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.  
January 23rd 2002
State lawmakers carve out their own districts
The Hill

The father of a Georgia House candidate may have used his power in the state legislature to draw a district for his son; Rob Richie notes a trend in redistricting being used to protect incumbents.

June 19th 2001
Remuddling the House Needed: smaller districts and no 'safe seats'
Christian Science Monitor

The editorial discusses the redistricting that will occur following the 2000 census, noting ways in which the public may ensure a fair and decent process.

March 1st 2001
Redistricting Will Be a Lawyer's Dream - and a Voter Nightmare
TomPaine.com

As massive gerrymandering follows the 2000 census, Rob Richie and Steven Hill recommend taking responsibility for drawing boundaries out of incumbents' hands, or switching to multi-member districts.

November 7th 2000
Race for Congress leaves 90% out
USA Today

Due to excessive gerrymandering, elections in the US have become increasingly uncompetitive - less than 10% of the nation's voters have any real voice in the upcoming House elections.

November 3rd 2000
The House Incumbent. He can't lose.
Slate

Fairvote's Rob Richie comments in a recent piece in Slate on the rising trend of 'safe incumbents' facing severely handicapped competitors.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]