326,645 218 1,711 325,152

038 347,376 321 666 347,031

039 332,117 797 0 332,914

040 316,324 193 3,152 313,365

041 316,491 529 3,453 313,567

042 313,027 623 5,856 307,794043 322,103 529 454 322,178

044 317,410 936 432 317,914

045 306,856 593 12,077 295,372

046 304,204 1,326 0 305,530

047 292,134 852 2,607 290,379

048 294,748 404 3,571 291,581

049 296,854 1,060 2,229 295,685

050 296,761 783 0 297,544

051 296,420 437 2,895 293,962

Page 1 of 5


29/32


53

54

55

56

57

58

5960

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

7172

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

8384

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

9596

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

A B C D E

052 290,862 653 0 291,515

053 295,046 678 2,791 292,933

054 302,881 648 4,989 298,540

055 309,516 477 0 309,993

056 297,343 2,083 59 299,367

057 285,036 478 2,546 282,968

058 283,477 543 0 284,020059 297,961 322 7,372 290,911

060 270,736 1,998 0 272,734

061 303,809 339 0 304,148

062 304,003 689 1,891 302,801

Total: 19,378,102 46,003 60,708 19,363,397

AD Census2010 Total Population Prisoners Added Prisoners Subtracted Adjusted Total Population

001 149,382 179 0 149,561

002 142,833 323 0 143,156

003 143,108 344 0 143,452

004 137,024 80 0 137,104005 131,677 102 0 131,779

006 145,372 468 0 145,840

007 134,480 54 0 134,534

008 128,281 101 0 128,382

009 130,285 63 0 130,348

010 138,509 112 0 138,621

011 135,087 422 0 135,509

012 126,438 49 0 126,487

013 131,694 81 0 131,775

014 131,344 74 0 131,418

015 135,528 81 0 135,609

016 134,747 38 0 134,785017 136,600 67 0 136,667

018 130,690 662 0 131,352

019 128,933 91 0 129,024

020 128,831 98 0 128,929

021 132,039 98 0 132,137

022 127,045 114 0 127,159

023 124,069 163 0 124,232

024 124,351 50 0 124,401

025 125,471 116 0 125,587

026 123,681 59 0 123,740

027 124,451 130 0 124,581

028 123,186 57 0 123,243029 122,770 324 0 123,094

030 122,060 97 0 122,157

031 131,083 532 0 131,615

032 125,758 579 0 126,337

033 115,034 285 0 115,319

034 121,976 102 0 122,078

035 130,758 181 0 130,939

036 111,188 72 0 111,260

037 124,254 288 414 124,128

Page 2 of 5


30/32


105

106

107

108

109

110

111112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

A B C D E

038 126,330 159 0 126,489

039 127,257 180 0 127,437

040 127,591 947 0 128,538

041 116,834 189 0 117,023

042 114,942 397 0 115,339

043 114,124 429 0 114,553

044 121,728 127 0 121,855045 120,832 76 0 120,908

046 117,179 296 0 117,475

047 127,412 121 0 127,533

048 124,776 43 0 124,819

049 129,871 90 0 129,961

050 133,740 237 0 133,977

051 127,463 315 0 127,778

052 124,831 200 0 125,031

053 128,055 572 0 128,627

054 127,728 868 0 128,596

055 124,991 1193 0 126,184

056 123,795 1090 0 124,885057 120,027 629 0 120,656

058 113,909 335 0 114,244

059 123,974 157 0 124,131

060 126,132 138 0 126,270

061 130,360 454 0 130,814

062 127,763 60 917 126,906

063 125,373 144 0 125,517

064 136,671 261 0 136,932

065 132,385 47 0 132,432

066 140,310 145 0 140,455

067 134,810 130 0 134,940

068 129,298 1068 213 130,153069 127,919 370 0 128,289

070 131,796 1102 0 132,898

071 122,886 622 121 123,387

072 117,394 470 0 117,864

073 129,766 73 0 129,839

074 133,261 367 0 133,628

075 149,377 225 165 149,437

076 125,532 471 0 126,003

077 126,463 659 0 127,122

078 121,803 470 0 122,273

079 139,940 879 127 140,692

080 124,298 236 0 124,534081 119,471 209 0 119,680

082 125,736 173 0 125,909

083 124,748 434 0 125,182

084 130,899 757 0 131,656

085 125,392 629 0 126,021

086 120,826 647 0 121,473

087 132,139 572 0 132,711

088 131,096 106 0 131,202

089 129,296 37 1,092 128,241

Page 3 of 5


31/32


157

158

159

160

161

162

163164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

A B C D E

090 137,827 142 1,711 136,258

091 128,861 81 0 128,942

092 133,416 70 0 133,486

093 129,837 201 0 130,038

094 135,492 112 0 135,604

095 145,915 160 0 146,075

096 138,725 151 0 138,876097 144,514 130 2,411 142,233

098 138,734 437 1,279 137,892

099 134,814 46 0 134,860

100 140,947 703 3,006 138,644

101 128,454 240 1,722 126,972

102 134,109 125 1,197 133,037

103 134,686 143 2,420 132,409

104 132,644 478 0 133,122

105 137,005 641 0 137,646

106 134,254 987 0 135,241

107 125,994 153 0 126,147

108 131,716 121 2,772 129,065109 139,831 162 0 139,993

110 138,331 201 0 138,532

111 132,613 147 147 132,613

112 139,495 221 2,432 137,284

113 135,737 258 2,224 133,771

114 135,275 212 7,875 127,612

115 127,225 133 0 127,358

116 127,428 772 4,689 123,511

117 128,680 248 432 128,496

118 129,137 175 2,027 127,285

119 127,496 812 0 128,308

120 131,094 679 0 131,773121 134,240 115 0 134,355

122 131,778 82 1,544 130,316

123 124,261 206 1,731 122,736

124 130,736 198 0 130,934

125 131,678 192 0 131,870

126 131,765 439 0 132,204

127 129,764 150 123 129,791

128 126,373 250 232 126,391

129 130,747 345 3,026 128,066

130 139,115 124 0 139,239

131 126,203 714 0 126,917

132 125,431 246 0 125,677133 118,100 1677 59 119,718

134 130,126 145 0 130,271

135 131,932 64 0 131,996

136 124,338 289 0 124,627

137 123,427 359 2,791 120,995

138 126,488 386 0 126,874

139 127,086 301 1,891 125,496

140 117,899 127 0 118,026

141 109,926 1305 0 111,231

Page 4 of 5


32/32


209

210

211

212

213

214

215216

217

218

219

A B C D E

142 132,951 134 1,041 132,044

143 129,830 130 0 129,960

144 128,607 558 0 129,165

145 127,442 200 0 127,642

146 128,575 128 2,588 126,115

147 124,739 201 5,507 119,433

148 131,129 76 0 131,205149 121,064 181 0 121,245

150 121,520 199 782 120,937

Total: 19,378,102 46,003 60,708 19,363,397

ldf ny senate comment letter w exhibits

Documents