HCR 1004
Background and Procedural Information

On March 27, 2008 Colorado Assemblyperson Douglas Bruce introduced Colorado House Concurrent Resolution 1004 (CO H.C.R. 1004).  As of June 4, 2008 the proposed constitutional amendment has not been moved forward.  

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?

Yes.  Single-member districts are a requirement.  

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

The Commission cannot use the political affiliation of citizens to develop districts.  While the proposed amendment does not specifically require compliance with the Voting Rights Act, it does require the independent commission to respect “any other federal requirements for redistricting” as its second of six formation criteria.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The Commission is formed by each of the four legislative leaders of the Colorado Legislature selecting one person from their own party to serve on the Commission.  Citizens interested in being a commissioner, who are not registered with either of the two largest parties in the state, can pay a $2,000 filing fee or gather 1,000 signatures in order to be placed in a pool from which the Secretary of State will choose two members by lot.  These six commissioners will choose a final independent commissioner by casting five affirmative votes.
 
Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?

No.  The Commission is to four criteria ranked in order of importance to develop the districts.  Creating Competitive districts were not included among these criteria.   

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?

No.  The public may submit comments in a series of at least eight public forums.   

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?

It does not specifically forbid it, but it there is no mechanism to allow mid-decade redistricting to happen. 

 
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 ]