MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

May 24, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 4:07 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, 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

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED

 

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNEXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Bob Price, Vice Chairman

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Jane Nichols, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada and the Board of Regents

Thalia Dondero, Member, Board of Regents

Linda Howard, Member, Board of Regents

Robert Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Theresa Malone, Member, State Board of Education

 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting requesting action on BDR 1538 (A.C.R. 41).

 

• BDR – R-1538 – Commended the staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

            SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI MOVED TO ADOPT BDR – R1538.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE SPEAKER PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, AND ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE.

 

********

 

The second order of business was A.C.R. 36, legislation requested by Chairwoman Giunchigliani.

 

A.C.R. 36 – Expresses support for the goals of the disadvantaged business             enterprise program and contract compliance programs with NDOT and     urges the creation of a task force to expand diversity in the workforce             and NDOT projects.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 36.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE SPEAKER PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, AND ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE.

 

********

 

The meeting continued with testimony on A.B. 664. Posted throughout the room were maps that depicted a 10-member State Board of Education plan and a 13-member Board of Regents plan.

 

 

Assembly Bill 664:  Revises districts for state board of education and board of regents. (BDR 34-1541)

 

 

Jane Nichols, Chancellor for the University and Community College System of Nevada, presented testimony on behalf of the Board of Regents to share the plan approved by the board and concerns about various other issues. The board voted 7 to 4 to support redistricting for 13 regents (Exhibit C). The primary concerns were adequate representation from the rural districts with the ability to have a rural district that did not include part of Clark County, and the ability to have represented the Clark County area that had grown so quickly. The board felt that 13 members more clearly supported their goals and the representation needed in minority districts. Since development of the plan, they had discovered they had not adequately created a required Hispanic district, thus the plan was to be redrawn to create a Hispanic district.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all were very sensitive while drawing the lines, and while the Board of Regents and State Board of Education maps did not have to meet the same voting rights standards, the committee wanted to ensure areas created an opportunity for individuals to run for office in their respective communities of interest.

 

Assemblyman Anderson posed a question regarding the plus and minus deviation of population in the existing plan and asked if the 3.80 percent deviation was the greatest gap between the largest and smallest districts. Dr. Nichols stated that was the average deviation from the ideal, i.e., what they were aiming for. Assemblyman Anderson stated he was under the impression it had to be plus or minus within 5 percent. Dr. Nichols stated the 5 percent was the maximum deviation allowed and in looking at each district; there was no deviation larger than 5 percent.

 

Thalia Dondero, Member, Board of Regents, had nothing further to add to Dr. Nichol’s testimony except the regents were adamant about having minority group representation.

 

Linda Howard, Member, Board of Regents, did not recognize the requested change made since her visit to Carson City regarding her district, whereby she was supposedly drawn out of her district. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained she was within her district lines in the ten-member statistics submitted previously (Exhibit D). Directing Ms. Howard, Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated her street was located on the right edge; the east corner of the yellow section inside the brown grouping was where Ms. Howard’s residence was located. Ms. Howard stated she did not recognize the area without the streets being defined. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was difficult and was like trying to put a walking district together when half of the streets on the map were missing.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman asked when the information regarding the new Hispanic district would be available to the legislative body. Dr. Nichols stated the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) had been drawing alternate maps for each district to meet the criteria in question. At present, the university staff was kept informed of the progress. Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the districts would be based on the 10- or 13-member options. Dr. Nichols understood they were drawing different scenarios for each total. She knew for sure they were doing such on the Senate side and could only assume it was being done in the Assembly as well.

