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. 
November 10th 2005
Why Redistricting and Campaign Reform Are Both Still Relevant
TPM Cafe

This political column cites FairVote as it points to the value of getting rid of winner-take-all elections to as the next step in redistricting reform.

November 2nd 2005
How Money Buys Power in American Politics

Francis X. Clines, an editorial board member for the New York Times, writes on national politics, gerrymandering and the resultant decreased competitiveness in Congressional elections. Fairvote is cited.

November 2nd 2005
Gerrymander may help GOP in '06
The Napa Valley Registrer

An article that cites FairVote on why Gerrymandering harms elections and has an impact on skewed results.

November 2nd 2005
California, Ohio to vote on redistricting changes
Washington Post

FairVote's Rob Richie gets the last word on lack of voter choice in our elections, as this wire article reports on redistricting reform efforts in California and Ohio.

October 27th 2005
To Tame Polarization Of Politics, Fix Our Redistricting System
Roll Call

[ Previous ] [ Next ]