SJR 10
Background and procedural information
SJR 10 would have amended the Nevada Constitution to create an independent reapportionment commission that would have been charged with fixing the number of state legislators and apportioning them among the districts established by the commission. It ultimately failed.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. Nevada state statutes currently fix the number of legislators apportioned to each district, but there are no constitutional barriers to multi-member districts. This bill would not change this arrangement.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. While compliance with the Voting Rights Act is not specifically required, there is no prohibition on the use of voter history information.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The 7-member commission would consist of: the governor, the secretary of state, the state treasurer, one member of the Assembly appointed by the speaker, one member of the Assembly appointed by the minority leader, one member of the Senate appointed by the majority leader, and one member of the Senate appointed by the minority leader.

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

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Possibly. There is no specific prohibition against it.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. The commission is disbanded the day the apportionment plan is published, and is not reconvened until after the next 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.  
August 29th 2005
Purple fingers in California
The Oakland Tribune

California call to arms against crooked gerrymandering

August 26th 2005
Time to end redistricting's rigged democracy

Editorial that discusses gerrymandering in California and argues for redistricting reform.

August 24th 2005
Defeating Pa. Incumbents Won't Be Easy
Chambersburg Public Opinion

FairVote is cited in this editorial that reveals how gerrymandering has stifled competitiveness of elections.

July 31st 2005
Redistricting Reform: Road Map to Nowhere?
Sacramento Bee

The Greenlining Institute's Paul Turner and the New America Foundation's Steven Hill discuss the limitations of redistricting reform, as well as ways of improving it, such as through proportional voting in multimember districts.

July 23rd 2005
Time to put an end to the gerrymander
San Antonio-Express News

Rep. John Tanner's Act is lauded as a solution to gerrymandering, specifically in Texas.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]