MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
May 10, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2001. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and by videoconference from Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas, 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. Bob Price, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James Hulse, Common Cause, Nevada
Gilbert M. Cortez, Common Cause, Nevada
Emma Sepulveda, Private Citizen
Andres Ramirez, Private Citizen
Danny Coyle, SNEA/AFSCME
Lonnie Feemster, President, National Association of Colored People
Paul Willis, Private Citizen
Fernando Romero, Amigos 4 Democracy
Mirna Precado, Private Citizen
Claudia Medina, Private Citizen
Madeline Sifford, Private Citizen
Jose Pineda, Private Citizen
Joe Edson, Private Citizen
Bob Fulkerson, Private Citizen
Fortino Martinez, Private Citizen
Aldo Rodriquez, Private Citizen
Madeline Sifford, Private Citizen
Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order and asked the Vice Chairman to chair the meeting while she opened the discussion on A.B. 665.
Assembly Bill 665: Revises districts for state legislators and representatives in congress. (BDR 17-1542)
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9, introduced the bill as the first that addressed redistricting. On the walls were maps regarding A.B. 665 and the only maps to be discussed during the meeting. Unfortunately no other bill had been introduced from the Republican side of the house due to a disagreement regarding the size of the legislature. She hoped that would be worked out so legislation could be acted upon in order to move the process forward. All committee members realized the reapportionment and redistricting had to do with negotiations and legislation was needed to accomplish the task.
The bill addressed 42 Assembly seats and 21 Senate seats, with 11 single- and 5 dual-member districts, the same numbers as during the past 10 years:
There was no deviation greater than 1 percent in any district population but there were incumbents placed in the same district, as had happened ten years prior:
In rural districts there were some changes:
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would be happy to answer any questions regarding the new districting. The Democratic plan was not only constitutional, it held to the Voting Rights Act. One gift, in the Democrats’ opinion, was the creation of an open Senate district in southern Nevada, which was 65 percent Hispanic, as well as three open seats in the southern part of the state. During discussions, the committee tried to make sure the deviation in population was not too large, and as the lines were drawn that was maintained. They also maintained the constitutionality. No African-American seat was jeopardized, and plurality continued within those seats. There were two Assembly seats, one with a 71 percent margin and one with a 61 percent margin Hispanic in southern Nevada as well.
Vice Chairman Price stated the daily newspaper printed calculated dollar amounts on the expense of maintaining a district. He asked if the possibility of reduction in the number of Assembly seats had been discussed to save money. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated they had thought out and talked about it, as cost was a factor regarding size but not the whole picture. With no disrespect to anyone, they understood and were sensitive to the geographical problems within Nevada. Any person, whether elected from the north, rurals or from Clark County, had always dealt within the body whether it was financially- or policy-wise with sensitivity, and that would not change no matter what the final decisions brought forth. The purpose of the census count was to determine the location of the population. Two-thirds of Nevada’s population was in the south and it was time that voice was not ignored or diluted. That was the reason the “42 and 21 plan” was brought forth, as it accommodated and recognized that no matter what the legislature did, there would continue to be a geographical problem within Nevada. The costs changed when considering individual legislators, staff, and remodeling costs, a factor that added up to millions of dollars over a period of time and something to be reviewed. The constitution allowed for 75 seats, and using all 75 seats at the current time would not allow for future growth within the state. She felt it was possible that five years down the road adjustments would have to be made within the state legislature, and at the local governments levels as well. There would be no room for flexibility by adjusting upwards to 75 seats.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked for an explanation of why 70 percent of 42 was different from 70 percent of 46. Either way, Clark County received 70 percent. When talking about enlarging and having the population recognized, why would it not be better to have the underserved areas, in terms of huge geographic areas, plus allow them better representation from an Assemblyman or Senator when southern Nevada still maintained the 70 percent. Southern Nevada received more seats with 46 Assembly seats versus 42 seats. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated her personal belief was that for the past 58 years, southern Nevada had 51 percent of the population, and yet, they had not had commensurate representation. They simply expanded to protect a geographic area or a northern voice at the expense of a southern voice; she did not buy into the argument. She felt Senator Raggio announced the issue of expanding long ago in order to protect his northern Senators. She respected that thought and knew there would be debates over the issue, but she did not feel his wish was the Assembly’s command. They drew a constitutional plan that complied with the Voting Rights Act that added additional seats to create a Hispanic open seat with no incumbent in order to be able to still collectively have a group that could responsibly reflect and react to constituencies. She understood the geographic problem as she had driven the entire state at one time or another.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani argued that the communities of interests in the rural counties were far simpler than any within an urban area, whether it is Washoe or Clark Counties. Within one urban district there was blue collar, business, and varieties of ethnic backgrounds, which was harder to deal with in order to build consensus than to go into a rural area and have a similar community as far as positions and issues. Those she represented wanted compact contiguous districts and she felt the results presented their desires.
