Senate Joint Resolution 9
Background and procedural information
Senate Joint Resolution 9, which would strike out the current Article 4 and create a new Article 17 to the Indiana constitution, was introduced on 1/11/05 by Senator Vi Simpson, a Democrat from Bloomington, and was referred to the committee on elections and civic affairs.


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

No. While districts must have equal population, there is no requirement that they be single-member, and the bill does not state how many districts must be drawn.


Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. While party registration and voting history data may not be used in drawing maps, that data may be used to test a map for compliance with federal law relating to voting rights.


Under the proposed legislation, what is the makeup of the commission and how is it formed?

The bill proposes a 5-member commission. The pool of potential candidates, who must apply by submitting an application to the Judicial Nominating Commission, would consist of 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 5 nominees who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. The two house and senate leaders from each party would each appoint a member. The four appointed members must select the fifth member, who must be chosen from the group of candidates not affiliated with either the Democrats or the Republicans. This member also serves as the chair.


Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Competitive districts are favored where practicable, and not in contravention of other stated goals of redistricting. However, the commission is not allowed to consider party registration and voting history data, so it is unclear how the commission would be able to draw a competitive district.


Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Possibly. While all meetings of the commission would be open to the public, there is neither an express prohibition nor allowance of public submittal of plans.


Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. The commission is only allowed to meet in a year ending in one, unless it is otherwise directed by a court.

 
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 ]