Income Inequality

What's up with Twiggs County, Georgia?

In fiddling with the 2017 health data, it turns out Twiggs County is #1 in Georgia and #4 in the whole country in terms of income inequality. Hmph.

I don't know anything about Twiggs County other than what I can skim from census numbers and the magic that is its Wikipedia entry. It sits near Macon and has relatively few people, a hair over 8,000, but it scores really high in terms of income inequality.

So how is income inequality measured? You take a county's 20th percentile average income and compare it to the 80th percentile average income and generate a ratio. So for Twiggs county the 80th percentile average of salary is $79,276 and the 20th percentile average salary is $,959. The ratio, dividing the bigger by the smaller, is 7.96 or, in this case, rounded to 8.0.  In other words, it has a big gap between residents who earn the most and residents who earn the least, at least compared to the gap seen in other counties.

The national list is a mishmash of places. Below are the Top 5 U.S. counties in terms of income inequality:

1. Radford City, Virginia
2. New York, New York
3. Clarke, Alabama
4. Twiggs, Georgia
5. Terrell, Texas

Radford is relatively small as well. I know nothing about it. NYC kinda speaks for itself, but Clarke, Alabama? It's a burb of Mobile, best I can tell. Terrell County, Texas, is tiny as well. So what can we say from these top five? There's no consistent explanation, not a one. They're not all college towns, not all major cities.

Is income inequality a bad thing? Generally yes, though there's something to be said for places with lots of different kinds of people rather than everyone being about the same -- or all above average. 

Now closer to home. Athens-Clarke County, where I live, rates pretty high in income inequality. We're #2 in the state. Below, the Georgia list and the income ratio, which is simply how many times smaller the bottom salaries are compared to the top salaries:

1. Twiggs (8.0)
2. Clarke (7.4)
3. Clinch (7.0)
4. Baldwin (6.7)
5. Ben Hill (6.6)
6. Bulloch (6.6)
7. Crisp (6.5)
8. Bibb (6.4)
9. Dougherty (6.4)
10. Burke (6.3)

By the way, the average for Georgia is 5.0. The Georgia county with the least income inequality has a 2.7 ratio (Chattahoochee). In the map below, darker colors signify counties with a greater income inequality ratio. Click on the map and a county to see its ratio.


Not a lot you can tell from the list of counties above. Again, there's no single consistent indicator that I can readily see. No major cities on the list except, maybe, Bibb County and Macon, otherwise income inequality isn't on the surface easy to explain. The poverty rates for these counties are high but not shockingly higher than other counties and in some instances actually lower. Glancing across a number of other indicators, nothing pops up to me to explain why these counties versus other counties lead the list. Athens-Clarke I get -- high poverty and a major university in the same place, but that doesn't really explain the other counties.

Judge Softens Gag Order, Still Doesn't Get It

Turns out the judge in the Athens-Clarke cop-killer has eased the gag order he issued earlier that caused all kinds of excitement, attention -- and valid criticism.

After all, the order was clearly unconstitutional, something you'd expect a judge to kinda get because, ya know, law school. At the bottom you'll see the graphs from the original OnlineAthens story that was ordered taken down by the judge. Yes, I'll run 'em, because that's what I do.

The judge, H. Patrick Haggard (pic above), still doesn't get it. According to the latest Athens Banner-Herald/OnlineAthens story:

The amended order he issued Wednesday restricts only the publication of information that could identify potential jurors, responses made by potential jurors during the selection process, and issues raised by the prosecution and defense which “may relate to juror responses.”

Sorry, that's still prior restraint. If potential jurors are saying it in a public courtroom, it's in the public domain and definitely in the public interest. Period.

The judge may have avoided the embarrassment of being told by another court to straighten up and fly constitutionally right. Maybe. It depends on whether the ABH is willing to spent the bucks challenging the existing, eased gag order. In fairness to the judge, his interest is less on the First Amendment and more on the Sixth Amendment and ensuring a fair trial for an admitted cop killer. That said, the law is fairly straightforward here, and he's on the wrong side. I get his concern, he's just overreached. And to be honest, Elbert County was a crappy choice for jurors in the first place. A year ago I wrote this and even recommended Hall County as a better choice, given the demographics, plus years ago an infamous local trial was moved there in a change of venue, that of the Five Points Rapist. Sigh, no one listens to me.

