Due to the change in population counts and subsequent reallocation of House seats, all states must redraw their legislative district maps, a process that is known as redistricting. Following the results of the 2020 Census, redistricting is well underway in state legislatures across the nation–but the process can be contentious. 

Even though redistricting is a battle primarily fought in the halls of state legislatures, it has national implications. For young people, the results of this process are extremely significant, as many of these maps will stay in place for a decade until the next Census and redistricting process occurs in 2030. Learning about how we can take action to combat some of the nefarious partisan activity that impacts redistricting will help us to advocate for a more fair and representative democracy.  

Challenges to Fair Redistricting  

1. Redistricting Committees Work To Diminish the Power of Communities of Color.  

Gerrymandering, a term for the manipulation of legislative district"s boundaries to give one political party an advantage, can greatly influence which party has more electoral power in the state"s Congressional delegation. All too often, it robs power from non-white voters by "cracking and packing" communities of color. States may "crack" communities so that voters of color constitute a small percentage of many districts and don"t hold a majority in any district. Conversely, states may also "pack" voters of color into one district, resulting in people of color making up a large majority of one or two districts, with white people making up a slimmer majority (but a majority nonetheless) in all other districts. 

The Texas congressional maps are an example that has drawn widespread attention, as the state is gerrymandered on every level, from the State Board of Education to U.S. House Districts. Texas lawmakers used gerrymandering to pack Hispanic voters into fewer districts and dilute the presence of Black communities in other districts. 95 percent of Texas"s population growth since 2010 was due to people of color, and Texas added eleven new Hispanic residents for every new white, non-Hispanic resident. Despite this, Texas lawmakers managed to add a majority-white congressional district and eliminate a majority-Hispanic district. Texas lawmakers also cut the state"s only majority-Black district in the 2020 redistricting process.  Only 39.8 percent of the Texas population is white, yet white people constitute the majority in 59.3 percent of legislative districts. 

Maps like the ones from Texas reinforce systemic racism by giving white voters control of more districts, which ultimately comes with the political power to choose the majority of the representatives in Congress. This disproportionate allocation of power also results in voters of color having less opportunities to elect representatives who are committed to solving issues faced by communities of color, slowing down progress on racial justice. 

2. College Campuses Are Targeted by Right-Wing Politicians. 

College campuses have a high concentration of young people in a small geographic area. Because young people are more progressive on average than older generations, many college campuses are surrounded by large blocks of progressive, student voters, making them a prime target for partisan gerrymandering. College campuses are sometimes cracked and diluted into surrounding districts, while other states may opt to pack multiple colleges into a single district. Both outcomes result in college-age populations having less political power.  

Additionally, minority-serving institutions are nearly twice as likely to be gerrymandered compared to institutions that primarily serve white students. Until 2020, North Carolina A&T State University, the country’s largest historically Black university, had a congressional line drawn through the middle of campus, dividing the college into two different House districts. Before a court decision required the campus to be contained into one congressional district, students would frequently cross the district line on the walk from their dormitory to the lecture halls.

3. Prison Populations Are Used To Decide District Populations–Even Though Most Incarcerated People Can"t Vote. 

Prison gerrymandering occurs when the Census Bureau includes prison populations in population counts for congressional districts, meaning incarcerated people’s "usual place of abode" is defined as the prison or jail where they are incarcerated. However, many incarcerated people cannot vote due to practical or legal barriers, and many serve sentences as short as six months, meaning their location in the jail was only temporary when officials conducted the Census.  

 Prison gerrymandering primarily harms people of color and young people, two groups that are disproportionately jailed. Before the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau asked the public for feedback on its residency definitions. The Bureau received nearly 78,000 public comments about prison populations, and 99.9 percent said incarcerated people should be counted in the community they call home, not the place they are incarcerated. By not counting incarcerated people as residents of their home community, prison gerrymandering disproportionately shifts power away from over-policed communities of color and to the permanent residents of prison towns, who tend to be white. In sixteen states, over 75 percent of the incarcerated population is incarcerated in a disproportionately white county. Many of these districts have more Black Americans who are incarcerated than Black Americans who are not. 

