i testified at the minnesota senate elections committee today. the “voting rights for felons” bill passed and will be sent on to the full senate. of course, it must also find favor in the house and in the governor’s office to become law. nevertheless, today was a good start for proponents of reenfranchisement.

here are a few scattered observations:

1. a social scientist cannot really present research at such hearings. the legislators want a reasonable summary of descriptive information and basic findings. i’m pretty comfortable in such settings, but i had to reconsider and amend my presentation style to make an impact. asa-style or asc-style would not have been very convincing.

2. the initial version of the bill would have restored rights to both parolees (who have been in prison) and probationers (who are conditionally released in lieu of prison). senator john hottinger, the bill’s sponsor, likely felt that a probation-only bill would have better prospects and amended it accordingly. because minnesota makes great use of probation and sparing use of parole, the amended version would restore voting rights to the great majority of convicted felons in minnesota — approximately 40,000.

3. i waited about three hours and fifteen minutes before the bill was discussed. this helped me learn the procedural norms and behavioral expectations (though, given the delay, i wished i would have eaten lunch beforehand). for example, i learned to direct my remarks and responses to “mr. chair and committee members.” the rules were not much different than those i’ve encountered at faculty meetings. as in faculty meetings, i also learned that it was most effective to keep things brief and to make eye contact with the voters.

4. the testimony on other bills reminded me of the critical importance of basic “social facts” sociology. lawmakers are often hungry for simple descriptive information. even when they are not hungry, they still attempt to deal with the best evidence that is available to them.

5. elections law is a hot area in 2006. there wasn’t an empty chair and many spoke passionately about the right to vote from a great variety of perspectives. the bills addressed issues such as voter intimidation and dirty tricks, the voting rights act of 1965, accessibility for the hearing-impaired and those with other disabilities, free speech rights to display campaign signs in apartment windows, and rules for lobbyists and open meetings.

6. lobbyists wear more fashionable and expensive clothing than state senators. all males wore ties and jackets and i would have felt out of place if i hadn’t.

7. many people duck in and out of the hearings, often whispering to visitors or senators during the testimony on a bill. at one point, lawmakers left the room and hammered out some wording that built consensus on a bill.

8. i was astounded at the recitation of “dirty tricks” used in recent elections to restrict participation. i heard evidence that literature was distributed giving erroneous election dates, that people were threatened with “10 years in jail” if they attempted to vote when they or another family member had been in trouble with the law, that voters were systematically “challenged” simply because they had not replied to certified mail sent by political parties, and other systematic abuses of the system. not surprisingly given the history of voting rights in this country, african american speakers were most passionate and convincing. they argued that such tricks have occurred and that we need to take action to prevent them from occurring in minnesota. whites and others seemed almost agnostic about it.

9. i’m glad i live in a democracy and i feel privileged to be able to participate in some small way in the legislative process. some have compared lawmaking with sausagemaking, but i’m a true believer in the process. plus, i actually like chorizo sausage.

10. two former students were involved in the proceedings. i felt ancient when one told me that she took my class “10 years ago” but happy to hear that i “hadn’t changed much.”

fyi, the picture comes from an alumni magazine thing i did two or three years ago. the photographer fussed over it pretty good — lights and generators and assistants — so i’ll probably use it until i retire. as a st. paul kid, of course, it is kind of cool to be photographed on the state capitol. the books i’m holding are a con law reader (taken from don downs’ poli sci class at the wizversity) and keyssar’s terrific right to vote.

my favorite feature of the new york times is the “modern love” column which runs on sundays. it offers a new, thoughtful essay–from a wide range of perspectives–every week, chronicling the challenges, exhilaration, and lessons learned from, well, modern love.

this week’s essay was written by asha bandele, a woman who fell in love with and married a prison inmate.

part of me cringed when i read her opening paragraphs. she describes meeting her husband, rashid, “five years earlier, when I was 23, a college student teaching poetry to prisoners.” the two of them formed a bond over poetry and the possibilities for transformation. as she writes: “Over the course of a year and many discussions about changing ourselves and our world, we fell in love. With Rashid there was this breadth of dialogue I hadn’t experienced before. Our conversations — unspeakably honest — were for me life-saving.”

