MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

May 8, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 2001.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bernie Anderson

Mr.                     Douglas Bache

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

 

 

OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT

 

            Senator Joseph M. Neal, Senate District 4

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Theresa Malone, Elected Member, State Board of Education

Thalia M. Dondero, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada

Linda C. Howard, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada

Robert Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting on reapportionment and redistricting for the Board of Regents and State Board of Education (SBE), pointing to the areas of the room where the various maps were viewed. The maps introduced reduced the Board of Regents and the SBE to ten members, the latter having worked with staff in drawing the lines. Because nothing from the regents was received, the maps were overlaid and the regent lines drawn to match. The committee was happy to interact in any discussion with either group of representatives to learn of concerns and all areas to be taken into consideration. She knew of a difference of opinion regarding size of districts, and requested they provide any information they wished considered by the committee and noted on the record.

 

State Board of Education Member, District 2, subdistrict G, Theresa Malone, represented primarily Clark County and part of Nye County. She testified on behalf of the SBE and as a member and co-chair of the subcommittee on Government Relations. The SBE had provided legislators with a proposal for consideration. She submitted documents (Exhibit C) that included maps and letters addressed not only to Chairwoman Giunchigliani, but also to Senator O’Connell, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. The letter dated April 9, 2001 (Exhibit D), stated the SBE voted for a ten-member board. Before coming to that conclusion, the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) was extremely helpful to the board with their information, various plans, and projected district boundaries. Exhibit C was a statement of the SBE and the final support of recommendations giving the subcommittee on Government Affairs responsibility for the map design. The SBE fully supported the map design for the ten-member board.

 

Each member of the SBE was provided information and gave input. The SBE used public computers at both legislative offices north and south to draw the maps.  With the assistance of Bob Erickson of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), they were able to come up with visual demographics in Exhibit C as well as the maps posted around the room for the public’s view.

 

One of the main concerns was Washoe and the “cow county” areas. Though her representation was in part of Nye County, their concern was having a “cow county” representative not shared with Clark County to ensure complete rural representation. Shown on the large state map was the proposal for three rural representatives, which encompassed everything north of Clark County. Seven members, because of the large population, represented Clark County, to equal a total of ten members. When speaking with the public, many in those areas were pleased with the recommendations. With the increase in population, there were many communities of interest that had also increased in population, one being the Hispanics. The Hispanic community of interest was designated as District 5, represented by Priscilla Rocha. Within that district rested the Clark County Community College. Not only was it a higher education institution, it also supported high school grades 11 and 12 as well.  

 

Ms. Malone stated the ideal population for each district was considered to be close to 200,000 for each SBE member. Exhibit C on page 7, showed various percentages related to the communities of interest. By reducing the SBE members from 11 to 10, they looked at a savings of $3,569 per year.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the student member did not vote. Ms. Malone stated the student member was nonvoting. Chairwoman Giunchigliani then asked what the relative deviation from one district to the other was in size. Ms. Malone stated in her district she had approximately 450,000 constituents, though not all were registered voters. Her area remained in the proposed District 1. Taken away was the blue section, which enlarged District 2 and incorporated the Sun City/Summerlin areas, but retained Indian Springs, Blue Diamond, Northwest Las Vegas and picked up a small part of North Las Vegas. When developing a community of interest, all districts needed some adjustments.

 

Ms. Malone stated the board was more than happy to work with the legislature to do whatever necessary to serve the K-12 children; they were the number one priority. She closed by voicing appreciation of the public hearing rooms and the advantages afforded in developing redistricting plans.

 

Chairwoman of the Board of Regents Thalia Dondero introduced Linda Howard, a newly elected regent.  Exhibit E provided a view of the present regent districts and the proposed 13 districts the Regents had voted for. The Board of Regents was a constitutional body elected to represent Nevada residents’ higher education needs. As constitutional officers they wanted a fair representation for all citizens and constituents, and a result of the dramatic population growth in southern Nevada over the past decade, the time had arrived to redraw districts to ensure that the integrity of “One Voice, One Vote” was maintained. If the board were to remain an 11-member entity, Regent Gallagher’s district would be redrawn to include northern Clark County. That posed a strong possibility that northern Nevada would no longer have rural representation. Geographically, Regent Gallagher’s district covered more square miles than seven states. In order to preserve rural representation, they recommended expanding the Board of Regents from an 11- to 13-member board. Each of the 13 districts represented a target population of nearly 154,000 residents. She indicated there was no financial impact as the regents were not salaried and were only responsive to the needs of the communities as well as the state. When the vote was taken to increase the board, the final vote was seven for and four against, and passed by the majority of the board.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there was an error made on the original map, which was having an incorrect address for member Linda Howard, who was elected to represent Regent District 3. Mr. Wiesner’s term was up, though he could run again.

