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. 
 
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 ]