while i fully respect true connection between two souls, i also hate to see prison administrators given more evidence that young women–or any women–who come into jails/prisons/youth facilities are likely to fall in love with charismatic inmates. i faced some of these biases and concerns myself when conducting ethnographic research with adolescent males in a juvenile correctional facility. i resented the staff members’ suspicions, but i also understood the reason for them every time i heard a new horror story of female employees or volunteers who got too close to inmates and violated the rules by smuggling in contraband or trying to smuggle out the objects of their affection. it happens and good programs can suffer.

at the same time, i really appreciate ms. bandele’s honest and painful rendering of her story. she writes eloquently of the difficulties of trying to live a “normal” life with a husband behind bars, dealing with unplanned pregnancies. she had a daughter, nisa, and essentially raised her as a single parent, punctuated with visits to prison to see her father. the pressures were enormous and the costs tremendously high; as ms bandele explains:

I lost pieces of myself I’m only now trying to reclaim.

I started smoking again. I spent too many nights drinking wine and crying. There were times when pain threatened to define the whole of me. And no, no, I couldn’t hold my marriage together.

CARING for Rashid and Nisa at the same time was more than I could bear: the weekly treks through metal detectors, the parts of my spirit that always got snagged by the razor wire. I still take Nisa to see her father, but staying romantically entangled with Rashid, when I most feel his absence, was too painful.

i think ms. bandele has offered a vivid personal look into what criminologists call the “collateral consequences” of incarceration. it is all too clear that incarceration deeply affects family members as well as inmates in ways we are still struggling to understand. i appreciate that ms. bandele chose “modern love” as her forum, because i’m sure criminologists are only a tiny portion of the readers of that column. hopefully, her essay will bring some larger public attention to this important and timely topic.

*illustration by David Chelsea, New York Times

my favorite feature of the new york times is the “modern love” column which runs on sundays. it offers a new, thoughtful essay–from a wide range of perspectives–every week, chronicling the challenges, exhilaration, and lessons learned from, well, modern love.

this week’s essay was written by asha bandele, a woman who fell in love with and married a prison inmate.

part of me cringed when i read her opening paragraphs. she describes meeting her husband, rashid, “five years earlier, when I was 23, a college student teaching poetry to prisoners.” the two of them formed a bond over poetry and the possibilities for transformation. as she writes: “Over the course of a year and many discussions about changing ourselves and our world, we fell in love. With Rashid there was this breadth of dialogue I hadn’t experienced before. Our conversations — unspeakably honest — were for me life-saving.”

while i fully respect true connection between two souls, i also hate to see prison administrators given more evidence that young women–or any women–who come into jails/prisons/youth facilities are likely to fall in love with charismatic inmates. i faced some of these biases and concerns myself when conducting ethnographic research with adolescent males in a juvenile correctional facility. i resented the staff members’ suspicions, but i also understood the reason for them every time i heard a new horror story of female employees or volunteers who got too close to inmates and violated the rules by smuggling in contraband or trying to smuggle out the objects of their affection. it happens and good programs can suffer.

at the same time, i really appreciate ms. bandele’s honest and painful rendering of her story. she writes eloquently of the difficulties of trying to live a “normal” life with a husband behind bars, dealing with unplanned pregnancies. she had a daughter, nisa, and essentially raised her as a single parent, punctuated with visits to prison to see her father. the pressures were enormous and the costs tremendously high; as ms bandele explains:

I lost pieces of myself I’m only now trying to reclaim.

I started smoking again. I spent too many nights drinking wine and crying. There were times when pain threatened to define the whole of me. And no, no, I couldn’t hold my marriage together.

CARING for Rashid and Nisa at the same time was more than I could bear: the weekly treks through metal detectors, the parts of my spirit that always got snagged by the razor wire. I still take Nisa to see her father, but staying romantically entangled with Rashid, when I most feel his absence, was too painful.

i think ms. bandele has offered a vivid personal look into what criminologists call the “collateral consequences” of incarceration. it is all too clear that incarceration deeply affects family members as well as inmates in ways we are still struggling to understand. i appreciate that ms. bandele chose “modern love” as her forum, because i’m sure criminologists are only a tiny portion of the readers of that column. hopefully, her essay will bring some larger public attention to this important and timely topic.

*illustration by David Chelsea, New York Times

i got word today that a reenfranchisement bill will be discussed monday in the minnesota senate.

my understanding is that the proposal would extend voting rights to all non-incarcerated felons, including those serving probation and parole sentences. prisoners, however, would remain disenfranchised.

the last time such a bill came up for discussion, i did a rough memo using 2003 data on the likely effects. by my count, at least three-fourths of the disenfranchised felons in the state would regain the right to vote. it would reduce the african american disenfranchisement rate from about 12 percent of the voting age population to less than 4 percent and the rate of non-african american disenfranchisement from about 1 percent to about 0.3 percent. i’ll need to update these numbers for 2004 (2005 won’t be available yet), but the basic patterns should hold.

only a few minutes are allotted for discussion on monday, but here are some particulars:

On Monday, March 20, 2006 at 3 p.m. the following bills are in the Senate Election Committee in Room 107 of Capitol.

Agenda:
S.F. 1752-Hottinger: Restoring the right to vote for certain convicted felons (allows ex-felons to vote when they get out of confinement);
S.F. 2743-Pariseau: Criteria for voting systems;
S.F. 3038-Higgins: Prohibiting voter challenges based on mailings by parties;
S.F. 3039-Higgins: Prohibiting deceptive practices regarding election time, place, etc.
S.F. 3040-Higgins: Re-authorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965

i got word today that a reenfranchisement bill will be discussed monday in the minnesota senate.

my understanding is that the proposal would extend voting rights to all non-incarcerated felons, including those serving probation and parole sentences. prisoners, however, would remain disenfranchised.

the last time such a bill came up for discussion, i did a rough memo using 2003 data on the likely effects. by my count, at least three-fourths of the disenfranchised felons in the state would regain the right to vote. it would reduce the african american disenfranchisement rate from about 12 percent of the voting age population to less than 4 percent and the rate of non-african american disenfranchisement from about 1 percent to about 0.3 percent. i’ll need to update these numbers for 2004 (2005 won’t be available yet), but the basic patterns should hold.

only a few minutes are allotted for discussion on monday, but here are some particulars:

On Monday, March 20, 2006 at 3 p.m. the following bills are in the Senate Election Committee in Room 107 of Capitol.

Agenda:
S.F. 1752-Hottinger: Restoring the right to vote for certain convicted felons (allows ex-felons to vote when they get out of confinement);
S.F. 2743-Pariseau: Criteria for voting systems;
S.F. 3038-Higgins: Prohibiting voter challenges based on mailings by parties;
S.F. 3039-Higgins: Prohibiting deceptive practices regarding election time, place, etc.
S.F. 3040-Higgins: Re-authorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965

rob sampson has a fascinating op-ed on immigration and crime in the times this week. sampson argues that increasing immigration in the 1990s may have had something to do with declining crime rates.

this is a provocative argument, but plausible so long as the baseline homicide rate of u.s.-born citizens exceeds the average homicide rate of the new immigrants.

such an effect is perhaps easier to see with a gender example. imagine that 75 percent of the new immigrants were women and, of course, that women commit fewer homicides than men. the incoming low-homicide group would pull down the overall rate in the larger population.

as long as the newcomers are less violent than the society they enter, immigration will similarly push down homicide rates. on this dimension at least, our newcomers appear to have had a civilizing influence on american life.

as for the author, i cannot think of a finer american sociologist than robert j. sampson. his status as a card-carrying criminologist might color my perceptions, but his record speaks for itself — and humbles the rest of us. surely he has helped me over the years and it is in my interest to speak well of him. nevertheless, i think i can look at sampson’s oeuvre critically and objectively because we think about social life in very different ways. in any case, the fact that he is writing op-eds bodes well for public sociologies and criminologies.

rob sampson has a fascinating op-ed on immigration and crime in the times this week. sampson argues that increasing immigration in the 1990s may have had something to do with declining crime rates.

this is a provocative argument, but plausible so long as the baseline homicide rate of u.s.-born citizens exceeds the average homicide rate of the new immigrants.

such an effect is perhaps easier to see with a gender example. imagine that 75 percent of the new immigrants were women and, of course, that women commit fewer homicides than men. the incoming low-homicide group would pull down the overall rate in the larger population.

as long as the newcomers are less violent than the society they enter, immigration will similarly push down homicide rates. on this dimension at least, our newcomers appear to have had a civilizing influence on american life.

as for the author, i cannot think of a finer american sociologist than robert j. sampson. his status as a card-carrying criminologist might color my perceptions, but his record speaks for itself — and humbles the rest of us. surely he has helped me over the years and it is in my interest to speak well of him. nevertheless, i think i can look at sampson’s oeuvre critically and objectively because we think about social life in very different ways. in any case, the fact that he is writing op-eds bodes well for public sociologies and criminologies.

like many minnesotans, i traveled south for spring break. i’m writing from canada, after speaking today at the university of toronto centre of criminology.

it was my first presentation of the felon voting book outside the united states. until i was putting slides together with an eye to my canadian hosts, i hadn’t realized just what a peculiarly american story we were telling. some tell me that canada and minnesota aren’t terribly different on most dimensions. still, after a quick two-hour flight, the history of felon voting restrictions in the states looks strange and twisty indeed. i guess that’s why we subtitled it “felon disenfranchisement and american democracy.”

i’ve long known, of course, that the u.s. has the strictest felon voting laws and the highest rate of criminal punishment in the world. but the story also requires reference to racial conflict and the civil war, low american rates of political participation, and the generally punitive attitudes of americans on crime. even the american conception of felony takes in a broad range of behaviors (e.g., some forms of drug possession and theft) that may not be considered serious offenses in other nations.

i’m still working to get my head around international variation in felon voting restrictions, but by any measure the united states really stands alone on this issue. we wrote about this, of course, but it is another matter to try to explain it. proust wrote that traveling is not about “seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” after thinking about felon voting for almost nine years, i figured i’d have to travel a bit farther to gain a new frame of reference.

like many minnesotans, i traveled south for spring break. i’m writing from canada, after speaking today at the university of toronto centre of criminology.

it was my first presentation of the felon voting book outside the united states. until i was putting slides together with an eye to my canadian hosts, i hadn’t realized just what a peculiarly american story we were telling. some tell me that canada and minnesota aren’t terribly different on most dimensions. still, after a quick two-hour flight, the history of felon voting restrictions in the states looks strange and twisty indeed. i guess that’s why we subtitled it “felon disenfranchisement and american democracy.”

i’ve long known, of course, that the u.s. has the strictest felon voting laws and the highest rate of criminal punishment in the world. but the story also requires reference to racial conflict and the civil war, low american rates of political participation, and the generally punitive attitudes of americans on crime. even the american conception of felony takes in a broad range of behaviors (e.g., some forms of drug possession and theft) that may not be considered serious offenses in other nations.

i’m still working to get my head around international variation in felon voting restrictions, but by any measure the united states really stands alone on this issue. we wrote about this, of course, but it is another matter to try to explain it. proust wrote that traveling is not about “seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” after thinking about felon voting for almost nine years, i figured i’d have to travel a bit farther to gain a new frame of reference.

corrections corporation of america bills itself as prison privatization at its best. would you invest in an incarceration company? should your university?

the yale daily news reports that their graduate employees and students organization is calling for the university to divest from cca. you might recall campus divestment protests over holdings in south africa and other nations. for example, all companies doing business in sudan were recently dropped from yale’s portfolio. although cca lobbies to increase prison sentences, however, the university argues that cca’s work does not constitute the sort of “grave social injury” that would trigger divestment.

i haven’t invested in private prisons. i suppose that i might if i believed that they were incarcerating more effectively or more humanely than the state. yale student daniel pozen makes the case that, relative to nonprofit and public management, private for-profit prisons underperform on recidivism. to date, i don’t think we have a definitive recidivism study on this topic. still, i don’t see much evidence here for greater effectiveness.

the second question to ask is whether you or your university is actually making any money on cca. probably not. as an investment, cca has been losing ground to broad indexes such as the s&p500 for the past five years.