HB 687
Background and procedural information

In 2006, New Hampshire voters passed a ballot initiative that would change the way that New Hampshire draws districts. HB 687 The proposal, which passed, allows districts to be drawn using a single-member scheme, an at-large scheme, or a more obscure electoral system called “floterial” districts. These “floterial” districts are used to ensure that districts that are underrepresented gain adequate representation. New Hampshire Constitution Part II Section 11. This works as follows: If the ideal district size is 50,000, and districts 1 and 2 each have 75,000 people, one representative each would underrepresent the districts and two representatives each would overrepresent the districts. Instead, if each district is given one representative and a “floating” third representative is voted on by districts 1 and 2 combined, both districts now have appropriate representation. Gary F. Moncrief, *_Floterial Districts, Reapportionment, and the Puzzle of Representation_**, */Legislative Studies Quarterly/, Vol. 14, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 251-264.

HB 687  requires the general court, the New Hampshire legislature, to form new districts complying with the new district regulations adopted into Part II Section 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution by the voters. The 2008 elections are to be the first under this new system.

The bill failed to pass the house on March 27, 2007.

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

No. The legislation merely mandates that the legislature comply with the recently passed constitutional provision. The constitutional provision specifically allows districts to be at-large or floterial.

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

No. No mention is made of how specific districts are to be drawn, except that they must follow natural political subdivisions and be contiguous.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

There is no commission. The legislation requires the legislature to create the new districts.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?


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

No. There is no provision made for public submission of districting plans, however citizens could probably send their input to their legislators for consideration.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. Districts are to be drawn only in the next regular session after a 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.

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 ]