Background and procedural information
State Representative Glenn Anderson (D-18th) proposed House Joint Resolution K to the Michigan State Legislature on May 24, 2005. The proposed resolution would amend the current state constitution and create an independent redistricting committee. The bill has been referred to the House Oversight, Elections and Ethics Committee in the state legislature.

Under the proposed legislation are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
Yes. The proposed amendments to the state constitution require both the House of Representatives and the Senate to be elected to single-member districts.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. The proposal prohibits the use drawing of districts for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of a community of interest, and it also requires the districts to comply with federal law (which includes the Voting Rights Act). However, the commission is not allowed to use past election results, voting history, or incumbent address in drawing the districts.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The commission will consist of nine members. Four members will be selected by the state organizations of the two parties whose candidates received the most votes in the last gubernatorial election. The Speaker of the House, the minority leader of the House, the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader each choose one member and these eight members would collectively choose the ninth member.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Maybe. The commission is required to hold public hearings on the proposed districts and there is no ban on public proposals.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. The commission must finish its plan no later than November 1 following the national 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 ]