SB 267
Background and Procedural Information

Republican Senator Jim Shockley introduced Montana SB 267 on January 10, 2007.  The legislation would amend the Montana Constitution to provide that the presiding officer of the districting and apportionment commission be a retired state or federal district court judge, or a former state supreme court justice. If passed, the legislation would be placed on Montana’s November 2008 ballot. 

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?

Yes. Section 14 of the Montana Constitution would be amended to require that the state would be divided into as many districts as there are members of the house, with each district electing one representative, and that each senate district would be comprised of two adjoining house districts, such that each district elects one senator. 

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?

No.
Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The commission is comprised of 5 members.  The majority and minority leaders in both the house and senate each select an individual for the commission. Then the 4 selected individuals agree on the remaining commissioner, who is to be a retired state or federal district court judge, or a former state supreme court justice, who will act as presiding officer of the commission.  If the selected individuals cannot decide on a presiding officer, the state supreme court will make the decision from a pool of candidates.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

The legislation does not explicitly discuss competitive districts. 

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?

No. Only the commission may submit redistricting plans to the secretary of state for enactment. 

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. 
 
 

 
March 31st 2005
A Good Proposal that Won't do Much
San Jose Mercury News

Newspaper endorses full representation and IRV to solve California's redistricting woes

February 19th 2005
Schwarzenegger vs. Gerrymander
New York Times

Steven Hill explains why Governor Schwarzenegger should consider full representation if he is serious about the need for more competitive elections

January 10th 2005
Recent elections drive redistricting reform:
California Aggie

Discussion of the issues leading to redistricting reform in California, and the potential benefits of a full representation system.

January 9th 2005
Consider alternate systems of voting
Sacramento Bee

How a commission to examine full representation systems in California elections would be a step beyond Governor Schwarzenegger's plans for redistricting reform.

January 1st 2005
Democracy at a Crossroads
The California Journal

Steven Hill writes an in-depth account of the various democracy reforms proposed and needed in California. He shows how a move to full representation would have a far greater impact on politics than the mooted redistricting reforms.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]