4 ms·

In This Local Election, Every Candidate Is Incarcerated at the D.C. Jail

7 points by woldemariam 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago
The policy of letting inmate run or vote in these elections seems half baked. I wouldn't necessarily object to inmates electing their own representation for themselves. But lumping them in with actual residents seems foolish. What do someone in the prison and someone outside it have in common? Nothing. So they shouldn't have the same rep. Similarly I doubt the local government has much say over what happens in the prison, nor do prisoners contribute anything to that government. So what practical or principle reasons are served by this?
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  > The seat — formally known as single-member district 7F07 — was first created during the last round of redistricting in 2011, drawn to encompass a largely institutional plot of land that housed the D.C. Jail, the now-demolished D.C. General family homeless shelter, and the Harriet Tubman Women’s Shelter. The seat was never filled, largely due to the transient nature of the residents who could have run for it and the significant logistical challenges involved in actually running for office — especially for those political hopefuls who remained behind bars.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Yeah, the seat was created. But it doesn't actually say why or why prisoners were given the vote. That's my issue here: WHY. What is the actual justification?
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      They're not being lumped in with non-prisoner residents.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        Aren't they? Isn't their rep part of a council of reps making decisions for the wider area? Sorry if I'm being dumb, I thought they were licking 1 rep to send to a government, not 1 rep to run that area...
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Isn't their rep part of a council of reps making decisions for the wider area? The particular seat at issue is not (its a rep to a non-decision-making advisory body, the decision-making bodies it advises are D.C. and Federal bodies), though since D.C. is apparently ending disenfranchisement of the currently-incarcerated entirely, that will be the case in other elections.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But lumping them in with actual residents seems foolish. Inmates are actual residents. And, as the district appears, fron the article, to be largely nonresidential other than for the institutionalized, though that seems to be changing going forward with redevelopment. > What do someone in the prison and someone outside it have in common? Nothing. So they shouldn't have the same rep. That's a fundamental problem with single-member, winner-take-all districts not limited to incarcerated/nonincarcerated distinctions. > Similarly I doubt the local government has much say over what happens in the prison The D.C. government has considerable say over what happens at the D.C. jail run by the D.C. Department of Corrections (D.C. is unusual in that many functions that elsewhere would be state, county, and city all are done by the same government.)

7 points by woldemariam 5y ago

The policy of letting inmate run or vote in these elections seems half baked. I wouldn't necessarily object to inmates electing their own representation for themselves. But lumping them in with actual residents seems foolish. What do someone in the prison and someone outside it have in common? Nothing. So they shouldn't have the same rep. Similarly I doubt the local government has much say over what happens in the prison, nor do prisoners contribute anything to that government. So what practical or principle reasons are served by this?

frosted-flakes 5y ago
> The seat — formally known as single-member district 7F07 — was first created during the last round of redistricting in 2011, drawn to encompass a largely institutional plot of land that housed the D.C. Jail, the now-demolished D.C. General family homeless shelter, and the Harriet Tubman Women’s Shelter. The seat was never filled, largely due to the transient nature of the residents who could have run for it and the significant logistical challenges involved in actually running for office — especially for those political hopefuls who remained behind bars.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Yeah, the seat was created. But it doesn't actually say why or why prisoners were given the vote. That's my issue here: WHY. What is the actual justification?
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    They're not being lumped in with non-prisoner residents.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Aren't they? Isn't their rep part of a council of reps making decisions for the wider area? Sorry if I'm being dumb, I thought they were licking 1 rep to send to a government, not 1 rep to run that area...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Isn't their rep part of a council of reps making decisions for the wider area? The particular seat at issue is not (its a rep to a non-decision-making advisory body, the decision-making bodies it advises are D.C. and Federal bodies), though since D.C. is apparently ending disenfranchisement of the currently-incarcerated entirely, that will be the case in other elections.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> But lumping them in with actual residents seems foolish. Inmates are actual residents. And, as the district appears, fron the article, to be largely nonresidential other than for the institutionalized, though that seems to be changing going forward with redevelopment. > What do someone in the prison and someone outside it have in common? Nothing. So they shouldn't have the same rep. That's a fundamental problem with single-member, winner-take-all districts not limited to incarcerated/nonincarcerated distinctions. > Similarly I doubt the local government has much say over what happens in the prison The D.C. government has considerable say over what happens at the D.C. jail run by the D.C. Department of Corrections (D.C. is unusual in that many functions that elsewhere would be state, county, and city all are done by the same government.)