Take Action 

In 32 states, the state legislature controls redistricting, which can be problematic because the party in power may choose to draw a map that is more favorable to them. But it doesn"t have to be this way! Some states use non-partisan or independent commissions, which prohibit incumbent politicians and party officials from making redistricting decisions. While we should continue to work towards broader redistricting reform that includes criteria to prohibit partisan gerrymandering, there is still action you can take right now to promote fairness during redistricting. 

1. Pass the Freedom To Vote Act 

The Freedom To Vote Act (FTVA) would increase transparency and accountability by requiring redistricting commissions to publish the data used to create maps. States would be required to use computer modeling to assess a map"s partisan impact and decide its fairness using formal criteria. Legal challenges to partisan gerrymanders would automatically be referred to a federal district court in Washington D.C. 

The FTVA would also apply, even retroactively, to all maps drawn after the 2020 census, meaning it isn"t too late to reverse the gerrymandered maps that states have already produced. Tell Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act today! 

2. Testify 

Most states take public testimony into consideration when redistricting. Preparing written or spoken testimony about the redistricting process is a great way to engage with your legislators and represent your community. 

Testifying is your opportunity to explain to mapmakers how their decisions will directly impact you and your community members–and young voices need to be heard in this process. Check out the FiveThirtyEight project to learn more about redistricting in your state, including how to testify. 

The post Redistricting Is Already Underway–Here’s How To Make it Fair appeared first on Generation Progress.

by anti-abortion groups and lawmakers have made it so many people aren"t able to access their right to bodily autonomy. Through medically unnecessary restrictions people of color, rural communities, young people, LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, immigrants, and those struggling to make ends meet have been most affected. 

In 2021, Generation Progress partnered with We Testify to launch the below Instagram series that outlines some of the root causes of reproductive oppression. The experiences show how five women navigated these barriers while accessing abortion care. 

The right to abortion isn"t real if only some people can access it. If you agree, join us by demanding lawmakers pass a proactive abortion agenda. 

Related Articles: 

• Abortion Rights Are on the Line–Here"s What You Need to Know
• Reclaiming Our Rights: Reproductive Justice
• Conservatives Feel Entitled to Your Ballot and Your Body
• Four Things You Need to Know About the Texas Abortion Ban

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

The post Five Abortion Stories That Show We Need to Increase Access appeared first on Generation Progress.

 they"ve made accessing care harder for everyone

In Mississippi, abortion may soon be outlawed after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This law is the basis of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that the Supreme Court heard on December 1, 2021. If a majority of justices rule in favor of the law, the precedent set by Roe would be overturned–and our constitutional right to abortion would be decimated. In Mississippi, all abortion clinics but Jackson Women’s Health Organization have closed, making it nearly impossible for people to access safe, legal abortion care in the state. 

Sadly, Mississippi isn"t the only state where abortion access is a problem. Depending on where you live, there may be a 24- or 48-hour waiting period between a consultation appointment and when you can get your abortion. You may be forced to undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound before you can terminate. Your nearest clinic may be miles away and/or backlogged. Lack of insurance coverage may result in unaffordable costs. Laws may dictate your timing of, if, and when you can get an abortion. You may also be given false information from anti-abortion volunteers posing as health care workers at crisis pregnancy centers. Anti-abortion laws and policies may supersede your decision-making and autonomy. 

Our abortion rights have been in danger for a long time, but this year it"s only gotten worse. In 2021, more states have passed abortion restrictions that can cause significant challenges to receiving care than any other year. This is the erosion of reproductive rights and justice in America.

Earlier this year, Texas enacted S.B.8–a law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and authorizes ordinary people to sue anyone who helps someone get an abortion past that point. Six weeks of pregnancy is only two weeks after a missed period, a time when most people don"t yet know they"re pregnant. Regardless of this fact, the Supreme Court refused to block the law in September, forcing hundreds of people to travel out-of-state to get care and others to continue with a pregnancy they do not want. If Roe is overturned, this situation could be the new reality for birthing people across the country.

We have to protect our constitutional right to abortion and push legislators to go above and beyond it. If Roe is overturned, abortion would immediately be banned in 24 states as a result of insidious trigger laws that are designed to take effect the moment the abortion is no longer protected. These people would have to drive an average of 4.5 hours to get an abortion, and the impact would fall hardest on people of color, rural people,  young people, LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, immigrants, and those struggling to make ends meet. Abortion access is an issue of racial equity and economic justice. It"s a simple, essential, health care service that allows individuals to have control over their future. While it could be months before the Court releases its decision on Dobbs, we won"t give up this fight.

