The right way to count prisoners
Tribune-Star columnist Mark Bennett writes that the Census Bureau’s practice of counting federal prisoners as if they were residents of Terre Haute (”Multiple factors lead to Terre Haute posting ‘pretty impressive’ population growth”, July 18, 2009, Page D1) misses one thing: City council districts are also based on population.
Each decade, by Supreme Court precedent, districts must be redrawn so that each district contains the same number of residents. In this way, each resident gets the same access to government regardless of where she lives. Unfortunately, the Census count is not the same as the number of residents and this problem is about to get worse in Terre Haute.
When the Terre Haute City Council last updated the districts after the last Census, they unintentionally padded the First District with 1,764 prisoners, granting the 7,778 residents of that district as much say over the future of the city as 10,000 residents in each other district. If uncorrected after the 2010 Census, the expanded prison will be 30 percent of the district, creating an even larger vote dilution problem.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau won’t be changing where it counts prisoners in next year’s Census. But there is an interim solution: ignore the prison populations when drawing council districts. Give every resident the same say over city council regardless of whether their district happens to contain a prison.
In my research, I’ve found more than 100 places like Terre Haute where the local government rejected the Census Bureau’s prison counts and choose instead to base their democracy on their resident population. The Census may count the prisoners as residents of Terre Haute, but the city isn’t bound by that count for its local districts.
— Peter Wagner
Executive Director
Prison Policy Initiative
Easthampton, Mass.
Union’s position is disappointing
I felt it necessary to express my dissatisfaction and disappointment in Union Hospital due to its refusal [at this point] to remain in the Anthem Insurance Network. It is obvious that the almighty dollar is far more important than good patient care.
Could it be that Anthem is not paying as much as Union would like because they do not want to pay for its new facilities, nor do they accept the outrageous fees being billed for services rendered? Could it be that a company is finally saying “enough,” and the hospital, in order to show its power and authority, is making the people who need medical attention suffer?
It is not easy to switch insurance companies, especially for someone like me who has group insurance; but on principle, I think I would stay with Anthem anyway, or at least boycott Union Hospital.
My biggest fear is being involved in an accident or having a serious illness that involves an ambulance transport. I pray that I can remain conscious to tell the driver to take me to Regional Hospital because Union Hospital is not in the network. It’s a shame.
— Kay Bolinger
Terre Haute
