MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
April 21, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 21, 2001. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Las Vegas, fourth floor of the Grant Sawyer Building; Videoconferenced to Room 3138 in 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. Bob Price, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7
Former Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom
Assemblyman David Brown, Assembly District 22
Former Governor Michael O’Callaghan
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Gwaltney, Ph. D., Member, Nevada State Board of Education
Barbara J. Myers, Member, Nevada State Board of Education
Ellie Lopez-Bowen, Private Citizen
Bert Lopez, Nevada Hispanic Caucus
Dave Byerman, Chief, Census Government Liaison for Nevada
Dr. Aldo Aguirre, Private Citizen
William G. Raley, Private Citizen
Rodrigo Q. Santa Cruz, Private Citizen
Mark Nichols, National Association of Social Workers
Linda M. DeMer, Private Citizen
Tony F. Sanchez, III, Private Citizen
Brian Ayala, Private Citizen
Andres Ramirez, Nevada Hispanic Democratic Committee
Fernando Romero, Private Citizen
Marlene Montevlivo, Amigos 4 Democracy
Franklin Simpson, Private Citizen and Black Elected Officials
Reverend Gary Hunter, Greater St. James Baptist Church, Las Vegas
Denna Howell, Director, Planning and Redevelopment, Mesquite, NV
Bert Ramos, Private Citizen
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the third public hearing on redistricting and reapportionment, the first having been held in Fallon on Thursday, April 19, 2001, as a joint hearing with the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and the Senate hearing the second, having been held on Friday, April 20, 2001, in Las Vegas.
The meeting was to begin with a presentation from Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy, Legislative Counsel Bureau and Committee Counsel, who would explain related court cases in addition to what the committee must be cognizant of as the lines were drawn for the new districts and reapportionment. The maps around the room, as well as handouts made available to the public, were representative of the census districts and the population changes. To be discussed and considered over the next month (according to legislative rules, redistricting and reapportionment recommendations agreement was to be complete by May 25, 2001), eight to nine days prior to the end of the 2001 session. Part of the intent was to make sure that no “Christmas Tree” was created regarding redistricting to be used as “trade bait” and also to be wrapped up prior to the ending of the budget closings. As political as the process was from time to time, there was a positive belief that the people’s work would be accomplished within a timely manner.
Part of Mr. Wasserman’s discussion would be centered around a recent court case conclusion issued on Wednesday, April 17, 2001. Chairwoman Giunchigliani emphasized all involved were very cognizant about the lines being drawn and race could not be a predominant factor. There was also the wonderful opportunity throughout the state, because of the growth of the immigrant population, to create seats that were representative of all citizens. The debate to be held within the houses was, “Do we guarantee equal representation while looking at the issue of size.” Sometimes those entities were mutually exclusive of each other, but also provided a great impact during the 2001 Legislative Session. Until the lines were drawn, there was no way to know where the compactness of the representation was located. A positive point was the state was more naturally integrated than ever in southern Nevada. There were still nationality clusters of which the legislature had to carefully consider as they pulled to create districts that allowed for a super majority potential. As one area was adjusted to draw in one nationality, all nationalities in that area would be pulled as well, thus diluting the voice of all nationalities in an area. The issues of focus were:
Mr. Wasserman presented a narrative as seen in Exhibit C. He requested that those who had heard the presentation the two previous evenings bear with him for the benefit of those in the audience who were not present at the other two hearings.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how “political cohesiveness” was defined. Mr. Wasserman stated “political cohesiveness” was the prong in the Thornburg case that was the most difficult to define. He referenced it to the term “compactness” about which everyone had a different measure. He felt it would be a factual determination by the court, something the minority group would use to indicate they were “politically cohesive.” It was an issue in states where the Hispanic population came from different parts of the world and it could not be assumed that each portion of that population was “politically cohesive.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out the other area to be cautious of was the compressing of minorities, formally called “packing” versus “spreading,” where so many seats were added that the minority representation became diluted. Mr. Wasserman said that when drawing districts, packing minority groups into two or three districts where there was a majority of 90 to 95 percent, needed to be avoided. It was a factual determination that if a minority district was drawn, the courts would overrule that decision as 65 percent was the set limit to account for lower voter age and voter turnout. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if that was the Baker vs. Carr decision. Mr. Wasserman answered in the affirmative, stating that was the first U.S. Supreme Court case that required the legislature be apportioned based on population. It was a factor of determination so there was no absolute percentage that had to be drawn or stopped at, but clearly if drawn where 90 to 95 percent of a minority nationality resided in a district, the court would look at it with suspicion. The court’s consideration was a third district could have been created instead of packing the population into two. The opposite of that was fracturing, where the minority was split into ten different districts, making minority groups, not a majority in single member district. That was called unconstitutional fracturing.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the part to be considered then was not diluting the voice but looking at potential super majorities recognizing turnout and voter registration, and building numbers high enough to allow for possible election. While looking at the maps and one group was pulled, the surrounding people were pulled into the district as well.
