HB 76
Background and procedural information
House Bill 76, which is currently in committee, would amend the North Carolina Constitution to create an Independent Redistricting Committee. This committee would be responsible for redistricting after each decennial census. If this bill passes, it will go onto the ballot as an initiative.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. There is no explicit or implied requirement that single-member districts be used. The proposed legislation demands that one-person one-vote principles be adhered to, but does not require districts to be the same size.

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

Yes. Although the Voting Rights Act is not specifically mentioned, the proposed legislation allows demographic data to be used when necessary to comply with federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The proposed legislation would create an Independent Redistricting Committee with nine members. Two members, one from each major political party, would be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Three members, no more than two from any political party, would be appointed by the Governor. The remaining four members are appointed, one each, by the following: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader for the House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. The public has forty-five days after the plan is announced to comment on it and make suggestions. There is no official mechanism by which the public could submit plans, however.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting is to be done only once after every decennial 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 ]