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.  
March 31st 2005
A Good Proposal that Won't do Much
San Jose Mercury News

Newspaper endorses full representation and IRV to solve California's redistricting woes

February 19th 2005
Schwarzenegger vs. Gerrymander
New York Times

Steven Hill explains why Governor Schwarzenegger should consider full representation if he is serious about the need for more competitive elections

January 10th 2005
Recent elections drive redistricting reform:
California Aggie

Discussion of the issues leading to redistricting reform in California, and the potential benefits of a full representation system.

January 9th 2005
Consider alternate systems of voting
Sacramento Bee

How a commission to examine full representation systems in California elections would be a step beyond Governor Schwarzenegger's plans for redistricting reform.

January 1st 2005
Democracy at a Crossroads
The California Journal

Steven Hill writes an in-depth account of the various democracy reforms proposed and needed in California. He shows how a move to full representation would have a far greater impact on politics than the mooted redistricting reforms.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]