By the way, where are the other local or Atlanta media in this fight? Eh? Get in the ballgame, folks.

Section That Pissed Off Judge

The DA’s motion further states, “The court is aware of the massive amount of media exposure and the fixed opinions of potential jurors who have directly heard statements by (Hood) admitting to acts that infer (his) guilt, read newspaper articles that state (Hood) made admissions of killing a police officer or heard the same information by word of mouth in the community.

In the selection process that began June 1, 47 people were qualified out of a field of 126 as potentially suited to serve on the jury.

“Of the 47 jurors that were kept 77% stated that they were familiar with the facts of the case and of (Hood) and 15% gave the opinion that (Hood) was guilty when asked by (Hood),” Mauldin states in his motion. “However the actual percentage may be higher than the figure given as (Hood) did not ask all 47 jurors who were qualified if they thought he was guilty.”

Earlier posts by me on this here and here. Worth your time, if you haven't already read them. OK, maybe not. Humor me.

Local Gag Order

Update at Bottom

There's a cop killer trial happening locally. Well, it's mired in jury selection at the moment, but an interesting angle came up as the judge issued a media gag order, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. In the latest story:

In an order filed Monday in Clarke County Superior Court, Judge H. Patrick Haggard forbids all media and all court officials connected with the case from publishing or disclosing “in any manner information that is related in any manner to the selection of jurors for (Hood’s) trial.”

The paper had put online a version of the story that included details from jurors, especially quotes that they believed the defendant did it and how he should be punished (yes, I read it before it was taken down). After posting the story:

A Clarke County sheriff’s deputy on Tuesday served the order to the publisher and a reporter with the Banner-Herald. The order was served hours after a story containing details of the jury selection process was posted by OnlineAthens.com.

OK, right off as a public service, here's a cached version of the story, though I'm not sure it's the complete version but it seems to be. Here's a chunk that probably pissed off the judge:

The DA’s motion further states, “The court is aware of the massive amount of media exposure and the fixed opinions of potential jurors who have directly heard statements by (Hood) admitting to acts that infer (his) guilt, read newspaper articles that state (Hood) made admissions of killing a police officer or heard the same information by word of mouth in the community.

In the selection process that began June 1, 47 people were qualified out of a field of 126 as potentially suited to serve on the jury.

“Of the 47 jurors that were kept 77% stated that they were familiar with the facts of the case and of (Hood) and 15% gave the opinion that (Hood) was guilty when asked by (Hood),” Mauldin states in his motion. “However the actual percentage may be higher than the figure given as (Hood) did not ask all 47 jurors who were qualified if they thought he was guilty.”

Let's get down to the real question here -- can a judge do this? Yeah. At least at first. Without going into too many journalistic dweeby details, a judge is required to find any possible alternative before issuing a gag order. You can find a detailed discussion here, and it's quite good. Judges should "rarely, if ever," prevent the press from reporting a public proceeding. Given the document in question about the potential jurors is not even sealed, that anyone can go and see it, suggests this judge would lose this if appealed. The only likely defense, and I'd need to ask someone much smarter about this stuff than I am, is the fair trial vs. free press question. In most cases, a fair trial wins -- but, the judge or court is obligated to find lots of ways to work around even this situation to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment.

I need to ask my old friend and that brilliant media lawyer, Chuck Tobin, just this very question. Will email him today and update any on-the-record opinion he offers.

UPDATE ( quote from media law guru Chuck Tobin):

The Constitution flatly forbids courts from directly restraining journalists, absent the highest national security type of interest and only with a mountain of evidence to support it. This order is a colossal First Amendment mistake. If the judge doesn't pull it back, I'm sure it will be quickly overturned on appeal.

That pretty much says it all.

More updates as the situation changes or a deputy knocks on my door with a nasty note from the judge because I put the obviously open public record available to the public. Last I looked, no changes at OnlineAthens.com and its story, but will keep an eye out for updates.