HB 1937
Background and procedural information
House Bill HB 1937 would enact a statute that redefines how and when congressional and legislative districts are drawn, and creates an advisory commission for redistricting. This commission does not actually create redistricting plans. Plans are to be created by the Legislative Services Bureau, who may submit written requests for advice from the commission if they need to make a redistricting decision that is not clearly answerable by the guidelines laid forth. The bill is currently in committee.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
Yes. Although the bill does not explicitly state that single-member districts are required, it does state that each district shall elect a senator. In addition, representative districts must nest inside of senate districts, which could create difficulty in creating single-member districts.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. The bill requires the redistricting plan to follow all federal laws, although political data may not be used.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The commission is comprised of five members. The first four members are appointed, one each, by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives. These four members must then, by a vote of at least three, appoint the fifth member who will serve as chairperson.

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 through which the public can submit plans.

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

 
August 29th 2005
Purple fingers in California
The Oakland Tribune

California call to arms against crooked gerrymandering

August 26th 2005
Time to end redistricting's rigged democracy

Editorial that discusses gerrymandering in California and argues for redistricting reform.

August 24th 2005
Defeating Pa. Incumbents Won't Be Easy
Chambersburg Public Opinion

FairVote is cited in this editorial that reveals how gerrymandering has stifled competitiveness of elections.

July 31st 2005
Redistricting Reform: Road Map to Nowhere?
Sacramento Bee

The Greenlining Institute's Paul Turner and the New America Foundation's Steven Hill discuss the limitations of redistricting reform, as well as ways of improving it, such as through proportional voting in multimember districts.

July 23rd 2005
Time to put an end to the gerrymander
San Antonio-Express News

Rep. John Tanner's Act is lauded as a solution to gerrymandering, specifically in Texas.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]