SB 1122
Background and procedural information
Senate Bill 1122, which is still in committee, creates a Screening Panel that will nominate a group of potential members for an Independent Redistricting Committee. If this bill passes, it will be put onto the ballot as an initiative.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. The proposed legislation does not discuss the standards to be used in redistricting.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
No. The proposed legislation does not discuss the standards to be used in redistricting.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The proposed legislation lays out detailed plans that form a commission of 11 members as follows:
1)    The North Carolina Election Directors Association and the North Carolina Election Boards Association meet jointly and nominate 10 people for a Screening Panel. To be eligible for the Screening Panel, a person must be a current or retired county election director or election board member. The Screening Panel will be comprised of four members from each of the two major political parties, and two members that are not associated with any political party.
2)    Once 10 people are nominated for the Screening Panel, the names of the nominees are submitted to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority Leader for the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader for the House. The nominees gain positions on the Screening Panel if there are no objections within five days of notification.
3)    Once the Screening Panel is in place, it establishes an application and screening process by which any citizen residing in North Carolina can apply to be on the Independent Redistricting Committee.
4)    Of those who apply for a position on the Committee, the Screening Panel must choose 55 candidates. These candidates must be comprised of 20 people from each of the two major political parties, and 15 people not associated with either of the two major political parties.
5)    These 55 candidates are then submitted to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority Leader in the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader of the House. Each may strike up to two candidates.
6)    The remaining candidates are submitted by the Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives to the State Board of Elections. The State Board of Elections then must randomly draw 4 of these candidates from each of the groups associated with the two major political parties, and 3 candidates from the group not associated with either of the two major political parties.
7)    The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives are then presented with the list of 11 members, and are given five days to object.
8)    Failing any objection, these members become the Independent Redistricting Committee.


Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Neutral.*

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

No. The proposed legislation does not discuss the standards to be used in redistricting.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. A new Commission is formed after every census and they may only redistrict once.

*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 ]