North Carolina Redistricting Watch HR 1448
Background and procedural information
Bill HR 1448, introduced into the North Carolina House on 3/8/05 by Democrat Eleanor Kinnaird, proposed to amend Art. II § 3 of the state constitution. The bill ultimately failed.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. The bill does not contain any explicit requirement for single-member districts, nor is there a specific requirement for single-member districts in the state constitution.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. The bill prohibits the commission from considering the political affiliation of the voters, voting data from previous elections, and the location of incumbents’ residences, but make an exception for compliance with federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The bill proposes a nine-member commission with members appointed in the following manner: two by the chief justice of the state supreme court (from two different political parties), three by the governor (with no more than two from the same political party), one by the speaker of the house, one by the minority leader in the house, one by the president of the senate, and one by the senate minority leader.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?

 Possibly. There is no express prohibition, but public submittal is also not expressly allowed. Further, North Carolina currently allows public access to a redistricting computer system, but it is unclear whether the redistricting committees would consider the plans created by the public.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Once the districts have been drawn and agreed upon, they cannot be changed until the next decennial census.

*Note: A proposal may be neutral on whether or not to favor competitive districts for a number of reasons, including that such a requirement may be thought to conflict with other criteria, potentially create other legal issues, or is assumed to flow from the new process itself -- or it might merely not be a priority for the legislative sponsors. FairVote believes that some form of proportional voting is needed to ensure maximum competitiveness for each seat and to ensure meaningful choices for all voters.
May 14th 2008
Is the House of Representatives Too Small?

The U.S. House of Representatives has been at 435 members since 1911, when the country was a third of its current population. Research suggests that districts may now be getting too big for adequate representation.

November 15th 2006
Redistricting Reconsidered
Washington Post

Citing FairVote's Dubious Democracy 2006, an editorial notes that non-competition in U.S. House races has causes more fundamental than gerrymandering.

November 1st 2006
Lines of demarcation
Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram

FairVote research cited in this commentary on lopsided redistricting, uncompetitive districts and the party primary battles they inspire.

October 30th 2006
Electile Dysfunction?
News Release Wire

Former FairVote President Matthew Cossolotto calls for a range of reforms, highlighting two problems of American democracy: "counting the votes" and "making votes count."

August 19th 2006
Eliminate districts
Contra Costa Times

CA resident calls for proportional voting in one statewide district as a congressional redistricting reform.

[ Next ]