Maryland Redistricting Watch
Background and procedural information
There are five separate pieces of legislation currently pending in Maryland related to independent redistricting commissions. SB 365 and HB 318 would both create a study commission on redistricting in Maryland; the study commission would analyze the current districting process, research other redistricting possibilities, hold hearings, and make recommendations to the legislature about constitutional or statutory changes needed to improve the redistricting process. HB 1300, HB 1301, and HB 1302 would create an Iowa-type redistricting process for both congressional and legislative districts.

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


Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?

Yes. In establishing districts, no use can be made of the political affiliations of registered voters, previous election results, polling data, maps submitted by the public, and demographic information, except as required by the constitution or federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

Like the procedure currently used in Iowa, a non-partisan legislative services group would be responsible for drawing the maps; the commission would serve only an advisory role. The commission would consist of 9 members: 4 appointed by the governor, and two each appointed by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house. Appointed members would elect the ninth member, who would also serve as chair. At least three members must be from the dominant minority party.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?


Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. The legislation specifically states that proposed redistricting maps prepared by persons not employed by the department of legislative services may not be used.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Plans can only be drawn in the year following a 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.
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 ]