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. 
October 23rd 2005
Who Should Redistrict?

The New York Times Magazine explains the dilemmas many states, including California, face as they attempt to create competitive and fair congressional districts. Dean Murphy cites FairVote's statistics.

October 15th 2005
Wamp fresh leadership for sagging Republicans
The Tennessean

According to FairVote's Ryan O'Donnell, the Republican party should seize the opportunity to embrace electoral reforms, and take the lead on ending gerrymandering.

October 5th 2005
Mapping the way to a better system
Boston Herald

Why Massachusetts should turn a critical eye towards gerrymandering. This article mentions Fairvote.

October 2nd 2005
Several states may change redistricting process
L.A. Times

Discussion of redistricting practices in California, Massachusetts and Florida. Mentions Tanner's bill.

September 25th 2005
Local GOP breaks with governor to oppose redistricting
Auburn Journal

An article about the debate over a proposal that would give a panel of judges the responsibility of redistricting

[ Previous ] [ Next ]