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.

 
May 8th 2003
The State of Democracy in California
Steven Hill's Written Testimony Before the California HAVA Commission

FairVote's Steven Hill provided this testimony to Califronia's commission on implementing the Help America Vote Act.

January 22nd 2003
Court orders redrawing of election map
New Jersey Star-Ledger

Republicans score a victory as Democrat-drawn boundaries in Newark and Jersey city are found to violate the state constitution and, possibility, dilute the minority vote.

November 13th 2002
Ruining the House

Currently, the House has become much less competitive and less likely to change compared to the Senate due to redistricting and gerrymandering politics.

November 10th 2002
'Safe Seats' Cheat the Voters
Los Angeles Times

Drawing new district lines to provide "safe" seats is harmful for California, as it is impossible to holds lawmakers accountable and create real competition.

November 8th 2002
Incumbent protection racket worked well Tuesday
USA Today

The author advocates turning over power for redistricting to an impartial body rather than investing it with political figures who create uncontestable seats.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]