SJR 13
Background and Procedural Information

On January 8, 2008 Indiana Democratic Senator Vi Simpson introduced Indiana Senate Joint Resolution 13 (IN S.J.R. 13).  As of June 5, 2008 the resolution has not moved to a committee.  

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

No.  Single-member districts are neither required not otherwise implied.   

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

The proposed legislation would forbid Party registration and voting history data in map drawing but would allow it to be used to test maps for compliance with federal and constitutional laws including the Voting Rights Act.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The Indiana Judicial Council will call for nominations from interested citizens of Indiana.  The court will select ten nominees from the largest party, ten nominees from the second largest party and five from neither of those parties.  The Indiana legislative leadership including the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, President Pro Tem of the Senate, Senate Majority Leader will each select one member to serve on the commission.  These four commissioners will then select the fifth member of the commission who will also serve as chairman.  They will choose this commissioner from the pool of five nominees who are not members of the two largest political parties in the state.  The Commissioners will approve plans for Congressional and General Assembly districts.
Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Yes.  The commission is required to use eight factors to create the districts.  Fostering competition is one of these eight priorities.    

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

No.  The public may give comment for a thirty-day period after the initial plan is proposed.   

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No.  Redistricting may only be performed in years ending in one unless a court order demands redistricting or the number of Congressional or legislative districts is changed.  
June 18th 2006
Where politicians dare to tread
San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board endorses the British Columbia Citizens Assembly approach to electoral reform, specifically noting the potential for proportional representation in California.

March 21st 2006
Real redistricting reform is proportional representation
San Francisco Examiner

Rob Dickinson of Californians for Electoral Reform writes a commentary on how recent proposals to make the redistricting process fairer miss the mark. For real progress in how we elect our representatives, we need to turn to proportional voting.

March 1st 2006
Tanner redistricting bill gains Senate sponsor
The Hill

Senator Tim Johnson introduced a companion bill to Rep. John Tanner's federal redistricting reform legislation. The identical bills, supported by FairVote, would set up state commissions to handle redistricting only once a decade.

December 20th 2005
Overhaul of state electoral system sought

Following on the heels of the defeat of redistricting reform in California, Republican and Democratic legislators plan on introducing legislation to create a citizens assembly for election reform and discuss proportional voting for the state.

December 11th 2005
A Dramatic Idea for Election Reform
New York Times

A Times reader highlights the fundamental weakness of any single-member district-based system: gerrymandering is unavoidable.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]