No abstract

No abstract

Temporary day labor agencies (commonly referred to as ''day labor halls'') are privately run companies external to the formal Prison Re-Entry Industry (PRI). However, they frequently provide entry-level employment for recent, frequent, and reformed felons. All spaces associated with day labor employment are rigidly controlled and caught in a visual contradiction. While laborers are completely visible to the day labor halls for the purposes of surveillance, observation, evaluation, and ultimately control, they are simultaneously rendered invisible and hidden from the view of society at large. For day laborers with felony records, the duality is intensified. Once released from prison, former prisoners enter spaces under the view and control of law enforcement within the formal PRI system. Further, their world continues to be viewed, restricted, and controlled by privately owned day labor halls where over 50% of potential workers are felons. By examining the spatialities of the daily working lives of day laborers and their (im)mobility as they navigate difficult spatialities, it is possible to comprehend some of the major hurdles of re-entry. The spatialities of the everyday life of felons continue as restricted spaces for a ''captive population'' even beyond the prison walls and beyond the formal systems of the PRI.Keywords Day labor Á Prisoners Á Felons Á Prisoner re-entry industry Á Prison industrial complex Á Low-wage labor With daylight at least 2 h away, competitive, desperate workers wait in line for the day labor hall doors to open, signaling the beginning of the long work day which begins and ends in the gloomy building with a dimly lit alley entrance hidden from

No abstract

Geographic polarization arises when partisan, or like‐minded, voters live in enclaves separate from voters of differing partisan behavior. Research studies at multiple scales of analysis suggest that geographic polarization most typically occurs regarding partisan voting behavior; however, few studies have analyzed polarization with a focus on policy preferences. This research examines same‐sex marriage policy through two statewide issues that shared the presidential election ballot in 2004. The results of that presidential election and these two ballot initiatives are examined in Cincinnati, Ohio, and counties in its surrounding Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in both Ohio and Kentucky. A geographically polarized relationship was found between partisan results and same‐sex marriage results. In addition, the findings suggest that despite a close link between partisan voting and issue voting on same‐sex marriage, spatial clustering (geographic polarization) was identified of those who voted differently from their fellow partisans.