 

At Assemblywoman Freeman’s request to be further enlightened, Chairwoman Giunchigliani responded that because the regent’s 13-seat map, and the position of both houses that they remain with the 10-seat board, LCB staff were more enlightened when it came to redrawing the lines. On the 13-seat statistics and maps, the regents anticipated an African-American percentage of 24.48 percent versus the current 25.38 percent. Thus, there was actually a reduction in representation in Ms. Howard’s district. The Hispanic area in the current Board of Regents map was 41.69 percent and in the 13-seat map it went up slightly to 42.12 percent. Neither one of those areas recognized anything close to a majority. With the 24.48 percent African-American numbers it represented somewhat of a plurality without quite making it there. Therefore, in talking with the Senate, 11-member statistics and maps (Exhibits E and F) were drawn for both the Board of Regents and the State Board of Education, which was shared with Ms. Dondero and Ms. Howard via fax. Though the same number of districts, all did not necessarily correspond in numbers and size, but the second map was more easily drawn if done by an overlay of the completed map.

 

Upon receipt of the maps Ms. Dondero stated her district showed a low population in respect to other districts. She assumed that would be adjusted since it showed 57,409 Hispanics in her district, which was almost 42 percent under the 11-seat plan. Ms. Dondero felt the percentages created a Hispanic community of interest. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the open district was No. 6 with a 50.25 percent Hispanic population.

 

Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, spoke about the 11-member proposal that showed three districts totally contained in northern Nevada, and according to the numbers arbitrarily placed on the maps:

• District 11 - included Humboldt, Storey, and part of Washoe Counties. The incumbent in that district was Regent Hill;
• District 10 - totally contained within Washoe County, Regent Rosenberg the incumbent;
• District 9 - encompassed Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lyon, Pershing, and Mineral Counties, all of Nye County except for Pahrump, Regent Derby the incumbent;
• District 8 – When staying at 11 members, two of the districts in Clark County extended into northern Nevada with the reverse needing to take place and having a northern Nevada district extend into southern Nevada. The district was drawn along the eastern edge of the state to minimize the amount of driving and included the counties of Elko, White Pine, Lincoln, Nye, and Northern Clark County, Pahrump and rural Mesquite, Regent Gallagher incumbent. The population outside of Clark County included 83,268 citizens and within Clark County the population was 98.862, for that district alone;
• District 1 – Regent Howard incumbent, had a minority community of exactly 25 percent of the African-American population; higher than the current percentage in the current district or in the 13-member plan;
• District 2 – Regent Seastrand, incumbent, central Clark County;
• District 3 – Regent Alden, incumbent, central Clark County;
• District 4 – Regent Dondero and Regent Wiesner, incumbents, central Clark County;
• District 5 – Regent Kirkpatrick, incumbent, central Clark County;
• District 6 – An open district with a 50.25 percent Hispanic; and
• District 7 – Regent Sisolak, incumbent; covering the western part of Clark County.

 

Ms. Dondero stated she had spoken with Regent Wiesner who indicated he had not committed to run for office again, thus he was considering another term. Chairwoman Giunchigliani was appreciative of the information, as it was understood he was not going to seek reelection. She mentioned also the 13‑member maps were posted on the walls in the hearing rooms in Las Vegas as well as Carson City.

 

Mr. Erickson stated Regent Derby’s district expanded into parts of central rural Nevada. The advantage of that district was it did not split any counties. Regent Rosenberg’s district was totally in Washoe County with Regent Hill in most of northern Washoe County, Sparks, and Humboldt County. The Washoe County district ran along Interstate 80 with parts of Regent Rosenberg’s district angling north.

 

Mr. Erickson provided the revision in Clark County for the 11-seat map. He pointed to District 1, stating with the 11-seat Regent Board, Regent Howard had received a larger expanse of territory to include an African-American community of interest. He stated they were also asked to see how the State Board of Education would fit into an 11-seat membership. He stated of the current 11 members, each would be in a district by them self. State Education Board Member Rocha lived in and represented the Hispanic community in District 6, and State Education Board Member Washington resided in District 1.

 

Ms. Dondero pointed out that Mr. Wiesner and she were assigned the same district. Chairwoman Giunchigliani responded that since both terms were up and because at that time Mr. Wiesner had not voiced interest in running for the office again, they felt it was the appropriate to create an open seat for a potential community of interest Hispanic majority district. Ms. Dondero requested further description of the district boundaries. Mr. Erickson described Regent Dondero’s district to include the area on the east side of I-15 in the Las Vegas County Club area, with most of the district falling on the west side of I‑15, bounded on the south by Palmyra, going north on Rainbow and across on Charleston, north on Rampart to the south end of Desert Shores and northwest on Buffalo and Cheyenne. Ms. Dondero stated Mr. Wiesner’s district was the one described, not her district. Mr. Erickson answered in the affirmative.