The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect abortion rights by establishing a statutory right for health care professionals to provide abortion care and patients to receive it. It also eliminates some key barriers to abortion access, including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds. The bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but it still has to get through the Senate to become law. 

We have to transform how abortion is treated in this country, especially for those whose abortion rights have been most obstructed."¯Tell your elected officials to protect abortion access and ask your senators to pass the Women"s Health Protection Act. This is how we can save Roe and go even further.

The post Abortion Rights Are on the Line–Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Generation Progress.

Here are just 5 examples of how putting communities first can make communities safer:

1. Hospital-based violence interruption programs (HVIPs) are programs that reach victims at their most vulnerable. HVIPs are located in trauma centers and emergency rooms to reach victims the moment they reach the hospital. Case managers engage survivors, while also working to prevent retaliation. (Learn More)

2. Group Violence Intervention involves collaboration between social service providers, community members, and law enforcement. These programs are intended to increase trust between law enforcement and the communities they police. (Learn More)

3. Violence Interrupters or Street Outreach programs are led by interventionists that live in the community. The programs focus on building relationships, supporting survivors of violence, and implementing restorative justice solutions to gun violence. These programs are immediate crisis responses and also long term support. (Learn More)

4. Cure Violence programs aim to change the norms about community violence and create pathways for young people involved in gun violence. This model trains community members to detect and interrupt violence, identify and treat individuals at the highest risk of violence, and mobilize the community to change norms. (Learn More)

5. Community-driven crime prevention through environmental design are programs where communities reduce crime and violence by using architecture and urban planning to create or restore public spaces where the community can gather and feel a sense of safety. Restoration of vacant lots and investing in a community"s physical environment has been proven to reduce crime and gun violence. When communities look safe, people feel safe. (Learn More)

CVI programs make sense. Slowly, our government has been recognizing this and providing resources and opportunities for the expansion of CVI programs; just this year the Build Back Better Act included a momentous $5 billion in funding for local initiatives to combat gun violence. By providing resources and training to the people that live in communities most impacted by violence, we are giving communities an opportunity to heal from the inside by establishing greater trust in their neighbors and changing community norms about violence. Tens of thousands of people are victims of gun violence each year in the U.S., and that violence is concentrated in underserved Black and Brown communities. Investing in proven community-based solutions is a no brainer.

The post Five Examples of Community Violence Intervention Programs That Work appeared first on Generation Progress.

Young Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse than previous generations, and they are also more likely to be openly LGBTQI+. For these individuals, concerns over crises such as shrinking housing availability and climate change are compounded by ongoing and significant rates of discrimination against LGBTQI+ individuals. The LGBTQI+ youth of today face heightened rates of bullying in educational spaces, rejection from family members, and homelessness, among other concerns. Although the internet has created new opportunities for positive connection and affirmation, online harassment has also fueled mental health problems. Data from a nationally representative 2020 survey by the Center for American Progress and NORC at the University of Chicago* reveal that LGBTQI+ youth face high levels of discrimination in school, work, and housing, which leads to large-scale financial struggles and poor mental health. Overall, 57 percent of Generation Z** respondents reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the year prior to the survey, compared with 42 percent of Millennials, 30 percent of Gen X respondents, and 19 percent of Baby Boomers.

Mental health disparities

Compared with older generations, LGBTQI+ Gen Z individuals experience much higher rates of mental health issues, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. These general feelings of hopelessness, nervousness, or unwillingness to live stem from an array of factors, including financial and housing instability, lack of access to mental health services, employment uncertainties, and unaccepting families, all of which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from CAP"s 2020 survey capture some of these disparities:

• 82 percent of Gen Z respondents reported feeling so sad that nothing could cheer them up to some degree in January 2020, compared with 64 percent of Millennials, 46 percent of Gen X, and 30 percent of Baby Boomers.
  • 95 percent of Gen Z respondents reported that poor mental health interfered with their daily life or activities to some degree in January 2020, compared with 88 percent of Millennials, 76 percent of Gen X, and 75 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 86 percent of Gen Z respondents reported that their psychological well-being was negatively affected to some degree by discrimination in the year prior to the survey.
• 67 percent of Gen Z respondents reported that their physical well-being was negatively affected to some degree by discrimination in the year prior to the survey.