Assemblyman Hettrick argued that Clark County received 70 percent of the representation either way, and increasing the size of the legislature would provide all around better representation. The rural areas had the same situations as the urban, though the latter had mining in one neighborhood with farming next to it, small businesses, and those concerns mentioned about Clark County. The difference was if Senator McGinness, who represented Churchill County and Pahrump, wanted to go to a function in Pahrump at the invitation of his constituents, he had an hour’s drive to Reno, an hour’s flight to Las Vegas and then an hour’s-plus drive to Pahrump, returning by the same route. That type of interaction was not something the Republicans wanted to stop, but felt it would be minimized if there was maximized fairness in representation.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani did not feel fairness would be maximized in that way. A person that chose to either live or represent a rural area such as the one just described acknowledged the difficulties that went with it. In her opinion, southern Nevada would not deal with creating additional seats in order to create a power of control in the northern part of the state. She felt that was what additional seats would create and stated they would agree to disagree.
Assemblyman Brower was confused and stated if by adding seats the percentage of membership from Clark County was the same when kept at 42, it seemed Clark County’s power was not diluted at all by adding seats. His concern was, as heard in Fallon, if running for a seat in rural Nevada the candidate would have a large territory to cover. He asked why make it harder? Everyone knew that would always be a problem, but why not make it a bit easier on the representatives of the rural districts. He asked for the rationale about combined incumbent districts. Clearly, a 42-seat map could be drawn without a multitude of joint districts. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered, “Fairness.” She felt all candidates (incumbent or not) would basically face an entirely new legislative group to convince they were the right candidate for the job. Even though many were incumbents that were sitting on the committee, no matter what happened, all were going to have a different shape and number of constituents. In order to create some open seats they felt it was proper, as they did ten years prior, to put some incumbents in seats together and deal with it in that manner. There were Democrats against Democrats, and Democrats against Republicans, and Republicans against Republicans. Assemblyman Brower stated as one of the incumbents, he might not be the best person to ask the question of the advantage in terms of good public policy or fairness to put existing incumbents together. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated, “It is all about negotiation.“
Assemblyman Beers stated the size of the Assembly was not so much a partisan, but a geographic issue. He was in total support of 42 members, and size had nothing to do with the fact that many open seats were being created in southern Nevada and none in northern Nevada. The two primary things he related it to was having represented a district that was 1.95 times the current target number, though not that big of a problem. Secondly, was the estimate heard from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) where the high-end costs for additional seats were approximately $3 million.
Assemblyman Anderson agreed with Assemblyman Beers, understanding, that regardless of expanding to an aggregate number of seats, all went to the south. By maintaining the 42-seat configuration, those seats proportionately became more powerful or on an equal power base as those within the south, even though physically located in some area outside of Clark County. By holding to a smaller number, each seat became equally more important. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the larger districts that were added to were a few hundred, up to 1,000 miles in some cases. Size was not the question. Also, the issue of compactness and contiguousness of districts had to be addressed when drawing new lines. She stated the committee was very sensitive about complying with every step that was a potential challenge by the court. There were six factors to be maintained in drawing the lines, and to simply expand for expansion sake jeopardized not only the court issue but also the “One person, one vote,” principal. Representation was the main focus, and the “One person, one vote” was where the standard deviation issue arose. In order to keep the seats within the 1 percent standard deviation, the lines drawn allowed for proper representation of the “One person, one vote” issue in each district created.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if the committee would return to discuss the congressional seat, or were they limited to the Assembly and Senate. His concern regarding the congressional seat was, recalling the 1981 Legislative Session where a line had been drawn down the middle of the Truckee River to Churchill County and a line had been drawn that divided Clark County, and he did not see that as part of the current Congressional plan. The northern district held the community of interest in place, both geographically and physically, so that the population numbers were relatively bound, and the new seat tended to be wholly within Clark County, while holding the community interests of the rest of state, without dividing the northern communities of Washoe County into two separate districts. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the committee was very sensitive to that issue, and did not want to harm Congressman Gibbons’ voice, and they wanted to create two competitive seats in the southern part of the state. The population was 666,109 in Clark County District 1, currently Congresswoman Berkeley’s seat. In the northern rural area, Congressman Gibbon’s was 666,075 in population, and 666,073 in population for the open seat, for a total of 1,998,257. Assemblyman Anderson understood the numbers reflected the 1 percent deviation.
