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.  
November 3rd 2002
Politics, Incumbency Style
Newsday

Columnist Rosanna Perotti discusses proportional representation as a solution to monopoly politics.

November 3rd 2002
Get your election results here: 99.8% accurate
Houston Chronicle

FairVote's Steven Hill and Rob Richie describe that the election results can be predicted in US, because most districts tilt strongly toward one party.

November 2nd 2002
Why state has few real races for House
San Jose Mercury News

FairVote's Larry Sabato comments on the lack of competitive House seats in the 2002 election, noting that San Jose residents have a better chance of affecting the race by donating money to a candidate in another part of the country than voting.

October 30th 2002
More than ever, incumbents in driver's seat
USA Today

Despite the fact redistricting is suppose to boost competition, this article explores how drawing congressional district lines has rendered 90% of elections nearly uncontested, drawing examples from Illinois.

October 28th 2002
GOP House members snug in incumbency
Cincinnati Enquirer

Money, incumbency advantage, and redistricting have transformed the American political system into a non-competitive arena.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]