Figure 1

Education

The majority of Gen Z individuals are college age or younger, meaning that much of the discrimination faced by LGBTQI+ youth takes place in school environments. Compared with their cisgender heterosexual counterparts, LGBTQI+ students–particularly transgender students–face disproportionate rates of bullying. The frequency of harassment and discrimination in schools has led to significant mental health concerns, including suicidal thoughts or attempts, among this population. Additionally, such victimization also results in LGBTQI+ students being more likely to struggle academically and less likely to pursue postsecondary education. Patterns of discrimination can also be found in higher education. For example, religious exemption allows colleges to discriminate against LBGTQI+ students on the basis of their beliefs, despite Title IX anti-discrimination protections. CAP"s survey data outline these patterns of discrimination:

• 46 percent of Gen Z respondents who reported experiencing discrimination in the year prior to the survey suffered bullying, harassment, or discrimination in school.
• 80 percent of Gen Z respondents who reported discrimination in the year prior to the survey said that it has negatively affected their school environment to some degree.
• 35 percent of Gen Z respondents reported making specific decisions about where to go to school to avoid experiencing discrimination.

Figure 2

Financial disparities

While 45 million Americans are currently saddled with student loan debt, it is more concentrated among young adults–and Black, Brown, and low-income people are disproportionately affected. Gen Z is on track to become the most educated generation in history, but it is also seeing the largest increases in student loan debt year after year. In 2020, young people"s average debt increased by 39 percent, which was a greater increase than for any other generation. Significant student debt affects many big life decisions, preventing young people from buying homes, moving to new places, getting married, starting families, reaching financial stability, and more. Young Americans, who have borne thebrunt of multiple economic recessions in the past decade, also have a high reliance on minimum wage jobs and have long struggled to find success in an increasingly polarized economy. Meanwhile, LGBTQI+ Americans face unique economic struggles due to hiring discrimination, lack of access to generational wealth, and overrepresentation inservice industry jobs, leading this population to face poverty at higher rates than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts.

• 28 percent of Gen Z respondents reported receiving some assistance from unemployment in the year prior to the survey, compared with 23 percent of Millennials, 23 percent of Gen X, and 12 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 63 percent of Gen Z respondents who reported discrimination in the year prior to the survey said that it negatively affected their ability to be hired to some degree, compared with 57 percent of Millennials, 60 percent of Gen X, and 43 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 47 percent of Gen Z respondents who reported discrimination in the year prior to the survey said that it has negatively affected their financial well-being to some degree.

Figure 3

Housing disparities

Because most young Americans still live with a parent or guardian, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, they face unique pressures in maintaining positive relationships with biological or legal family members. These concerns compound for LGBTQI+ individuals, who often experience rejection from family because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Staggeringly, LGBTQ youth and young adults are 120 percent more likely to experience homelessness than their straight and cisgender peers, in part because of high rates of family rejection.

Additionally, LGBTQI+ youth living on their own face the strains of an unstable housing market, low wages, and historically little access to wealth, contributing to low rates of homeownership. These factors, combined with widespread housing discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans writ large, all contribute to the high rates of housinginsecurity among LGBTQI+ individuals.

• 34 percent of Gen Z respondents reported that their ability to rent or buy a home was moderately or significantly affected by discrimination, compared with 29 percent of Millennials, 28 percent of Gen X, and 10 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 23 percent of Gen Z respondents who reported experiencing discrimination in the year prior to the survey said they experienced it in an apartment community, compared with 22 percent of Millennials, 16 percent of Gen X, and 10 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 27 percent of Gen Z respondents report having moved away from a rural area to avoid experiencing discrimination, compared with 24 percent of Millennials, 21 percent of Gen X, and 17 percent of Baby Boomers.

Avoidance behaviors

One result of the high levels of discrimination faced by Gen Z LGBTQI+ individuals is that this generation is more likely to go out of its way to avoid further discriminatory experiences. Although U.S. support for LGBTQI+ rights has increased, a significant portion of these individuals remain in the closet out of fear of experiencing discrimination or retaliation. Gen Z individuals are also the most likely to identify as transgender and nonbinary–groups that facedisproportionately high levels of discrimination in housing and health care and in public spaces.

