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.

 
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 ]