Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that the independent redistricting citizen ballot initiative is constitutional.

One of the issues at play: the legality of ending prison gerrymandering.

The Court got it right (opinion below), but some thoughts: https://brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/2020-05-27-118685-Opinion.pdf">https://brennancenter.org/sites/def...

Most states (incl OK) count ppl who are incarcerated as political constituents in districts where the prison is located, not where they are from. The effect: over-policed communities (disproportionately of color) lose representation and rural communities w/ prisons gain it.

This is prison gerrymandering. It& #39;s bad. It skews politics. And has all sorts of negative (and germane) consequences.

The OK ballot initiative would fix it by counting ppl in custody in their home communities.

An OK resident challenged this change as discriminatory (https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🙄" title="Face with rolling eyes" aria-label="Emoji: Face with rolling eyes">x1,000)

The Court rejected this claim on the ground that states may adjust their census numbers. It& #39;s a good outcome.

But there are also representational interests involved that could have (and probably should have) guided the Court in greenlighting the end to prison gerrymandering.

The Constitution should be understood as promoting universal representation--this means everyone gets counted no matter whether the person can vote or not (e.g. kids, noncitizens, ppl in prison). But counting all ppl isn& #39;t enough.

Nonvoters by definition don& #39;t have a direct say. They rely on other ppl to select their representatives. It is especially important that these folks get counted in the communities to which they have ties--a concept known as the person& #39;s representational nexus.

There& #39;s an argument rooted in this thinking that& #39;s based on the right to be represented that shouldn& #39;t be overlooked whenever prison gerrymandering comes up.