• 45 percent of Gen Z respondents reported avoiding law enforcement in order to avoid experiencing discrimination, compared with 36 percent of Millennials, 24 percent of Gen X, and 16 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 42 percent of Gen Z respondents reported avoiding public places such as stores or restaurants in order to avoid experiencing discrimination, compared with 37 percent of Millennials, 31 percent of Gen X, and 23 percent of Baby Boomers.
• 35 percent of Gen Z respondents reported avoiding doctor"s offices in order to avoid experiencing discrimination, compared with 23 percent of Millennials, 14 percent of Gen X, and 9 percent of Baby Boomers.

Figure 4

Conclusion

LGBTQI+ individuals who are part of Generation Z reported some of the highest levels of discrimination across CAP"s 2020 survey. These concerns were most prominent in housing, education, and economic advancement and had a marked impact on respondents" mental health and behavior. As more and more young LGBTQI+ individuals feel safe living as their authentic selves, it is all the more imperative that lawmakers address the myriad disparities LGBTQI+ youth face and ensure they are protected from discrimination under federal law.

*Data throughout this column are from a nationally representative survey of 1,528 LGBTQI+-identifying individuals, jointly conducted in June 2020 by the Center for American Progress and NORC at the University of Chicago, which has been weighted to account for both U.S. population characteristics and survey nonresponse. Unless otherwise indicated, all comparisons between white respondents and respondents of color are significant at the 0.05 level.

**Generation Z respondents include all those from ages 18 to 22. Millennials include respondents ages 23 to 38; Generation X includes respondents ages 39 to 54; and Baby Boomers include respondents ages 55 and older.

The post LGBTQI+ Members of Generation Z Face Unique Social and Economic Concerns appeared first on Generation Progress.

Please join the Center for American Progress, Generation Progress, young LGBTQI elected officials, and a cross-movement panel of advocates, policy experts, and researchers to discuss why Gen Z LGBTQI individuals are experiencing such significant disparities and what policymakers can do to address this crisis.

Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Noon to 1:15 pm E.T.

Introductory remarks:
Sharita Gruberg, Vice President of the LGBTQ and Communications Project, Center for American Progress

Keynote remarks:
State Rep. Ryan M. Fecteau (D-ME), Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives

Panelists:
Jordan Budd, Executive Director, COLAGE
Olivia Julianna, Advocate and Digital Content Creator, Gen Z for Change
Lindsay Mahowald, Research Assistant with the LGBTQ Research and Communications Project, Center for American Progress
Preston Mitchum, Director of Advocacy and Government Affairs, The Trevor Project

Moderator:
Edwith Theogene, Director of Advocacy, Generation Progress

Closing remarks:
Matthew Taylor, Member-at-Large, Sunnyside Unified Governing Board in Arizona

The post EVENT: Making Progress for LGBTQI+ Gen Z appeared first on Generation Progress.

The rally kicked off with remarks from leaders from The Live Movement, the NAACP, 1000 Women Strong, the Student Debt Crisis Center, and more on what it will take to end the student debt crisis for good. 

The virtual event closed out Generation Progress"s debt-free college for all week of action, which included constituent meetings with U.S. Senate offices, phonebanking, and a storyteller workshop. Participants called for debt-free college solutions, funding for students at HBCUs and MSIs, doubling the maximum Pell grant, and executive action on student debt cancellation.

Note: This event was previously planned as an outdoor rally and march, but was moved online as a result of inclement weather.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Generation Progress (@genprogress)

Want to learn more about the effort to cancel student debt and make college free? Check out our action toolkit and fact sheet.

The post EVENT: Debt-Free College for All Virtual Rally appeared first on Generation Progress.

reduces a person"s life expectancy by two years

Click to view PDF.

Life without parole is also a racial equity issue. As is often the case in the criminal legal system, people of color are disproportionately sentenced to life without parole, making up 67.5 percent of those sentenced to life in 2016. Moreover, in 2018, Black Americans made up two-thirds or more of people sentenced to life without parole in nine states: Illinois, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Life without parole is a punishment that takes young people of color and permanently separates them from their communities. And it"s getting worse: between 2003 and 2016, life without parole sentences increased by 59 percent.

