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.

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 ]