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, called attention to the handouts provided for the committee and the audience (Exhibit D), entitled “Redistricting Information and Assistance,” which was signed by Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The tables in the packet were derived from the results of the census and how it impacted the legislature of Nevada. Because the presentation dealt mainly with the legislature, he reminded the audience that the census showed Nevada now qualified for three Congressional districts, and that was only one of the issues to be addressed by the legislature. The state was to be divided as nearly as possible into thirds for the three members of Congress. Also to be considered was the State Board of Education and the University Board of Regents. Mr. Erickson had held a meeting with the State Board of Education on April 20, 2001, where he was informed they were near the completion of a plan to be shared in the meeting later this morning. Upon their request, technical support for Education was provided by the legislature.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani offered the State Board of Education had voted to reduce their board by one. Mr. Erickson answered they had adjusted from an 11 to 10 member board, providing for 7 members in the south and 3 throughout the rest of the state.
Mr. Erickson proceeded with his presentation addressing fact sheet No. 1 of Exhibit D, the numbers showing the rapidity at which Nevada had grown. Statewide the growth was over 66 percent for the fourth consecutive decade, making Nevada number one in the nation in terms of percentage increase in population. Forty years ago that was not as impressive as it was today because 40 years past it did not take that many people to double the size of the state. At present the population of Nevada was over 2,000,000, and with growth the numbers became more impressive.
He pointed out that Clark County growth had outstripped the rest of the state. Ten years prior, Clark County made up 61.69 percent of the state’s population. When the census was taken in 2000, it was 68.85 percent. Over two thirds of all Nevadan’s lived in Clark County.
Fact sheet No. 2 contained pertinent data as it concerned the racial make-up of the state. Mr. Erickson addressed the Clark County numbers and pointed out the white population was counted at 71.58 percent, 9.08 percent was characterized as Black or African-American, 1.11 percent was American Indian or Alaskan Native, 5.27 percent was representative of the Asian population, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander sat at .47 percent, where 8.61 percent was labeled “some other race.” In the meeting of April 20, 2001, the growth of the Black population in comparison to the growth of the state as a whole grew slightly higher than the growth of the state as a whole in overall population. In Clark County it was a little less than the growth of the state as a whole, but the Black population continued to increase similar to the state as a whole. The Asian population grew at a rate faster than the growth of the state as a whole.
Returning to the category of “some other race,” that meant that when people were filling in their census forms, over 8.61 percent of those in Clark County checked the box representative of that title. Because the Census Bureau had given so many options, he thought it interesting to research those numbers to see if perhaps that was attributed to the Hispanic and Latino population, a language as opposed to a racial group. It was discovered that 99 percent of the people who checked that box had earlier, on the census form, checked the Hispanic or Latino category.
On page 3 of 4, the category “Two or More Races,” equaled 4.2 percent. He then referred to Table 13, where it showed an analysis of the “Two or More Races” category. Under “Black or African-American Alone,” 9.08 percent answered the category. There was an additional .92 percent that considered themselves part African-American and part another race. In actuality, there were 9.99 percent of the people in Clark County that could be considered African-American. For the sake of the map that showed Black or African-American concentration of population, the total was calculated on the higher of the number of people, i.e., the 137,000. Within the following 6 pages of Table 13 were the results of how the other nationalities regarded themselves when it came to marking “Two or More Races.” Going further in his calculations, Mr. Erickson stated that when looking at those under 18 years of age in the “Two or More Races” category, that number jumped considerable.
