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.  
July 21st 2005
Reformers back bill on redistricting
Roll Call

Tanner's Redistricting bill gains support, slowly but surely.

May 30th 2005
Ending the Gerrymander Wars
The New York Times

The New York Times endorses Representative Tanner's redistricting bill.

May 24th 2005
Tanner bill would stop mid-decade remaps
Roll Call

Representative Tanner's bill would prevent mid-decade redistricting and help increase electoral competition.

April 19th 2005
Battle royal brewing over redistricting
The San Francisco Examiner

Instead of focusing on redistricting reforms, California should adopt a non-winner-take-all voting system to make elections more competitive.

April 10th 2005
National Guidelines Needed to Ensure Fair House Districts
San Jose Mercury News

FairVote's Rob Richie and John Anderson call for national redistricting standards to prevent the looming state-by-state

[ Previous ] [ Next ]