HB 76
Background and procedural information
House Bill 76, which is currently in committee, would amend the North Carolina Constitution to create an Independent Redistricting Committee. This committee would be responsible for redistricting after each decennial census. If this bill passes, it will go onto the ballot as an initiative.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. There is no explicit or implied requirement that single-member districts be used. The proposed legislation demands that one-person one-vote principles be adhered to, but does not require districts to be the same size.

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

Yes. Although the Voting Rights Act is not specifically mentioned, the proposed legislation allows demographic data to be used when necessary to comply with federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The proposed legislation would create an Independent Redistricting Committee with nine members. Two members, one from each major political party, would be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Three members, no more than two from any political party, would be appointed by the Governor. The remaining four members are appointed, one each, by the following: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader for the House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate.

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

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. The public has forty-five days after the plan is announced to comment on it and make suggestions. There is no official mechanism by which the public could submit plans, however.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting is to be done only once after every decennial 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.

 
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 ]