Assemblyman Bache commented about the “42-21 map” and approved the redistricting lines. He stated he was the author of the amendments present by the Democratic State Platform that had asked for the legislature to remain the same size. Another concern was financial, as expansion of the legislature would create an addition financial burden for the 2003 Legislative Session. In his particular district, he was pleased it was 60 percent Hispanic, affording the opportunity for Hispanics to have a voice in his district. He felt he had represented his Hispanic constituents well throughout the last ten years and he looked forward to any possible challenges.
Assemblyman Beers disagreed with the incumbents being drawn within the same districts. He stated one of the rules the interim committee set up was to not have incumbents drawn together when possible. He was unsure when it would be appropriate to compare the Republican set of maps against those on the wall at the meeting, but the Republican incumbents did not have that many incumbents drawn together. He emphasized the lines could be drawn without having incumbents together. The other concern was with the Hispanic population. There were two Hispanic districts, one of 70 percent, which was not supported by case law and called “packing.” It was an attempt to typically isolate the political power of that community of interest and prevent them from having a number of seats more proportionate to their percentage of the total Hispanic population. It was also seen, when looking at the breakout of the numbers on the Democratic plan, that there were at least 15 districts with 20 and 35 percent Hispanic populations. On the Republican maps, the Hispanic neighborhoods were drawn into districts allowing them to combine their political power and elect representatives. With the Democratic maps, the influence was diluted across 15 different districts where there was a minute number of Hispanics within those districts. He did not feel that was fair.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the Republican maps would be discussed when the bills were released or at the presentation of the maps from A.B. 665. She argued that the 70 percent was not “packing.” The proposal discussed was actually a dilution. The courts had ruled, Judge Coleman in the Jingles case, that because of certain issues planning went past the 50 percent, adding 5 percent to include a super majority in order to have the potential for an electiblity. If drawn below that, in reality it did not allow someone the opportunity to run for that office. Assemblyman Beers felt it was more correctly stated that 65 percent was the maximum percentage that could be drawn into a district before the “packing” issue arose. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that was absolutely incorrect because there were actual districts around the United States that were arguing for a higher percentage than even the 65 or 67 percent. Assemblyman Beers stated he was arguing in the face of Supreme Court case law that stated an excess of 65 percent was considered “packing.” Assemblywoman Giunchigliani disagreed.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel understood that any individual could submit maps and asked for clarification from Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel. In following those rules, the Republicans had brought their maps with them to the meeting. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated it was in the rules, however, the only thing posted for the meeting was A.B 665 and the maps that reflected the narrative and the first hearing held on the bill. She welcomed amendments and stated the maps were open for public view in Room 3161 on the third floor of the legislative building.
Mr. Wasserman stated the rules set forth that the members of the public and any interested party could submit plans before the committee but it was up to the Chair of the committee how to proceed in the committee and what was included on the agenda as far as how to bring them forth.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel requested, if it would please the Chair, if the Republican maps could be opened for discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated not at this time due to the public present who were scheduled to testify regarding the maps that were drawn. If there was time, she stated the Republican maps would be considered.
Speaker Emeritus Dini stated his preference was to add seats because some of the rural districts were outrageous in size. But, no matter what was decided, the community of interest was the priority. He stated he did not mind running against Assemblyman Neighbors, but in that district there was no community of interest between his district and Speaker Emeritus Dini’s. His was agricultural, industrial, and tourism and Assemblyman Neighbors was a scattering of old towns, military depots, and upstream and downstream battles on the Walker River. He did not feel Assemblyman Neighbors wanted Speaker Emeritus Dini reapportioned into his district where he was disliked immensely because of his position about water. The community of interest was very important from a rural county standpoint and the two districts were very diversified. He stated this was his fourth reapportionment session and his district had been moved every time, once being by the court in 1973 because they under-represented Elko, who filed a lawsuit that moved him out of Carson and into Churchill County. He stated he would hang tough for additional seats until it was voted out. He stated also the costs mentioned by Assemblyman Beers were way off base. He stated he was here when there was only four staff for the entire legislature of 40, so maybe returning to the leaner side would not hurt, thus allowing a cut in the budget. He felt that there was so much paperwork it was bogging down the business at hand.
Assemblyman Hettrick commented on costs. The testimony revealed the cost for a legislator for two years, including the secretary, who actually made more than the legislator, travel and the computer, totaled to about $69,000. The $310,000 figure was throwing in a staff position. He pointed out during the last reapportionment/redistricting no legislators had been added. Since that time, many staff had been added and additional staff would be present despite remaining the same or increasing in size. The state was growing with far more complexity, and adding staff to legislators did not apply. He fully appreciated Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s ability to run the meeting anyway she wanted, but wanted a clarification on how a member of the public, according to Rule 134.1, could present a redistricting map if it had to be agendized. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated, as verbalized earlier, the bill before the committee was the introduction of the Democratic maps and the bill. After that any plan amendments would be accepted. Basically, she was avoiding having the meeting turn into one as chaired by Senator Townsend where, without the legislation in front of the committee and public, “concepts” were described that did not totally relate to the subject at hand. Assemblyman Hettrick stated that Chairwoman Giunchigliani had advised him in advance the rules would be followed.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani returned to the dias and asked if anyone on the committee, or in the audience, had to meet airline schedules. She indicated she would rotate between the Las Vegas and Carson City galleries for testimony.
Jim Hulse, Common Cause of Nevada, voiced opposition to the bill. Exhibit C was verbatim narrative of his testimony. Assemblyman Brower stated that if memory served him correctly the Nevada Legislature had in the past been larger than it was today. He asked for a brief history on the subject of size. Mr. Hulse stated there were times when the legislature had 25 Senators and 50 Assemblymen, which was the top limit, set by the Constitution of the State of Nevada. Assemblyman Price stated the largest legislative representation was in 1864 when the first legislative session was held.
Assemblyman Anderson asked Mr. Hulse if there was a need to increase beyond the numbers mentioned in his testimony of increasing the Assembly to 46 seats and the Senate to 23. Mr. Hulse did not believe so. Part of the reason for choosing those numbers was because former Assemblywoman Segerblom had suggested such and he felt comfortable speaking for her because she was a board member of the Common Cause of Nevada. She felt that a fair way to assure rural, as well as urban representation. Assemblyman Anderson asked why the higher number was picked. Mr. Hulse stated Senator Rhoads, in an earlier Senate Concurrent Resolution, agreed to the numbers because of the proposal, though that was a not rigid decision. It seemed to him a way of giving southern Nevada areas of representation they deserved and needed, by virtue of the census, and at the same time avoided the need of trying to “carve” the rural districts even further. Also, if increased slightly, many of the problems being faced with Hispanic concerns were diminished. Assemblyman Anderson asked if his decision was based on protecting his “home turf” of Pioche and Lincoln County. Mr. Hulse stated his “home turf” was the state of Nevada.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there were copies of the various breakdowns of cities with population and voter registration numbers available and if there were not enough copies and they were needed, advise her and copies would be provided. She stated size did not necessarily equate to equal representation for an ethnic district.
Mirna Precado, Private Citizen of Las Vegas, appeared before the committee and read her testimony from printed narrative.
I came from Mexico 21 years ago and I didn’t know then my opinion is very, very important. I am proud of the work that has been done for the past several elections. I have worked to make people U.S. citizens, to register them to vote, and get them involved in politics like I did. I didn’t want Latinos to vote for Latinos. I want somebody to represent me as a Latino and as a citizen. This plan is good because it doesn’t do that. We have never had a Spanish-speaking Senator. This plan gives us a great opportunity for that. I don’t want somebody to be nice to me because I am Latino. I want a real representation.
Gilbert M. Cortez, President, United Latinos of Northern Nevada (ULNN), stated he was a citizen of Reno and owner of a small business. He stated ULNN was a small organization that could truly boast about interaction with the Hispanic community on a daily basis via their offices and a radio program through which they helped the community with problems affecting the Hispanics. On the issue of redistricting, he was not into politics and did not know that much about the subject, nor did he know of the hearing until three hours prior. He did know what he had read and heard, and with the ever-growing Hispanic population throughout the state of about 20 percent, he was hoping to find in the charts a “brown face.” He thought he saw one and questioned, “One representative for 392,000 residents?” The Democratic Party had detailed their program, the Republicans had yet to do so, but he was more interested in finding out how and why redistricting was being discussed without the participation of the northern Nevada Hispanic community. He stated hopefully they would have representation by someone of Hispanic heritage. He stated he was a Democrat and now a Republican, but in his estimation neither party was that concerned with what afflicted and affected the Hispanic population. He looked more toward “El Partido de Larasa,” so that the Hispanics would one day be totally and truly represented.
Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out that the plan not being discussed at the moment provided some of the answers to Mr. Cortez’s questions, and in order to provide the information in detail, invited him to go to Room 3161 to view the Republican Party plans.
Speaking in regard to the lack of Latino representation, Emma Sepulveda stated she represented herself though she did belong to many Latino organizations. She did run for Senate in 1994 in a very white district, “being cut to the point that she had no chance from the beginning.” She knew there were many rumors about non-qualified Latino candidates; of whom she believed she was one, even though she ran in a white district. She voiced great respect for all on the committee, but did not feel any of those seated truly represented the Latino community. She stated that if the legislature was made up completely of men, the women would not feel as though they were properly represented, thus the impression of lack of representation for Latinos today. She supported any plan that provided communities of interest of more than 60 percent Latinos in a district. She felt the plan presented today was a good start and the Latino community had a very positive outlook because of it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Sepulveda for which Senate seat she ran. Ms. Sepulveda answered District 4.
Assemblyman Beers passed out a section of the map being discussed (Exhibit D) where Districts 9, 10, and 41 came together. Basically it showed a Hispanic neighborhood, clearly a community of interest, where neighbors who lived across the street from one another and their children probably went to the same school, who probably spoke the same language, who may well have attended the same church, were split into three different Assembly districts in an apparent attempt to minimize their political influence. He stated it was a telling graphic of the lines drawn and an indicator of the degree of work A.B. 665 required.
Speaker Perkins voiced there would be much criticism of the plan in spite of the work put into it, but felt the comment from the previous speaker drew his attention to an even earlier comment about the plan’s constitutionality because there was a compacting of areas and now the subject of diluting was provided. He was happy to speak with Assemblyman Beers about how the Assembly could best accomplish the goals of the minority communities as well as both the caucuses that had such a great interest in the subject.
Assemblywoman Buckley felt the role of the present hearing was to solicit testimony on the bill and peoples’ opinions about what should happen. While the committee members could spend a great deal of time debating each other, an activity normally done in work session, she requested the gallery be given the courtesy of listening to what they had to say. To pass out a small portion of a map did not afford the opportunity to discuss what it meant. It was a drawing of three partial Assembly districts without considering the remainder of the state and the numbers required in each district. Districts could not be drawn in isolation. Many different factors were being considered to avoid keeping one community of interest on one side of the freeway that impacted every neighborhood around it. To consider something in isolation made no sense whatsoever. Additionally, many other areas had to be considered in order to create good minority communities. To get effective voting majorities, such as the one Ms. Sepulveda just spoke of, all factors had to be considered. If a population, and that meant looking to 47,000 for each district, had a certain percentage under 18 that could not vote, that also had to be considered in drawing an effective district so that a candidate from that community of interest could serve. She stated she would try to refrain, as she had a number of times during the present hearing, so she could hear the audience. She felt compelled to make the comment on Exhibit D.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani shared with the audience that the subject being discussed would be one of the most contentious, partisan issues to be dealt with all session, a negotiation strategy.
Private Citizen, Joe Edson, voiced his support for the plan, and agreed with Assemblyman Beers and others who voiced opposition to expanding the size of the legislature because of the cost, and also, because of population location. He recognized that the geographic considerations in the state were a major concern, but was not sure expanding the number of seats actually gave that much relief as most of the seats would end up in southern Nevada.
Bob Fulkerson spoke in favor of the plan from a private citizen perspective. He thanked the committee for their hard work and long hours on behalf of Nevada’s citizens. He also thanked those that developed the maps, acknowledging the time and effort that went into it. Mr. Fulkerson was appreciative of Assemblywoman Buckley pointing out all of the factors that had to be considered, as well as the community hearings being a good starting point overall. Taking a risk, he had much more faith in the Majority Party to deal with the maps and to take into consideration traditionally disenfranchised communities than he did the other party. Frankly, the Democratic Party had a much better track record on these types of legislative measures. He thought about how the issue of reapportionment was dealt with and how the legislature as a whole would deal with all other matters of public policy for the next ten years. It was an extremely important issue, particularly for those citizens and communities of interest without power or a voice of their own.
Assemblyman Hettrick regretted that Mr. Fulkerson chose to make the comment that the other side was doing something disproportionately to one group or another. He recalled testimony from a Latino representative at the Fallon hearing, “The Democrats have used us and the Republicans have ignored us.” He did not feel either party had done the Hispanics much justice and they were both trying to improve on that. Mr. Fulkerson chose to disagree with Assemblyman Hettrick.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel believed all members were trying to avoid partisanism, knowing reapportionment was a very partisan issue. The committee members were not asking everyone testifying what party affiliation they represented. Perhaps that question should be asked. She was offended that Mr. Fulkerson suggested the Republicans did not have the ability to draw district maps, but was showing pleasure with the Democratic plan and maps. She knew Republicans would be inclined to say the same thing about the Democrats. She thought it would be nice to try to do what was fair and stated she had also heard from a majority of Hispanics that it would be fairer to have more districts for them to represent. She saw only two districts affording the Hispanics that opportunity, which would not be changed for ten years. Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she did not appreciate his “shot” at the Republicans.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Assemblywoman Von Tobel and stated Mr. Fulkerson was entitled to his opinion as a witness. Mr. Fulkerson shared it appeared one was “jumping” on the other to keep the process nonpartisan, a reason he spoke as an individual and not a lobbyist. He wanted to make sure people realized how he felt. At stake, regarding how the lines were drawn and who drew them, was how issues of social, racial, and economic justice would be dealt with for the next ten years. He again stood with his earlier statement.
Fernando Romero of Las Vegas appeared representing himself and Amigos 4 Democracy. He commented he had seen both sets of maps and was very much in favor of the maps that were presented by the Hispanic community as they had considered ideas from both parties. He stated it appeared everyone was interested in the Hispanic agenda but no one was listening. They requested representatives of both parties listen to the “horse” and then make a decision at that time. He stated they were looking at two non-incumbent districts and three with incumbents. He said Assemblyman Bache had done a number of excellent things for the Hispanic community he represented, and as Assemblyman Bache said, he was not afraid of facing an Hispanic candidate. It was well known that incumbents had the upper hand as far as elections went. There needed to be a chance to get an Hispanic representative on the ballot, and a chance to have Mirna Precado represented by one of her own. Mr. Romero stated he had also looked at the redistricting map for the Board of Regent and felt it appalling the decision was made to reduce by one instead of adding three seats. It was appalling that the only person of color on the Board of Regents was being asked to challenge an incumbent. He felt another look should be made when it came to the districts for the Board of Regents, adding three seats so that people of color that resided in the ever-growing Hispanic community had a chance to run for the Regents also. Speaking about the congressional seats, he was appreciative of Congresswoman Berkeley’s representation. He was sad to see that many of the areas favorably represented were being placed in Congressional District 3. He would have further comments after the Saturday meeting reviewing the maps, which afforded the legislators the opportunity to review the maps developed by the Hispanic community leaders.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the legislators would be in Carson City for floor and committee sessions, but after that, either party was happy to meet regarding any of the maps and proposals. She corrected an inaccuracy in his testimony, that being Regent Howard was representing the African-American district. At the meeting Ms. Howard thought she was not, but the staff found she was correctly placed in her district. More importantly, the point that Ms. Howard missed was that with Mr. Wiezner, whose seat was up, they simply had to note for the record the previous Regent. Mrs. Howard was unopposed for the next three and one half to four years of her term. There was no one else in her district. She was in a safe seat, and there was no challenger to that seat until four years out. Mr. Romero stated in that case he would retract his comment regarding the Regent seat. To clarify, Mr. Romero questioned if Regent Howard would in fact, in four years, be pitted against an incumbent in her district. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there was no challenge to her. Mr. Romero reiterated about adding three more seats for the Regents. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said his request would be taken into consideration, but as noted by Thalia Dondero, the vote was seven to four as to whether or not to increase the board’s membership.
Andres Ramirez of Las Vegas spoke about the southern Nevada coalition who put together and released a set of maps that they believed best represented the Latino community. He thanked the Assembly for release of their maps to provide the Hispanic community the opportunity to analyze and assess the impact of those lines on their community of interest. He encouraged the Senate to release their maps as soon as possible. It was their understanding the process was to end on May 25, 2001, and regardless of the self-imposed deadline, they realized that was the legislators’ desire. The coalition was concerned that if the Senate waited too much longer, the Hispanic community would not have enough time to analyze what effect those maps had on their community of interest. He thanked the committee for taking the time to review the maps they released and taking their desires into consideration. However, they felt their maps provided excellent opportunities for the Latino community and requested the remainder of their proposals be considered. He knew the process was just beginning and he looked forward to continued work with the committee to develop a plan that was satisfactory to everyone. In addition, he added, for the record, that an open Latino community drawn with less than a 60 percent Hispanic population would not be acceptable.
Assemblyman Price asked if the maps in question where available for the committee’s perusal. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the maps were in her office. Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested a copy be delivered to Assemblyman Price.