Mr. Erickson moved on to the category of “Hispanic or Latino of Any Race” as that was the way the Census Bureau had mapped the questionnaire for 2000. It was a growth rate far ahead of the growth of the state as a whole, not only in Clark County but also throughout the state. In Nevada overall, 19.72 percent of the population one year ago was Latino or Hispanic. In Clark County the number figured out to fewer than 22 percent. Over 300,000 residents of Clark County were Hispanic or Latino oriented.
Fact Sheet No. 3 was a breakdown of current Congressional districts, but when adding a third district the areas were remapped. Fact Sheet No. 4 showed the population and racial data for all cities, towns, and census designated places in Nevada. In Clark County it included large unincorporated areas that had significant population blocks.
Fact Sheet No. 5 showed that in 1991 the average size in an Assembly district was a little over 28,000 people. If the Assembly remained at 42 members, the average size of the district increased to 47,500 people per district based on the 2000 census. In the single member Senate districts, the average was 57,600 people per district, which doubled for a two-member district. For a single member district according to the 2000 census, at 21 members, it required 95,155 people per district.
According to Fact Sheet No. 7, Mr. Erickson addressed the racial make-up in the various minority race populated districts. In the Senate there was one district with a strong African-American component, Clark Senate District 4, which was Senator Joe Neal’s district, with over 33 percent of the residents Black or African-American. On page 3 of 3 of Fact Sheet No. 7, there were additional breakouts for the Hispanic population. It was interesting to note that Senator Neal’s district was 35.46 percent Hispanic, giving District 4 significant African-American and Hispanic populations. The other concentrations worth noting were Senate Districts 2 and 3, 35 and 40 percent respectively on the Hispanic population.
Fact Sheet No. 8 showed the breakdown related to Assembly districts. Mr. Erickson stated there were only two districts where the population was over 30 percent African-American or Black, those being District 6 at 35.47 percent, and District 7 at 31.67 percent. It was the Hispanic category that was even more dramatic. On page 3 of 3 of Fact Sheet No. 8, there were several districts that had significant Hispanic or Latino populations. District 6 had 29 percent and District 7 had 39.56 percent. District 10 had 34.31 percent and District 11 had a 46.04 percent Hispanic population. District 19 had 41.85 percent and District 28 had a 73.63 percent Hispanic population. All were in Clark County until looking at District 30, which was in Sparks, Nevada that had 33.81 percent and finally, District 41 at 37.11 percent and District 42 at 32.69 percent Hispanic. Mr. Erickson felt that demonstrated the Hispanic population crossed over a number of legislative districts in significant numbers.
Fact Sheets 9 and 10 were entitled Percent Deviations from the Ideal District Population Census 2000. For the Assembly, should it remain a 42-member body, the ideal size would be a 47,578 district populous. The deviation column showed those districts above that amount versus those below that amount, almost all of which were under. The districts that were considerably over the average were numbers that would be redistributed to those areas that needed additional population. The charts showed that absolute growth occurred in very few legislative districts.
Addressing Mr. Wasserman’s aside about the deviation factor, Mr. Erickson stated that meant looking to the smallest district you would draw for either house, versus the largest district drawn for that house. The question would be asked what was the acceptable deviation. In 1991, the deviation rate was a little over 4 percent. The rules stated that 10 percent was allowable, though the boundary the legislature tried to stay within was 5 percent.
Mr. Erickson concluded with Fact Sheet No. 6. He referenced the discussion at the two prior meetings, in Fallon and Las Vegas, regarding the number of members of each house. The regional make-up was a way to address the issue, and the other way was the absolute number of people in each district. On the regional make-up with 21 seats in the Senate, there were 13 from Clark County and 8 from the rest of the state. If the Senate stayed at 21 seats, 1.5 seats from the Senate would go from the north to the south, a net gain of one new seat in Clark County and half a seat partially for Clark County and partially for rural Nevada. For the Assembly there were 42 seats, with 26 from Clark County and 16 from the rest of the state. If they remained at 42 seats, there would be a net gain of 3 seats in Clark County, with a loss of 3 seats in the north.
