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.  
December 5th 2004
The $20,000 bargain to keep your seat
San Francisco Chronicle

Competitve elections will not be achieved through redistricting but by replacing the winner-take-all system with a proportional voting system

November 4th 2004
Scandal in the House
Washington Post

This article bemoans how redistricting is used to assure congressional incumbents don't face competitive elections.

October 8th 2004
Map redrawing angers US Democrats
BBC News

September 19th 2004
Drawing the political lines
Indianapolis Star

Gerrymandering protects incumbents and party favorites but discouraging other candidates from running for office.

May 17th 2004
A Better Way to Vote
Legal Times

FairVote's Rob Richie and Fairvote Chair John B. Anderson discuss alternatives to gerrymandering and winner take all elections

[ Previous ] [ Next ]