SOLUTION

Life without parole sentences contribute to mass incarceration. In 2020, there were a total of 2.3 million incarcerated Americans in a prison system that costs taxpayers approximately $80 billion a year. Life without parole sentences exacerbate this issue by making it impossible for a portion of the prison population to ever see freedom, even if their continued incarceration is unnecessary. But it doesn"t have to be this way. By eliminating life without parole sentences, we can make the legal system more just and shrink a criminal legal system that has grown out of control since the 1970s. 

1. Ask your state legislators to eliminate life without parole as a sentencing option.
2. Do your research on judges with a record of handing down life without parole sentences. While legislatures usually determine whether LWOP is an available sentencing option, judges often have the final say in sentencing for a given case. In many states, judges are elected to their positions by the public.

Everyone deserves a second chance. It"s up to our generation to make sure that everyone gets it.

TAKE ACTION

Use our tool to call on your legislators to shrink the criminal legal system by ending mandatory minimums. Your elected state officials control a large portion of what causes mass incarceration PLUS they can determine how this system operates. Changing state laws and policies can reduce the number of people who go into the criminal legal system and mitigate the harms of those already involved with the system. Tell lawmakers you demand action.

The post FACT SHEET: Life Without Parole Is Inhumane appeared first on Generation Progress.

Tuition Assistance Programs (TAP) are vital to creating equitable spaces in higher education, yet these programs still aren"t accessible to incarcerated students. During the "tough on crime" era, lawmakers banned incarcerated students from accessing need-based assistance programs like Pell nationwide and TAP in New York. But a movement in New York is working to reverse that legislation for incarcerated New Yorkers.

Equitable access to higher education is critical for justice-involved students in and out of corrections facilities. By 2027, 70% of all jobs will require post-secondary education beyond high school; this coupled with disproportionately high unemployment rates, means formerly incarcerated people re-enter society with a number of barriers to success. Incarcerated women are particularly at risk since they are the fastest-growing segment of the incarceration population, and are often offered even fewer opportunities for higher education behind bars. 

On October 26, 2021, Generation Progress Director of Advocacy Edwith Theogene spoke on the "TAP Restoration Is Women’s Equity" panel hosted by College and Community Fellowship about why TAP restoration is a women"s issue, and how denying access to incarcerated students deepens the divide between men and women.

Panel:

• Serena Martin-Liguori, Executive Director, New Hour for Women and Children-Long Island
• Anisah Sabur, #HALTsolitary Campaign
• Nicole D. Porter, Senior Director of Advocacy, The Sentencing Project
• Edwith Theogene, Director of Advocacy, Generation Progress

The post EVENT: TAP Restoration Is Women’s Equity Panel appeared first on Generation Progress.

Mandatory minimums also prevent judges from exercising discretion and considering relevant circumstances in each case. Even if a judge believes that a defendant deserves leniency, they are required by law to impose the mandatory minimum sentence.

Click to view PDF.

Finally, mandatory minimums are not enforced equally. Statistics show that prosecutors are twice as likely to seek a mandatory minimum sentence for Black defendants as for white defendants. Keeping in mind that Black Americans are incarcerated at over five times the rate of white Americans, it"s clear that mandatory minimums pose a major threat to the freedom of Black communities.

SOLUTION

The only way to solve mass incarceration is to solve our problem with sentencing. At the end of 2019, there were a total of 1,435,500 people incarcerated in federal and state prisons. That"s 437 people per 100,000 residents. By repealing mandatory minimums, we can reduce both the number of people who enter prison and the length of their stay, shrinking the criminal legal system overall and saving taxpayers approximately $33,000 per person a year.

TAKE ACTION

Use our tool to call on your legislators to shrink the criminal legal system by ending mandatory minimums. Your elected state officials control a large portion of what causes mass incarceration PLUS they can determine how this system operates. Changing state laws and policies can reduce the number of people who go into the criminal legal system and mitigate the harms of those already involved with the system. Tell lawmakers you demand action.

The post FACT SHEET: We Need to Repeal Mandatory Minimums appeared first on Generation Progress.