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.  
November 2nd 2000
Keep an Eye on the Battle for State Legislatures
MoJo Wire

Rob Richie and Steven Hill point out how vital party control of state legislatures can be, illustrating how taking control of state governments may mean redrawing of congressional boundaries.

October 30th 2000
Most Races for Congress Over Before They Start
Reutters

With money and redistricting on their side, incumbents are increasingly entrenched in the United States House of Representatives.

November 3rd 1999
No Contest, No Choice
USA Today

This article discusses how parties undermine democratic participation to hold onto their seats by gerrymandering and encouraging low voter turnout.

November 2nd 1999
Uncontested Contests

Many incumbents now run in uncontested elections as a result of redistricting, leaving many people behind without a voice to be heard.

February 16th 1998
The Voters Decide Their Representation

FairVote's John Anderson and Rob Richie argue that proportional representation can eliminate the practice of "racial gerrymandering" and corrupt redistricting practices.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]