 

With no further questions regarding the regent districts, Chairwoman Giunchigliani welcomed Theresa Malone to speak about the State Board of Education redistricting.

 

Newly elected State Board of Education member Theresa Malone stated that the State Board of Education supported A.B. 664 as originally proposed. When they developed the boundaries of the districts, they concentrated on the identification of a community of interest, primarily for the Hispanic community. Exhibit G was a brief outline of the narrative to follow. Before commenting on the 11-member plan, the board received many responses from the “cow-counties” regarding representation from their community of interest rather than a Clark County board member. When the board decided on the 10-member plan, the primary concentration of seven members in Clark County left three members to represent the rural counties inclusive of Washoe County.

 

Decreasing the number of members helped save approximately $2,500 per year. In NRS 385.050, the state board was given the option of meeting at least 12 times during a calendar year, but in actuality it met 10 or 11 times per year. Ms. Malone shared that six of the board members were newly elected. Mrs. Bowen, who represented District 10, was completing her 12-year limit.

 

Ms. Rocha had a 53 percent representation of Hispanics in her district. With the 11-member board, Ms. Rocha’s district would continue to be considered a community of interest though with a 3 percent drop. Mr. Washington in the original plan held District 3 but in the 11-member plan that changed to District 1. That district had a Hispanic majority as well as an African-American community of interest. Ms. Malone stated with the proposed plan, she represented parts of Districts 7 and 8, holding almost all of the north and southwest district. She stated heading northwest on U.S. 395 to Indian Springs was proposed to be the next population explosion area, though she understood “forecasting” could not be an option when drawing district lines.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated Ms. Malone’s comments were well taken. She had not realized until now that Ms. Malone currently had 352,000 citizens in her district(s). The change would drop her to 181,000 in population.

 

Dr. Nichols interjected that in looking at the plan for the first time and in terms of principals on which the Board of Regents decided, one was to create a rural district with no part of Clark County included. The map shown had the majority of the population in the district that included Elko as well as Clark County. She basically felt there were 11 districts created outside of Clark County and eight districts that would be represented when elections were held in Clark County. She did not feel the present plan matched the criteria the board used for their decisions.

 

Ms. Howard reported the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents were nonpartisan entities. She then referred to Exhibit E, page 2, where the percentage for African-American was 26 percent and the Hispanic was also at 26 percent. She asked for an explanation of that breakdown. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood she referenced 26 percent under the new map on the drawing of 11 members, and 26.19 percent Hispanic. Turning to page 4 (Exhibit E), the current membership levels showed a 25.38 percent African-American and 41 percent Hispanic. In essence, the African-American community of interest was increased and the Hispanic reduced within her district to create the additional Hispanic area. In essence, there were fewer minorities competing with each other.

 

Ms. Malone requested an amendment to A.B. 664 that provided a set date and time to end the offices of the State Board of Education members. Right now there was no date or time required by law.

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Legal Counsel, indicated the statutes had to apply to the request. He believed the elected board member served until the next qualified new member was sworn in, allowing the board to carry on with business if there was an issue of getting that individual on line. At the end of the bill itself the effective date of the act was January 7, 2003, and the end of the current six-year term.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there were three different pieces of information to review with some interest in dropping the regent numbers to nine, though no maps were drawn for the lesser number of districts. She stated the committee would work within the range of 10 to 13 to accommodate the concerns and questions voiced during previous hearings.

 

Ms. Malone emphasized that the State Board of Education voted on supporting the 10-member board. There was no objection if they wanted to separate the shared Board of Regents and State Board of Education members.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated both boards were not required to have like member numbers. At 5:04 p.m. the meeting was recessed upon the call of the Chair.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: