Monday update (01/14): Redistricting

Local, Politics, Virginia 1 Minute

Weekly update of my legislative agenda issue.

Given that the legislative session has just started, there is not much to report other than the list of bills filed at this point and the committees to which they have been assigned. As you can see, nearly all of these bills will be heard by the HP&E (House Privileges and Elections) committee or the SP&E (Senate Privileges and Elections) committee. None of these bills is on either docket at this point. The HP&E committee meets on Fridays at 9:30am while the SP&E committee meets on Tuesdays at 4pm.

Temporary commission bills:

  • HB836 – (Moran/Morgan) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. This is the bill supported by the Virginia Redistricting Coalition. In HP&E committee.
  • SB625 – (Stolle) and SB38 (Deeds) – HB836 companion bills – In SP&E committee.
  • SB105 – (Cuccinelli) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. In SP&E committee.
  • SB243 – (Howell) – Bipartisan, 7-member commission. In SP&E committee.
  • HB339 – (Plum) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. In HP&E committee.
  • HB1070 – (Brink) – Bipartisan, 7-member commission. In HP&E committee.

Constitutional amendment bills:

  • SJ5 – (Deeds) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission. In SP&E committee.
  • SJ59 – (J Miller) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. In SP&E committee.
  • HJ28 – (Moran) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. In HP&E committee.
  • HJ70 – (Plum) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission. In HP&E committee.
  • HJ120 – (Amundson) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission. In HP&E committee.
  • HJ181 – (Barlow) – Bipartisan, 11-member commission. In HP&E committee.

Study: HJ103 – (Moran) – joint subcommittee to study redistricting process. In House Rules committee.

Technorati Tags:

Published

8 thoughts on “Monday update (01/14): Redistricting”

  1. Vivian, can you quickly explain why the Redistricting Coalition is supporting Moran’s particular bill over the others? They all look fairly similar. Why one over another? And why just a House bill and not a companion bill in the Senate? This is very confusing to me. But I suspect that some of that confusion is deliberate as legislators jockey for “naming” rights to what is hopefully a successful initiative for bipartisan redistricting.

  2. Actually, as I noted SB625 & SB38 are the companion Senate bills (I suspect they will be combined at some point). These bills are the ones that the VRC solicited and helped to craft.

    Unfortunately, there is no quick response to this quite complex issue.

    The devil is always in the details. In addition to the number of members on the commission, the differences between the bills relate to how the commission is selected (and who the pool of potential members are) plus who gets to make the final say on the redistricting plans – the commission or the legislature.

    The VRC bill has the Chief Justice of the VA Supreme Court provide a list of 24 retired judges. From that list, the appointing authority (consisting of the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Majority and Minority leaders) each pick one person to serve. Then the four of them pick a fifth person, also from the pool, to serve as chair.

    (There will also be a 12-member citizen advisory board, 3 each appointed by each of the appointing authorities.)

    The commission then draws the map, based on the redistricting standards I outlined in my original post. Then there is the public comment period, after which modifications are made and the plan is presented to the legislature. After that, the legislature can propose amendments and the governor can propose amendments. The Commission will review these proposed amendments and offer recommendations.

    Amundson’s bill, for example, has not only a much larger commission, but a larger group of appointing authorities (two each by the President pro tempore of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Delegates, minority leader in each house, and the state chairman of each of the two political parties receiving the most votes in the prior gubernatorial election; then the 12 members select a 13th member) and does not limit the pool of potential members to retired judges. And, if I’m reading it right, leaves the final decision of the plan to the Commission, not the legislature.

  3. Amundson’s bills sounds to me like it may be ultimately more successful as it appears to have more legislative “buy in” from legislators. That would be important for those who want to keep some of the process a politically-based one, at least to some extent.

  4. Actually, getting the legislature to allow the commission to have the final say on the lines is probably a show stopper. The most successful bipartisan models nationwide result in the legislature making the final decision.

  5. I can see a Democrat’s bill, Deeds’ SB38, find success in a Democratically held Senate. (And it did pass there last year so there’s hope there.) But why a Democrat sponsoring it in the House? Considering that 2 Republicans in the Senate support the idea (Stolle and Cuccinelli), couldn’t a Repug be found to champion it in the Senate? (Not that I’m trying to deny the great and wonderful gubernatorial candidate that we have in Brian Moran of anything well deserved.)

  6. Ooops… I meant House… Considering that 2 Republicans in the Senate support the idea (Stolle and Cuccinelli), couldn’t a Repug be found to champion it in the HOUSE?

  7. Look at HB836 – the co-sponsor is Harvey Morgan, a Republican. The VRC bill has bipartisan support in both houses.

    As for passage in the Senate – well, that’s not assured, despite the Democratic gains.

Comments are closed.