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.  
May 8th 2003
The State of Democracy in California
Steven Hill's Written Testimony Before the California HAVA Commission

FairVote's Steven Hill provided this testimony to Califronia's commission on implementing the Help America Vote Act.

January 22nd 2003
Court orders redrawing of election map
New Jersey Star-Ledger

Republicans score a victory as Democrat-drawn boundaries in Newark and Jersey city are found to violate the state constitution and, possibility, dilute the minority vote.

November 13th 2002
Ruining the House

Currently, the House has become much less competitive and less likely to change compared to the Senate due to redistricting and gerrymandering politics.

November 10th 2002
'Safe Seats' Cheat the Voters
Los Angeles Times

Drawing new district lines to provide "safe" seats is harmful for California, as it is impossible to holds lawmakers accountable and create real competition.

November 8th 2002
Incumbent protection racket worked well Tuesday
USA Today

The author advocates turning over power for redistricting to an impartial body rather than investing it with political figures who create uncontestable seats.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]