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?

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.

June 18th 2006
Where politicians dare to tread
San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board endorses the British Columbia Citizens Assembly approach to electoral reform, specifically noting the potential for proportional representation in California.

March 21st 2006
Real redistricting reform is proportional representation
San Francisco Examiner

Rob Dickinson of Californians for Electoral Reform writes a commentary on how recent proposals to make the redistricting process fairer miss the mark. For real progress in how we elect our representatives, we need to turn to proportional voting.

March 1st 2006
Tanner redistricting bill gains Senate sponsor
The Hill

Senator Tim Johnson introduced a companion bill to Rep. John Tanner's federal redistricting reform legislation. The identical bills, supported by FairVote, would set up state commissions to handle redistricting only once a decade.

December 20th 2005
Overhaul of state electoral system sought

Following on the heels of the defeat of redistricting reform in California, Republican and Democratic legislators plan on introducing legislation to create a citizens assembly for election reform and discuss proportional voting for the state.

December 11th 2005
A Dramatic Idea for Election Reform
New York Times

A Times reader highlights the fundamental weakness of any single-member district-based system: gerrymandering is unavoidable.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]