Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee holds two transparency measures on redistricting website and joint rules
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB5 and HCR1 to expand public access to non-privileged mapping analyses and require 72/24-hour notice before committees consider redistricting plans; public witnesses urged more notice, but both measures failed committee roll calls and were kept.
The committee considered two related measures intended to increase transparency in any 2026 redistricting process but ultimately kept both in committee after roll-call votes.
House Bill 5, sponsored by Representative Jordan, would require the legislature's redistricting website to include non-privileged analyses and materials used in drawing maps so that all lawmakers and the public have equal access. Jordan said the bill builds on 2023 changes (Act 240) and seeks to prevent situations where outside counsel or analyses paid by the legislature were not shared equally with all members. "If they're using funds that come from the legislature and they're doing it in the name of the legislature... then every member of the legislature should have access to that information," Jordan said.
Jordan and supporters described proposed time windows for review: no legislative instrument that includes a redistricting plan would be considered by committee until at least 72 hours after publication on the legislative website, and no instrument would be considered for final passage until at least 24 hours after a committee report. Jordan said the windows could be amended (for example, to 48 hours) but argued transparency must not be sacrificed for speed.
Public witnesses from civil-society groups and litigants urged the committee to adopt the measures, citing rushed special-session timelines and limited public notice. Max Martin of the Power Coalition said the special session was compressed and urged longer notice and remote roadshows so distant communities could participate. Dr. Alice Washington and Edgar Cage also testified that greater public access is essential to evaluate whether maps comply with state and federal criteria.
Opponents and some members worried that added notice periods could jeopardize secretary of state filing deadlines and complicate an accelerated special-session calendar; on roll call HB5 received 4 yeas and 10 nays and was kept in committee. HCR1, a joint-rules resolution with similar timing and notice aims, also failed by 4 yeas and 10 nays and will remain under committee consideration.
Both measures were presented as procedural reforms rather than substantive map changes; sponsors said they targeted non-privileged, legislature-funded analyses and final legislative instruments, not private counsel retained by individual members. The committee did not adopt the proposed 72/24-hour schedule in either measure.