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the maps represented southern Nevada only. Mr. Ramirez stated the maps were of southern Nevada only.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated that in one of the maps drawn by the Republicans, there was a 44 percent Hispanic district in Washoe County. Since a 60 percent district was not present in Washoe County, he asked if that was acceptable for the coalition. Mr. Ramirez stated he was not able to speak on behalf of the Hispanic community in northern Nevada. He represented the Coalition of Southern Nevada, whose view was that open districts could be drawn to encompass at least a 65 percent Hispanic ratio. Assemblyman Hettrick asked his opinion on drawing it as a 44 percent district. Mr. Ramirez said he would not discourage the drawing of any districts.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated at some point, as a committee, the court cases could be pulled regarding majority/minority and supermajority/minority redistricting to afford all to work from the same documentation. It was her understanding the court ruling stated a district could not be created for the purposes of race, but they also had to be very cognizant to make sure one was not created that did not take into account various differentials. She felt something could be developed to provide an understanding of what could and could not be done to the public.
North Las Vegas citizen Claudia Medina voiced support of the proposed plan because it provided the Latino community a strong voice in electing Latinos into office. She read from her testimony, “I have worked on a number of political campaigns through my union, especially trying to get Latino voters to the polls. I have worked on political campaigns and voter registration drives. I know that the voter registration rate among Latino workers is very low, so a district that had a majority of Latinos living in them will not necessarily have a Latino to get elected because the voter turnout is low. So I think a district that has a very large majority of Latinos is important to make sure that we can have a Latino elected to represent us. Thank you.”
Fortino Martinez echoed the testimony of those who testified before him. He had the same concerns, to make sure the Hispanic voice was heard and they were well represented. Neither party had done what should have been done a long time ago. If the legislators wanted to be fair and just and comply with all federal regulations, assure the Latino community one Senator in the south and one Senator in the north. In that way, he felt the Hispanic community would be well represented. He asked for an equal number of representatives in the Assembly, both south and north to be well represented.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Martinez if he was advocating a single member Senate district for each area. Mr. Martinez answered in the affirmative. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated his request would be in the record and assured him there would be discussion regarding that issue.
Madeline Sifford of Las Vegas stated that as a concerned citizen one area to avoid while redistricting was to pit one minority group against another, specifically Latinos against African-Americans and vice versa. As minorities, it was important that both voices be heard. Cross-party and ethnic lines could be drawn without making race an issue for drawing a district. Dario Herrera and Brian Sandoval had both proven that fact. “Are Latino legislators needed?” The answer was absolutely. But, by the same token she did not want the African-American community weakened and their voices not heard. There was a need for more opportunities for Latinos and she supported the plan because it empowered the Latino community, but added it should be a plan that did not dilute the African-American vote.
Saying A.B. 665 was a good start in blending all ethnic communities in Nevada together, Danny Coyle, representative of SNEA/AFSCME, voiced support for the plan. He had listened to the colloquies between legislators regarding dual incumbent districts and understood, though at times it was not practical. He also understood when each party got their maps online there would be a caucus with compromises made. Hopefully when a redistricting plan was approved, signed, and enacted into law, all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, color, or political persuasion, were represented and had a voice in the election of candidates of choice. It was his hope that all those involved would work in concert.
Expressing his opinion about A.B. 665, Jose Pineda of Las Vegas, was in favor of the bill because it showed a state Senate district with a good Latino majority. Latinos remained very under-represented politically. He had worked in political campaigns to elect Latinos. This bill provided them the opportunity to elect more Latinos because it had six open Assembly seats and three open Senate seats. He felt the plan provided a great opportunity while providing a super majority in a state Senate district.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel commented about the reference to open seats, but as the plan was presently drawn, if incumbents were placed in like districts, quite often they moved into the open seats to run rather than running against each other. Therefore, there would not necessarily be that many open seats due to incumbents who physically moved from one district into another to represent an open seat area. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblywoman Von Tobel to wait to discuss her position until after testimony was received from the remainder of those in the gallery who wanted to speak.
Paul Willis of Pahrump and a native Nevadan, voiced opposition to the plan, stating it was deplorable when saying less representation was better for Nevada. He asked what price tag was being placed on representation. Most urban citizens had no clue what rural residents dealt with. With the plan as drawn, he stated rurals should just walk away silently into the dark. He felt the legislature needed to be increased since the state was not going to get any smaller, the population continued to rise, and the cost of increasing now would be considerably less than in the future. He stated he heard in one of the opening statements that southern Nevada was under represented in the past and that was why they did not want to give up any power in the future. He said he was a resident of the state of Nevada and that the state as a whole had to be taken into consideration. The central and rural areas needed a great deal of help and received little representation when representatives were reduced in numbers. If the legislature was increased, the opportunities were also increased for Hispanics and other minorities to have more representation through more available seats. Also, the rural voice, with the new plan, would be diluted far beyond any help at all. He appreciated the time afforded him to testify and asked consideration be given in looking forward to the state’s growth over the coming ten years. The south would not lose as much voice as those in the rural districts unless the legislature grew.
Lonnie Feemster, President, Reno/Sparks National Association of Colored People (NAACP), stated he was neutral on increasing the size of the legislature. As one farmer put it, “Increasing the number of foxes guarding the hen house did not particularly mean the chickens were any safer.” He stated on the street that quote was considered a joke. He spoke specific to northern Nevada where he had lived all but three months of his 51 years. He spoke to support the need to protect the dilution of the minority voting strength and to make sure that low income, ethnic minority, and communities of interest were protected. They were normally segregated in housing and schools, but integrated when it came to voting. It was important that the low income, ethnic minority communities of interest should not be fractured by depriving the minority population of its voting strength. In northern Nevada in particular, he felt communities of interest were not entirely the same race.
With only about 2.6 percent African-American population in northern Nevada, counting those that were bi-racial (he thought that a funny description developed by the Census Bureau, a word he had never heard before the last census report), in communities that had geographic similarities were largely controlled by real estate economics; low income people living in areas of low-income housing. There were a larger number of apartments, which he felt were lacking in the community and had a larger percentage of ethnic minorities. The NAACP was long established in Reno/Sparks and the majority of the membership was African-American although there were European/Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans in their membership and as supporters. The NAACP liked to envision itself as representing people of color, women, and European/Americans to make a better country and eliminate the last vestiges of racism. They particularly represented the underrepresented communities of a shared interest inclusive of the low income and politically unaware. They wanted to make sure there was sufficient input into the process so their issues were understood. He thought the main point was that until there was a fair and equal system of justice, education, and economic development, people of color would not have political representation. He did not care what the race was. He said he had heard Hispanics say they were white until they arrived in America, at which time they became Hispanic. Black people in Mexico have said they did not know they were Black until they went to Mexico City and discovered everyone else in town was not Black. He felt it was time race was dealt with, however, as far as redistricting was concerned the communities of interest had some input into the process. He did not know how many “foxes” were needed.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated both parties were very sensitive to the issues. They needed to guard against paper-thin majorities in any districts drawn so the dilution issue did not defeat the process, but also the unaffected voting majority as related to the Voting Rights Act. She reminded the gallery part of the problems in drawing the maps focused on integration and, though there was clustering, the beauty of Nevada was it had become integrated. They did not want to dilute any African-American seats while creating Hispanic seats to avoid pitting ethnic groups against each other. She felt that was the message from the gallery and appreciated the input.
Voicing his support of the plan, Aldo Rodriquez of Reno, Nevada, stated it was a very good start. He felt a 60 percent district was good representation for communities of interest.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated he appreciated all of the comments about the 60 percent because when the Republicans talked about their plan they had 3 districts outlined with a 60 percent base rather than the Democratic 2.
Mr. Ramirez returned to the witness table and asked for clarification on the 65 percent rule, i.e., was it the limit, or the maximum for Latino districts. He stated the Latino community was under the impression that was a minimum. Mr. Wasserman stated the 65 percent rule was not “etched in stone” during the interim hearings. The courts upheld the rule when drawing minority districts, which were reached when the population figure came to 51 percent, because of consideration of lower voter registration, lower voting age, and lower voter turnout. They added 5 percent for each of the 3 categories, whereby the 65 percent number was reached without being considered “packing.” He emphasized it was not a magic number. Each time a plan was drawn and a minority district viewed, all of the circumstances had to be considered to determine what was effective for a major populous in that district. Earlier, he had provided examples of packing where the figure was over 90 percent. He tried to stay with a high number to be very safe. Fracturing happened when 2 districts of 60 percent were redrawn into 4 districts with 30 percent each. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated further definition could be derived from the Thornburg v. Jingles case because that dealt with voting age population, as well as citizens of voting age when dealing with minority populations. After that, the percentages were taken into consideration. She hoped some of the cases could be put together for reference to provide the correct picture while working with the drawing and redrawing of lines. She asked if there were further questions or testimony before adjourning the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: