Oregon Redistricting Watch
Background and procedural information
House Joint Resolution 39 was introduced on 3/10/05 by Debi Farr, a Democrat from Eugene. A public hearing and work session were held, and, after being amended, the bill was adopted by a vote of 34-21 and sent to the senate, where it failed.


Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?

Yes. There are nesting provisions in the proposed legislation that strongly imply single-member districts, and would make it difficult to draw multi-member districts. However, there appear to be no other constitutional or statutory bars to multi-member districts.


Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?

Yes. While there is no specific mention of the Voting Rights Act, there is no prohibition on the demographic information the commission is allowed to use in drawing legislative districts.


Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The Supreme Court is charged with creating a pool of retired state and federal judges. The Supreme Court randomly appoints four members, and the four appointed members then elect the 5th member. No more than 2 members can be from the same political party.


Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Neutral.*


Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?

Yes. The commission must hold at least three public hearings throughout Oregon, at which the commission can receive and consider proposed redistricting plans and other public comment.


Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. The apportionment of legislative seats is only authorized in a year ending in 1.

*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.
 
November 10th 2005
Why Redistricting and Campaign Reform Are Both Still Relevant
TPM Cafe

This political column cites FairVote as it points to the value of getting rid of winner-take-all elections to as the next step in redistricting reform.

November 2nd 2005
Gerrymander may help GOP in '06
The Napa Valley Registrer

An article that cites FairVote on why Gerrymandering harms elections and has an impact on skewed results.

November 2nd 2005
California, Ohio to vote on redistricting changes
Washington Post

FairVote's Rob Richie gets the last word on lack of voter choice in our elections, as this wire article reports on redistricting reform efforts in California and Ohio.

November 2nd 2005
How Money Buys Power in American Politics

Francis X. Clines, an editorial board member for the New York Times, writes on national politics, gerrymandering and the resultant decreased competitiveness in Congressional elections. Fairvote is cited.

October 27th 2005
To Tame Polarization Of Politics, Fix Our Redistricting System
Roll Call

[ Previous ] [ Next ]