Background and procedural information
House Joint Resolution 39 was introduced on 3/10/05 by Debi Farr, a Democrat from Eugene. A public hearing and work session were held, and, after being amended, the bill was adopted by a vote of 34-21 and sent to the senate, where it failed.


Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
Yes. There are nesting provisions in the proposed legislation that strongly imply single-member districts, and would make it difficult to draw multi-member districts. However, there appear to be no other constitutional or statutory bars to multi-member districts.


Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. While there is no specific mention of the Voting Rights Act, there is no prohibition on the demographic information the commission is allowed to use in drawing legislative districts.


Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The Supreme Court is charged with creating a pool of retired state and federal judges. The Supreme Court randomly appoints four members, and the four appointed members then elect the 5th member. No more than 2 members can be from the same political party.


Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*


Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Yes. The commission must hold at least three public hearings throughout Oregon, at which the commission can receive and consider proposed redistricting plans and other public comment.


Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. The apportionment of legislative seats is only authorized in a year ending in 1.

*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.
 

June 18th 2006
Where politicians dare to tread
San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board endorses the British Columbia Citizens Assembly approach to electoral reform, specifically noting the potential for proportional representation in California.

March 21st 2006
Real redistricting reform is proportional representation
San Francisco Examiner

Rob Dickinson of Californians for Electoral Reform writes a commentary on how recent proposals to make the redistricting process fairer miss the mark. For real progress in how we elect our representatives, we need to turn to proportional voting.

March 1st 2006
Tanner redistricting bill gains Senate sponsor
The Hill

Senator Tim Johnson introduced a companion bill to Rep. John Tanner's federal redistricting reform legislation. The identical bills, supported by FairVote, would set up state commissions to handle redistricting only once a decade.

December 20th 2005
Overhaul of state electoral system sought

Following on the heels of the defeat of redistricting reform in California, Republican and Democratic legislators plan on introducing legislation to create a citizens assembly for election reform and discuss proportional voting for the state.

December 11th 2005
A Dramatic Idea for Election Reform
New York Times

A Times reader highlights the fundamental weakness of any single-member district-based system: gerrymandering is unavoidable.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]