SB 581 & HB 1116
Background and procedural information
There were two constitutional amendments pending in the Pennsylvania legislature in 2005: HB 1116 and SB 581. The Senate bill, introduced on 4/12/05 was referred to the committee on state government. The House bill was introduced on 5/2/05 and also referred to the committee on state government. The Senate bill proposes only superficial changes to the current procedure (e.g. giving the commission the power to draw congressional districts), which involves a commission consisting of the four legislative leaders and a fifth, non-political member. The House version proposes much more substantial changes, and unless specifically noted, is the version discussed below. Both bills failed.


Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. However, Article II § 16 requires single-member districts for the house and senate.


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

No. The commission is prohibited from using any political or personal considerations in drafting any reapportionment plan, and there is no exception for compliance with the Voting Rights Act.


Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?
The 9-member commission would consist of 8 members appointed by each of the majority and minority leaders and whips of both houses. The Supreme Court would appoint the final member, who would also serve as chairperson.


Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*


Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
Possibly. The commission is prohibited from using any political or personal considerations in drafting any reapportionment plan. It is possible this language could cover a plan submitted by a member of the public.


Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. The legislation specifically addresses this issue and would allow districting only once in the decade following a 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.

 
November 3rd 2002
Politics, Incumbency Style
Newsday

Columnist Rosanna Perotti discusses proportional representation as a solution to monopoly politics.

November 3rd 2002
Get your election results here: 99.8% accurate
Houston Chronicle

FairVote's Steven Hill and Rob Richie describe that the election results can be predicted in US, because most districts tilt strongly toward one party.

November 2nd 2002
Why state has few real races for House
San Jose Mercury News

FairVote's Larry Sabato comments on the lack of competitive House seats in the 2002 election, noting that San Jose residents have a better chance of affecting the race by donating money to a candidate in another part of the country than voting.

October 30th 2002
More than ever, incumbents in driver's seat
USA Today

Despite the fact redistricting is suppose to boost competition, this article explores how drawing congressional district lines has rendered 90% of elections nearly uncontested, drawing examples from Illinois.

October 28th 2002
GOP House members snug in incumbency
Cincinnati Enquirer

Money, incumbency advantage, and redistricting have transformed the American political system into a non-competitive arena.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]