 

Linda C. Howard, elected regent board member, said she voted for an increase in size due to the population growth as well as the need for representatives to address the concerns of the constituents. A decrease in her district would dilute minority representation in District 3.  She was the only person of color on the Board of Regents and if the board decreased in size that would dilute minority representation. She recommended to the legislature a 13-member board to match the proposed lines drawn. She also felt they were constitutional officers with the authority to draw their own lines.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson to point out Ms. Howard’s district on the map.  Mr. Erickson stated they thought Regent Howard lived north of Lake Mead, but in reality she lived north of Lake Mead on Hollywood. Ms. Howard said her concern was the lines were drawn but no one consulted with Ms. Dondero or other members of the board.  It was the second time the error had been made concerning her district and home location. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Howard her current physical address. Ms. Howard stated the address was 6720 Laronda Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89156. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the maps were the initial “shot” from an overlay of the SBE maps to work out the regent districts. Ms. Howard said her concern lay with the fact the board’s recommendations were not received or considered. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained that was why the meeting was scheduled for discussion only, with another hearing posted at a later date. This was the first time she herself had seen the maps. Ms. Dondero said her secretary indicated the maps drawn by the regents were sent to committee members, but provided no date of when the mailing was done. Chairwoman Giunchigliani did not want blame cast on the secretary or anyone else. An error occurred and they would work from the information at hand.

 

Ms. Howard voiced concern about being included in a district with another regent though it had been explained his term was near completion. She asked if she would be the only representative in that district. If Mr. Wiesner chose to run again, he would have to run against Ms. Howard and she did not understand why she had to be pitted against a rich Republican when she lived in a minority Democratic district, especially when those were not the circumstances when she ran for office. Chairwoman Giunchigliani replied that sometimes when lines were redrawn, as with the Senate and Assembly districts, several individuals found themselves in districts with two seats and having to run against an incumbent. Ms. Howard stated those individuals did not have the same circumstances as she. Chairwoman Giunchigliani assured her that the comments she made were appreciated and would be taken into consideration. When looking at percentages for Ms. Howard’s district, Seat 3 had 25.3 percent African American, 1.78 percent Native American/Alaskan Native, 3.84 percent Asian, .80 percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 17.8 percent in some other race, and 41.05 percent in Hispanic or Latino. Chairwoman Giunchigliani assured no dilution of voting voice when the lines were firmly set.

 

Ms. Howard agreed with not diluting the voice and stated again she did not feel it was fair to include her in a district with an incumbent. Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed that Ms. Howard would finish her term. Ms. Howard emphasized she understood that but if Mr. Wiesner decided to run again . . . . Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that at the end of four years, anyone could run against Ms. Howard.

 

Changing the subject, Ms. Howard referenced the percentages noted in the above paragraph and asked why they were directed at her and what it meant. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was trying to share the racial profile within the current seat versus the seat proposed. Ms. Howard stated she was aware of that, but wanted to know why those numbers were directed at her. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered because she felt it important for Ms. Howard to know that the district had not changed that much as far as representation was concerned. Continuing, she reiterated to Ms. Howard that she would complete her term, after which anyone could run against her. Mr. Wiesner’s term was completed but his name had to be noted because he was currently sitting within that district. Ms. Howard asked if the committee understood that would dilute the minority district. Chairwoman Giunchigliani did not see a dilution of voice the way the lines were drawn.

 

Ms. Dondero stated her district included an almost total Hispanic population, 53.09 percent of the population of 196,000 residents. Accordingly, she felt that created a Hispanic majority in District 5. She was referencing the maps that were created for a ten-member regent board. Ms. Dondero asked if that was done to create a Hispanic district. Chairwoman Giunchigliani replied the numbers provided did not calculate. Ms. Dondero said she was looking at page 2 of 4 of the LCB printout under the proposed ten-member districts. Chairwoman Giunchigliani repeated again that the SBE had developed the maps and with no input from the regents at the time, the committee took the recommendations and overlaid the regents on top. Currently Ms. Dondero had a 41.69 percent Hispanic population in her district.

 

Assemblyman Beers said the percentage of Hispanics and “lights” in District 5 exceeded 100 percent because the Census Bureau allowed people to be both nationalities and, therefore, the numbers would never add up to 100 percent. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated individuals could choose more than one race when filling out the census forms. Ms. Dondero pointed out she was in the central part of the community. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained part of the redistricting process included compliance with the Voting Rights Act and when drawing maps, both of those components had to be dealt with. She assured Ms. Howard her comments were very well taken and nothing was intended to slight anyone. Again, the intent was to comply with not only the Voting Rights Act, but to make sure the districts were equal and there was no dilution of voices.

 

Senator Joe Neal, Clark County District 4, stated he wanted to testify because of what was noted on the maps where Regent Howard had been drawn out of the district and shared that when districts were proposed in 1971, there were representatives from that particular area. It was already stated that to totally remove her from that area was a gross mistake and one that needed to be challenged to reassign her physical address within that population. Since the questions were answered, he did not feel the need to testify in more depth.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she appreciated the history lessons provided by Senator Neal. She stated Mr. Erickson would confer with Ms. Howard after the meeting to confirm exactly which side of the line her residence sat.

 

A.B. 664 was scheduled for the following week and the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: