SJR 10
Background and procedural information
SJR 10 would have amended the Nevada Constitution to create an independent reapportionment commission that would have been charged with fixing the number of state legislators and apportioning them among the districts established by the commission. It ultimately failed.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. Nevada state statutes currently fix the number of legislators apportioned to each district, but there are no constitutional barriers to multi-member districts. This bill would not change this arrangement.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes. While compliance with the Voting Rights Act is not specifically required, there is no prohibition on the use of voter history information.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The 7-member commission would consist of: the governor, the secretary of state, the state treasurer, one member of the Assembly appointed by the speaker, one member of the Assembly appointed by the minority leader, one member of the Senate appointed by the majority leader, and one member of the Senate appointed by the minority leader.

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

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Possibly. There is no specific prohibition against it.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

No. The commission is disbanded the day the apportionment plan is published, and is not reconvened until after the next 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.  
February 5th 2004
Should Single-Member Districting Be Held Unconstitutional?
FindLaw.com

Law professor argues that it's time for full representation.

December 9th 2003
Justices to Hear Pennsylvania Redistricting Case
Associated Press

September 25th 2003
The Challenges to Creating a New Democratic Majority
Alternet

Stephen Hill makes the case that while demographic trends favour the Democratic party, the winner-take-all electoral system continues to favour Republicans.

July 1st 2003
Drawing the Line On Redistricting
Washington Post

Steven Hill and Rob Richie write that creating multi-member districts is the best way to curb the abuses of gerrymandering for congressional seats.

May 29th 2003
Matters of proportion
Christian Science Monitor

The winner take all system is an outlier in world democracies and must be remedied through a proportional voting system.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]