HB 76
Background and procedural information
House Bill 76, which is currently in committee, would amend the North Carolina Constitution to create an Independent Redistricting Committee. This committee would be responsible for redistricting after each decennial census. If this bill passes, it will go onto the ballot as an initiative.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. There is no explicit or implied requirement that single-member districts be used. The proposed legislation demands that one-person one-vote principles be adhered to, but does not require districts to be the same size.

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

Yes. Although the Voting Rights Act is not specifically mentioned, the proposed legislation allows demographic data to be used when necessary to comply with federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The proposed legislation would create an Independent Redistricting Committee with nine members. Two members, one from each major political party, would be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Three members, no more than two from any political party, would be appointed by the Governor. The remaining four members are appointed, one each, by the following: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader for the House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate.

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

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. The public has forty-five days after the plan is announced to comment on it and make suggestions. There is no official mechanism by which the public could submit plans, however.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting is to be done only once after every decennial 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 ]