So, my friend @spiceybinks asked me about prison gerrymandering. Which may seem like a kind of far-off issue...counting people *in prison* as "residents" of a district for the purpose of allocating representation.
But it's actually a factor perpetuating police violence.
As many have pointed out (including one of my favorite humans @Taniel) it goes like this:
Black and brown people are policed more aggressively
They get locked up in prison at dramatically higher rates
Prisons are often far away from their homes in conservative districts.
So the result here is that very white, conservative districts are able to *increase their voting power* by incarcerating primarily BIPOC.
Think about that.
There's a really helpful overview on places where this is still happening, which I've provided here. But gerrymandering is just half the picture.
People who are incarcerated are stripped of their voting power basically everywhere. Over 6 million people have lost the right to be heard in our society because of a criminal conviction.
So here's where we're at: Black and brown people policed at higher rates, incarcerated at higher rates, stripped of their political voice at higher rates AND their population power given to whiter, more conservative districts.
Sheriffs are elected. City and county councilmembers who make decisions about policing...mayors...governors...prosecutors...they're elected.
But when you look at who is electing them, you have to remember how many people have been silenced.
All of which is to say, voting is vital and hugely important. But your vote--my vote--all of our votes are not enough if they only represent what we want for ourselves. It's vital to use your political power to vote on behalf of those who cannot, and work to restore their rights.
The only way we'll dismantle the structures of oppression is together. It's hard work. It means learning every fucking detail about your local DA even if you yourself are unlikely to ever engage with them.
And it also means having a heightened awareness of how the skewing of the basic institutions of democracy has preserved police violence and mass incarceration for so long.
Oh one more thing--if anyone tries to make you believe that the right to vote is somehow *traditionally* or normally tied to incarceration or wrongdoing...that's just not true. Want to know how we got felon disenfranchisement?
Slavery.
Not, like, sort of or metaphorically. After emancipation, slave-holding districts created "black codes," or criminal law designed to create reasons to arrest and jail Black people, and then lease their labor back to formerly slave-holding plantations. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Tying the right to vote to whether a person has a criminal record was *deliberately* developed to silence Black people once they got the right to vote.
So this is, in fact, a mechanism designed to suppress and marginalize the voices of a community that has perpetuated on and on.
OH AND ONE MORE THING!!! This is separate and apart from the structural racism perpetuating police violence.
Voting makes communities safer. Did you know that? I forgot I once did a thread on it, with links and research :) twitter.com/i/events/11066…
And if you want an up-to-date overview of where Black votes are being given to prison towns, here you go... theappeal.org/political-repo…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A short thread on what refusal to comply can look like, with specifics, examples, and ideas for what the future may hold.
Actually IDK if it's gonna be short, but it's gonna be specific, so read on if you're curious.
When people think of protest, or actions against authoritarian governments, they often think of people in streets yelling stuff and holding signs. And that's important, protest is a powerful way to show where the people stand! But
As a person who operates in systems that are extremely authoritarian (prisons, jails, criminal courts) let me tell you that many of the systems in which we operate simply *do not care* about protest.
As long as it costs them little, they can ignore it.
Just a reminder that $10 billion has been poured into this election, much of it in ads that line the pockets of media and social media companies. Changing the rules of campaign finance would also eliminate the financial incentive for media companies to drive us nuts every 4 years
Over a billion of this went to Pennsylvania alone. How much do Pennsylvania media companies benefit directly from both-sidesing elections and ensuring their state stays a key swing state?
And on a national scale, how much do all of our media companies quite literally profit from making the election seem like a non-stop horse race with higher and higher stress and drama?
It's the weekly video. For World Mental Health Day, let's talk about something you might not know---how health insurance providers may actually drive up mass incarceration.
Some context: here is the original law, from 2008, where the government tried to get insurers to provide the same level of coverage for mental and physical health. propublica.org/article/biden-…
But they...didn't. Sometimes, they might restrict what medicines they include in their formulary...
1. This is an awful tone to take, as a leader, when talking about government action to forcibly, sometimes violently, remove people from a place where they are seeking stability.
This tone is bad because it treats the circumstance of homelessness as if it were an overt, intentional action by the unhoused person. "No more excuses"? You think people saying "homelessness is not a crime, please don't treat it as such" are giving EXCUSES?
2. It's especially bad when you consider what sweeps do. Sweeps result in arrests, and displacement, but also strip people of all their worldly possessions.
The thing about the Trump immunity case is that yeah, to an extent it creates "King President" but tbh it much more creates "King SCOTUS." This is because what is an "official" act of the prez will of course be litigated and...
...who is waiting at the end of the road on all that litigation? King SCOTUS of course, who will get to decide what's official, what *evidence* is sufficiently tied to official acts to come in or not come in, and basically whether a case lives or dies.
And one more thing.
This whole idea of a job being so important that you get to be above the law? Yeah, that idea comes *straight* from the absolute mess of absolute and qualified immunity in policing and prosecution.