H.R.223 - John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. Will this get any traction?

[Ellipsis]

Or is it dead in the water? It seems to me to be a sensible solution to what ails us. Any opinions/perspectives out there?

Yes... I actually posted a thread for discussion.

Introduced in House (01/14/2013)

John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act - Prohibits a state that has been redistricted after an apportionment from being redistricted again until after the next apportionment of Representatives, unless the state is ordered by a court to conduct such a subsequent redistricting in order to: (1) comply with the U.S. Constitution, or (2) enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Requires such redistricting to be conducted through a plan developed by the independent redistricting commission established in the state, or if such plan is not enacted into law, the redistricting plan selected by the state's highest court or developed by a U.S. district court.

Prescribes requirements for: (1) establishment of a state independent redistricting commission (including provisions for holding each of its meetings in public and maintaining a public Internet site); (2) development of a redistricting plan (including soliciting and considering public comments) and its submission to the state legislature (with public notice of plans at least seven days prior to such submission); (3) selection of a plan, under specified conditions, by the state's highest court or the U.S. district court for the district in which the capital of the state is located; (4) special rules for redistricting conducted under a federal court order; and (5) Election Assistance Commission payments to states for carrying out redistricting.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/223?q=hr+223

[MrSlayer]

1. No way.

They aren't interested in fairness or honesty. All this monkey business benefits the Republicans, why would they ever support reform?

[Ellipsis]

3. The perception that they are crooked could sway publc opininon and they could lose the house...

is the only thing I can think of.
Outside of the fact the pendulum swings both ways. I'm sure this effects republicans as well to a to a lesser degree from what I've read but it still effects them perhaps enough for some members of congress get behind it.

It would be fair to both parties....naive as that comment is.

[MrSlayer]

4. Public opinion doesn't really matter.

And they're making it less important everyday.

[Ellipsis]

5. How do you know that...

I understand your pessimism, but I'm not so sure. I get the fact that there is an unlimited amount of money that can be spent to change the frame but people are really fed with all the bullshit on both sides.. all be it for different reasons.

It would simply things

[MrSlayer]

6. People are frustrated.

But the nuts have enough support to make sure they never get kicked out of office.

I'm also having a really bad time of it right now so my bitterness needle is pegged.

[Ellipsis]

7. Mine too..

I'm just trying to keep some discussion going here.

There are many people I know who are not political who do vote one way or another but really aren't political.

Many public figures avoid taking a a policy stand because they are afraid to lose followers, music sales, box office receipts, car sales... whatever.

How would taking a bipartisan position on districting by taking it decision out of the hands of politicians effect one negatively by presenting an honest point of view. It's not a conservative or liberal issue. It's just one of fairness. If it's presented in the right way> I think it would float...

The key is getting on the floor.

[longship]

2. In the House, probably DOA.

But I'd like to see it get to the floor just the same. It would be nice if President Obama would use his bully pulpit to back it.

We'll see, I suppose.