Senate Bill 346 & House Bill 84
Background and procedural information
Senate Bill 346 and House Bill 84 would create an independent redistricting committee to draw district maps after each census. It is currently in committee.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. Districts must be equal in size, but there is no requirement that each district have only one representative.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Probably. The legislation allows the use of information on self-identified communities and relevant demographic information, but does not allow for the use of any political information.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The commission is comprised of five members. The Majority Leader of the Senate, Minority Leader of the Senate, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives each appoint one member. The fifth member must be appointed by a majority of at lease three of the four appointed members.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*

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.

 
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 ]