ACA 1
Background and Procedural Information

On December 4, 2006 Assemblymember Curren Price and Fabian Nunez introduced California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1(CA A.C.A. 1). As of July 22, 2008 the Bill has not advanced out of a California Assembly Committee.  

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

Single-member districts are a requirement for the State Assembly, Senate, Congress, and Board of Equalization.

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

Yes.  Voter history and registration and other relevant data may be considered in order to meet compliance.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The Constitutional Amendment would give California redistricting authority to an expanded version of the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission.  The Little Hoover Commission is an already existing bi-partisan committee that serves the California State Government Organization and Economy.  It has nine public members and four legislative members.  The nine public members are composed of four members of the largest party of California, four members from the second largest political party in California, one member appointed by the governor who is not a member of either of the two largest parties.

The public members of the Little Hoover Commission would then appoint two additional members not belonging to the two largest political parties.  This enlarged commission would make redistricting decisions.  Approving a final map would require eight yes vote, with 3 yes votes coming from each of the members of the two largest political parties.
 
Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

No. Competitive Districts are not favored.   

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

No.  Members of the public can participate in several public forums.  After the commission proposes and distributes the initial plan and maps then the public has 30 days to comment.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

The plan does not allow for the expenditure of funds after the final redistricting plan is adopted.  This would appear to limit any attempts to implement a mid-decade redistricting. 
 
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 ]