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.

 
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 ]