House Joint Resolution 41
Background and procedural information
House Joint Resolution 41 proposes to amend the Oregon constitution to establish an independent redistricting committee for the drawing of district lines for the state legislature.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No, however the bill does require that there be two representative districts within each senate district. This restriction may mean that districts must be single-member in practice.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
The legislation does not have standards for how to create districts.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The commission is comprised of five members to be chosen after each decennial census. Four members are appointed by the Supreme Court of Oregon. To be appointed, a person must be a retired state or federal judge who hasn’t held a partisan office, and has been a registered member of the Democratic or Republican parties for at least five years. The Supreme Court must create a list of qualified persons, and choose four at random to be appointed. If more than two people of either party are chosen, that name is thrown out and another is chosen until the four appointees are comprised of two Republicans and two Democrats. The fifth member is appointed by the four members appointed by the Supreme Court.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No, there is no mechanism that allows the public to submit plans. The commission must hold at least three public hearings across the state, however, in which the public can give their input.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting may only be done once, the year after the 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.

October 23rd 2005
Who Should Redistrict?

The New York Times Magazine explains the dilemmas many states, including California, face as they attempt to create competitive and fair congressional districts. Dean Murphy cites FairVote's statistics.

October 15th 2005
Wamp fresh leadership for sagging Republicans
The Tennessean

According to FairVote's Ryan O'Donnell, the Republican party should seize the opportunity to embrace electoral reforms, and take the lead on ending gerrymandering.

October 5th 2005
Mapping the way to a better system
Boston Herald

Why Massachusetts should turn a critical eye towards gerrymandering. This article mentions Fairvote.

October 2nd 2005
Several states may change redistricting process
L.A. Times

Discussion of redistricting practices in California, Massachusetts and Florida. Mentions Tanner's bill.

September 25th 2005
Local GOP breaks with governor to oppose redistricting
Auburn Journal

An article about the debate over a proposal that would give a panel of judges the responsibility of redistricting

[ Previous ] [ Next ]