HB 1937
Background and procedural information
House Bill HB 1937 would enact a statute that redefines how and when congressional and legislative districts are drawn, and creates an advisory commission for redistricting. This commission does not actually create redistricting plans. Plans are to be created by the Legislative Services Bureau, who may submit written requests for advice from the commission if they need to make a redistricting decision that is not clearly answerable by the guidelines laid forth. The bill is currently in committee.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
Yes. Although the bill does not explicitly state that single-member districts are required, it does state that each district shall elect a senator. In addition, representative districts must nest inside of senate districts, which could create difficulty in creating single-member districts.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. The bill requires the redistricting plan to follow all federal laws, although political data may not be used.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The commission is comprised of five members. The first four members are appointed, one each, by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives. These four members must then, by a vote of at least three, appoint the fifth member who will serve as chairperson.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

Neutral.*

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. There is no mechanism through which the public can submit plans.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting may only be done the year after the Federal 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.

 
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 ]