North Carolina Redistricting Watch SB 430
Background and procedural information
Senate Bill SB 430, introduced by Republican John Blust, proposed amending Art. II § 3 of the state constitution and changing the redistricting committee. The proposal failed.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?

No. Although there is no outright ban on multi-member districts, the bill states the commission shall refrain from creating multi-member districts unless the district is drawn to “advance a compelling governmental interest.”

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 nine-member commission will be appointed in the following manner: Two by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court (representing two different political parties), three by the governor, with no more than two sharing the same party, two by the Speaker of the House (representing two different political parties) and two by the Senate Pro Tempore (representing two different political parties).

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 established, the districts cannot be redrawn 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 ]