Minnesota's legislative session wrapped up over the weekend with lawmakers banning so-called prison gerrymandering. The provision was part of an elections policy bill quickly signed by Gov. Tim Walz.

Under such laws, state and local governments are required to count incarcerated people at their last home addresses when drawing new political boundaries after each census. Supporters say that prevents a community hosting a prison from gaining greater representation by including these individuals in their population totals.

During earlier debate, Esther Agbaje, DFL-Minneapolis, said when these protections aren't in place, there's a negative ripple effect.

"And what it also means is that the home communities where prisoners had come from have lost a portion of their political power in the state because of that population miscount," she said.

Some Republican opponents argued that communities with prisons have to stretch their resources, and local governments shouldn't lose out on funding if those held inside are counted as living elsewhere. But supporters of these law changes say this is increasingly becoming a bipartisan issue, with conservative states such as Montana implementing similar bans.

Organizations such as the Prison Policy Initiative say the movement reflects the need to fix a longstanding flaw within the U.S. Census Bureau.

"While the Census Bureau has not yet decided to act, Minnesota can use its power to reallocate the data that comes from the Census every ten years to ensure a more accurate count, " Agbaje explained.

In situations where an incarcerated person has a last home address outside of Minnesota, or no home address at all, they're excluded from redistricting counting but are still added to the statewide population total.

Nearly 20 states have either banned or restricted prison gerrymandering. Many local governments across the country have adopted bans as part of their redistricting.


get more stories like this via email

New York City residents approved three of Mayor Eric Adams' four charter reforms in last week's election. But how many realized what they were voting for?

Critics of the reform proposals say the language on the ballots may seem harmless, but each proposition expands the power of the mayor or a city agency. For instance, Proposition 3 requires more public notice on public safety legislation - but it also lets agencies hold hearings, bypassing the City Council.

Based on voters' feedback, Perla Silva, senior civic engagement coordinator for Make the Road New York, said the wording of each initiative made them hard to interpret.

"[Proposition] 3 to 6 was very confusing," she said. "They just did not really understand what that meant. The wording around it, the language was just not clear to them. It just sounded like it was supporting and it was going to be helping City Council."

She said voters were equally confused by Proposition 2, which many assumed would lead to cleaner parks and offer more parks for kids. Instead, it increases the policing of homeless people and street vendors.

A Data for Progress survey before the election also showed 65-percent of likely voters hadn't heard about these charter reforms.

Given the scandals surrounding the Adams administration, not all New Yorkers are convinced the mayor should have more power. The Data for Progress survey found 47% of voters worry Adams would put his own needs before theirs.

Adams is staying in the 2025 mayor's race, but faces many challengers for the Democratic nomination. Silva said she isn't surprised.

"Eric Adams increasing his power and his policing technique to 'securing' New York City," she said, "but we know that it's really harming the working class."

She said the propositions could further empower the New York City Police Department.

The New York Civil Liberties Union found that police stops have risen since Adams became mayor - although almost 70% of people stopped have been innocent, and research has shown that violent crimes fell when police stops did.

Some New York House lawmakers supported a bill harmful to nonprofits. H.R. 9495 faced staunch opposition since it would have given the Treasury Secretary unilateral power to revoke tax exemptions for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." The bill stems from a disinformation campaign saying Democrats support terrorists and would have jeopardized nonprofits providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Beth Miller, political director with Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said this foreshadows Donald Trump's second term.

"It's very clear that the far-right MAGA Republicans are planning to take every step they can to dismantle our fundamental freedoms including our right to free speech, our right to protest, and attacking the nonprofit civil-society sector and social justice movements and progressive movements," she said.

This isn't the first time a bill like this was voted on in the House. H.R. 6408 passed the chamber earlier this year with staunch bipartisan support. But, it failed in the Senate. With H.R. 9495, 52 Democrats joined all Republicans in the chamber to vote in favor of it. Miller said with a GOP trifecta in Washington next year, lawmakers must watch out for double-edged legislation that could have harmless language and destructive consequences.

One reason so many Democrats support the bill is the other provision of it which gives tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Miller noted that it's a perfectly sensible thing to pass on its own.

"However, if Republicans actually wanted to push that through, they could have pushed that through separately as a standalone bill and gotten total bipartisan support for it," she continued. "However, they tried to attach it to this other bill because what they really wanted to get through was the piece of this legislation that was all about giving the Trump executive branch more authority."

She added bills like this will be common and noted that Democrats are often too willing to sell out the Palestinian rights movement for the sake of bipartisanship.

Maryland voters swung toward Donald Trump for president by nearly seven points compared to 2020, making the margins in down-ballot races a little too close for comfort for some Democrats.

The final results are still unofficial but they indicate Republicans had their best showing since 2014 in Maryland's rural 6th Congressional District. It still was not enough, however, as Democrat April McClain Delaney defeated Republican Neil Parrott, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

James Gimpel, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland-College Park, said Trump's stronger performance in blue states contributed to the close 6th District results.

"With Trump stimulating the turnout of the more rural counties, that's going to make that seat more competitive and more Republican," Gimpel explained. "Trump's performance, I think, has boosted the Republican prospects in some of these competitive races all around the country, Maryland included."

McClain Delaney won by nearly five points but the election was the closest win for a Democrat in the district since the "Republican wave" of 2014. The 6th District spans the Maryland panhandle and part of Montgomery County.

The Maryland U.S. Senate race also remained close, but Prince Georges County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, defeated former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. Alsobrooks won by nearly 10 points. Gimpel pointed out Hogan's criticisms of Trump during his terms as governor may have alienated some supporters.

"He had sort of won the enmity of Donald Trump and presumably, many of Donald Trump's supporters," Gimpel observed. "You have to wonder if maybe he would have done better if he would have gone a little easier on Trump the last four or six years or so."

Hogan did win the governorship in 2018 by a wide margin as a Trump critic. That year, Democrats swept gubernatorial and U.S. House races across the country.


get more stories like this via email