Adult Correctional Institutions

How many Rhode Island inmates are put in solitary confinement? Why are they there? How long do they stay? “And what do they actually look like,” asked Providence Rep. Aaron Regunberg, chair of a new state commission that will answer these and other important questions about the use of solitary confinement at the ACI.

The new commission met for the first time Thursday, and hopes to answer some of those questions at its next meeting on October 20. From there, the commission plans to take a hard look at psychological effects on inmates, public safety effects on society and fiscal impacts on the state budget.

“Is there room for improvement in how we do things, and if so where” asked Regunberg, “Again I want to stress that as a body we’re not starting out with assumptions. We might find out that everything is as reasonably good as it can be … we might find out there are particular rooms for improvement. We’re going to figure that out as we move forward.”

There seemed to be broad agreement on the commission – comprised of prison and prison guard officials, mental health experts and criminal justice advocates and three legislators – that so-called solitary confinement was something worth studying.

“It goes by a number of different names,” said ACI Director AT Wall, a member of the new commission. “We tend to call it restrictive housing. Restrictive housing has emerged as an issue across the country, an issue in inmate management and it’s one that we think we have to take a look at and we are here in a spirit of collaboration to do just that.”

Even Richard Ferruccio, president of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Corrections Officers, which expressed strong reservations about reforming solitary confinement practices at legislative hearings last year, was hopeful the commission would prove productive.

“I’m looking forward to seeing what we can do to improve our system,” he said. “I think we already have one the better run systems in the country but if we have an opportunity for improvement or ideas, that’s something we’re always looking forward to.”

Mental health advocates said there are “necessary changes” needed in how the ACI uses solitary confinement.

“I’m very happy that all of these people have convened to make these necessary changes,” said Meg Clingham, director of state Office of Mental Health Advocate. “Many of my clients that are criminally involved and at the ACI find themselves in segregation because they are unable to comport their behavior due to their mental illness so I think it’s really great that we are looking for solutions to this problem.”

This was the first of at least six meetings before the commission offers possible recommendations.

The commission’s mandate from the legislature (H8206) includes a preference for administrative rather than legislative reforms. “There are important stakeholders who have expressed a strong preference for administrative over legislative reform,” according to a power point presentation shown at the commission’s first meeting. “As such, if the commission determines there is room for improvement, our first goal is to identify a set of recommendations that can be implemented administratively.”

In a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux issued a decision today holding that the City of Cranston violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution when it allocated the entire incarcerated population of the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) as “residents” of one ward of the City when it drew district lines for the City Council and School Committee following the 2010 Census. The ruling allows the City 30 days to present the Court with a new redistricting plan meeting constitutional requirements.

Today’s ruling, just the second of its kind in the nation, concluded that the City artificially inflated the population count of Ward 6, where the ACI is located, by treating all incarcerated persons as “residents” of the prison for redistricting purposes. Doing so, said the court, violates the rights of persons residing in other wards to equal representation as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“I’m thrilled that our fight for equal representation has been successful,” said Karen Davidson, lead plaintiff. “Fairness in redistricting is a fundamental right and I’m glad that the court has vindicated our claims.”

At issue in the case was the City of Cranston’s choice to count the more than three thousand inmates at the ACI in a single city ward for the purposes of drawing City Council and School Committee districts. Plaintiffs argued this “prison gerrymandering” was improper because those incarcerated at the ACI are not true constituents of local elected officials, but instead remain residents of their pre-incarceration communities for virtually all legal purposes, including voting.

Judge Lagueux agreed with the plaintiffs’ claims, stating that “the ACI’s inmates lack a ‘representational nexus’ with the Cranston City Council and School Committee.” He noted that “Cranston’s elected officials do not campaign or endeavor to represent their ACI constituents,” and pointed out that that the majority of incarcerated persons cannot vote, and those who can are required by law to vote by absentee ballot from their pre-incarceration address.

Due to the questionable counting, persons at the only state-run correctional facility in Rhode Island account for 25% of Ward 6’s total “population.” According to Census Bureau data, without the incarcerated population, Ward 6 has only 10,209 true constituents. Yet those constituents now wield the same political power as the roughly 13,500 constituents in each of the other wards.

Cranston residents Karen Davidson, Debbie Flitman, Eugene Perry, and Sylvia Weber joined the ACLU of Rhode Island as plaintiffs in the case. They were represented in federal court by Demos, the Prison Policy Initiative, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Rhode Island.

“This is a big win for democracy,” said Adam Lioz of Demos, counsel for the plaintiffs. “Prison gerrymandering distorts representation and should no longer be tolerated. This decision should pave the way for other courts to address this long-standing problem.”

“We applaud the court’s decision requiring the City to correct its prison gerrymandering problem without delay,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “It is time for Cranston to stop holding elections under a one-person, three-quarters of a vote regime.”

“Counting people at the ACI as constituents of Ward 6 officials made no sense,” said Aleks Kajstura of the Prison Policy Initiative. “They can’t use the park or library, attend a City Council meeting, or send their kids to public schools. And, even those who can vote must do so from their actual legal residence, not the prison location.”

“This ruling means that Cranston can no longer play games with our democracy by artificially inflating the political power of one district over another. People who are incarcerated should be counted as residents of the districts where they lived, not as so-called ‘residents’ of where they are involuntarily confined,” said Sean Young, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger added: “The ACLU first urged the City to redraw its district lines four years ago in order to protect the rights of voters in the City’s five other wards. I am gratified that they should soon have their voices heard in equal measure with those in Ward 6.”

The case is Davidson et. al. v. City of Cranston. Plaintiffs’ complaint can be found here and their response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss is here. Judge Lagueux’s ruling is here.

[From a press release]

Tag: Adult Correctional Institutions

New group begins study of solitary confinement at ACI

Federal judge orders end to “Prison Gerrymandering” in Cranston school and city council districts