How the Prison-Industrial Complex is Corrupting American Elections
The negative effects of mass-incarceration are even worse than we thought
2015/5/26-Voting matters. Though many Americans believe that voting is either useless or merely a civic duty, in reality it carries huge consequences for the decisions of politicians. There is overwhelming evidence that politiciansĀ are more responsiveĀ to the preferences of voters than non-voters, and thatĀ votingĀ affectsĀ government policy. These facts have key implications for policies that disenfranchise individuals who would otherwise vote. Indeed, Americaās racialized voting practices continue to disenfranchise the poor and communities of color, robbing them of billions in public funding.
Today, literacy tests and poll taxes are banned (though voter ID laws are oftenĀ essentially poll taxes), but states can still disenfranchise felons. Because of race and class disparities in the criminal justice system, the impact of disenfranchisement hits communities of color and low-incomeĀ communities the hardest.
We would expect, for example, given the studies above, that felon disenfranchisement would reduce spending for communities disproportionately affected by mass incarceration. And aĀ new studyĀ by Brice Richard confirms this, finding that the impact of disenfranchisement is profound. Richard finds in particular that an extra percentage point of voter turnout leads to a 2 percent to 3 percent increase in per capita spending. The chart below shows that turnout is lower in disenfranchising states, and that state to county transfers are also lower.
By exploiting the differences in disenfranchisement across states, he finds that disenfranchisement may have reduced public spending by as much as 18 percent. The total impact of disenfranchisement is $1.8 billion in public goods that otherwise would have flowed towards high poverty communities and those with large Black populations. The impact is particularly strong regarding education spending; Richard estimates that each child in a disenfranchising state lost out on $640 in educational spending, with the impact concentrated on Black students. As the chart below shows, transfers to Black communities and poor communities is far lower in disenfranchising states than non-disenfranchising states.
One possible reason why the effects of disenfranchisement are so powerful is that voting tends to become a social norm. Voting correlatesĀ with otherĀ civic behaviors. Being socialized in a community where voting is the norm increases an individualās propensity to turnout. Indeed, in households where parents vote,Ā childrenĀ are more likely to. If a household receives a get-out-the-vote message, the member of the household thatĀ does not answer the doorĀ is more likely to vote than otherwise. Disenfranchisement then, will reduce the social norm for voting, potentially having effects beyond only the individual who is disenfranchised.
Disenfranchisement is not the only mechanism working against the Black vote. In another study, four political scientistsĀ showedĀ how premature death among the black community robs them of important political clout. They find that premature deathĀ ledĀ to 1 million fewer Black votes in 2004, and while this wouldnāt have changed the outcome of the Presidential election, it would have affected state-level races. This premature death is the legacy of white supremacy and racism. In addition, Nathan CohnĀ has foundĀ that the legacy of Jim Crow has continued: African-Americans who were disenfranchised before the Voting Rights Act make up a smaller share of the electorate than younger African-Americans.
In a recent analysis, IĀ foundĀ a strong correlation between the level of racial stereotyping in a state and the likelihood of the state having a voter ID law. I also found a correlation between racism and the openness of the voting system. Iāve also shown that ease of access is correlated with turnout, which isnāt surprising: numerous studies suggest that policies like same-day registration boost turnout. The impact is obvious: racism suppresses voting, meaning that less government spending goes to communities of color and low-income communities.
Many disenfranchised felons face a second blow: prison-based gerrymandering. In this practice, prisoners (who canāt vote) count toward the population of the area where they are incarcerated which affects how districts are drawn. Research suggests that when districts are drawn unequally, public funds are distributed unequally. In the wake ofĀ Baker v. CarrĀ (which allowed federal courts to intervene in districting to protect the principle of āone person, one voteā),Ā public funding shiftedĀ $7 billion towards previously underrepresented counties.
The stark reality of racism in this country is that it serves to undermine democracy. In a famous 2002 study, Christopher Uggen and Jeff ManzaĀ findĀ that felon disenfranchisement has influenced the outcome of numerous Senate races and at least one Presidential election. They estimate that 35 percent of disenfranchised felons would vote in a presidential election, and 20.5% in a midterm election. In the 2014 election, Michael McDonaldĀ estimatesĀ that 3,445,233 felons were disenfranchised.Ā Although opposition to felon disenfranchisement has traditionally come from the progressive side (Hillary ClintonĀ has long opposedĀ the practice) some conservatives, like Rand Paul, are starting to join the ranks.
Source: Salon