Turning to pages 2 and 3 of Fact Sheet No. 7, the breakdown was derived from numbers other than 21 and 42 seats in both houses. A question from the Senate hearing centered on drawing districts in the areas that were strongly Hispanic, as to how they might be drawn. To point out a fracturing approach, there were 12 districts that surrounded that area with each taking 20 percent of the population of each of those out of the Hispanic Community, the rest being non-Hispanic.
He stated the population of Hispanics in the area in question was approximately 150,000 people. Therefore, with 12 districts surrounding that area, if each took a piece of that territory the Hispanic community would become effectively fracture. Likewise, the same would fall under the “fracturing” category of law when moving into the Black or African-American communities. Within the Black and African-American concentration, there would be one 50 percent district under a 42-member Assembly. Yet there was not enough concentration to provide two districts with over 50 percent under a 42-member Assembly. He recalled there being 4 districts that could be drawn in the Hispanic area that would calculate to over 50 percent of the population.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Mr. Erickson’s description of fracturing was absolutely correct and that was an area of sensitivity that had to be addressed. While calculating the population in two of the smaller districts, she took the number from Assemblywoman Chowning’s district of 33,559, and a similar size district, Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, of 31,000 population. She went further and broke the districts down to those over age 18; there were 21,000 in Assemblywoman Chowning’s district and 25,000 in Assemblywoman Gibbons’ district. The percent of Hispanics for Assemblywoman Chowning was 73 percent and Assemblywoman Gibbons’ was 6.71 percent, but where sensitivity came in was the voter registration. So, in Assemblywoman Chowning’s district, out of the 73 percent Hispanic, 4,806 versus Assemblywoman Gibbons’ 22,455 were of eligible voting age. She emphasized that while drawing lines, care had to be taken to not dilute the voice to be heard, be it Hispanic or African-American, plus show sensitivity to the growing Asian population as well. While talking about the issue of the size of the legislature, that was only one component. The key component was equal representation and making sure there was allowance for influence and opportunity for individuals to be able to be elected based on the percentages grouped together within a district.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about the question regarding single member districts for the Senate seats. Before responding regarding the Senate seats, Mr. Erickson pointed to Fact Sheet No. 12 that showed voter registration, a vital piece of information on how the final decision was reached. There was considerable discussion at the Friday, April 20, 2001, meeting regarding multimember districts and whether that policy should be retained. He knew of no conclusions, but saw that those who attended Friday were present at the meeting and would articulate their feelings on that topic.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked what came into play as the most important issue, the population or the registered voters in that population. Mr. Erickson answered the decisions on redistricting were based on the population. The other areas of concern were used in drawing the appropriate communities of interest, but redistricting was drawn on population only; the one person, one vote principal being absolute. Assemblywoman Von Tobel commented that registered voter numbers could change dramatically with a registration drive.
Mr. Wasserman stated there were two reasons the population statistics had to be used for redrawing of districts:
The court found that the results were basically the same; therefore they considered the census a more accurate database. But, as Mr. Erickson had stated, the voter registration database could be considered but the legislature was limited to drawing the congressional and legislative districts within the limits talked about earlier.
Assemblywoman Buckley pointed out a critical point being the population when drawing district lines, but if it was determined one of the goals was to promote community of interests to allow a community to elect a representative, one of the factors that could be considered besides community of interest was voter registration to insure the drawing such that a community was not diluted and thus never able to elect someone. Was that correct? Mr. Wasserman stated that was correct. The legislature could consider voter registration for various purposes, including looking at the opportunity for minority groups to be able to elect a representative of their choosing. Yet, the equal population factor had to be maintained by use of the census numbers as well.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that followed the 65 percent rule, which allowed reference to low voter turnout and voter registration, so the 5 percent factors could be added while assuring voices were not diluted.
Ellie Lopez-Bowen, Nevada Hispanic Caucus, asked about examining cohesiveness of a population, how would the numbers of different populations be addressed, i.e., according to census statistics, greater than 64 percent of Hispanics were Mexican American, which was considered greater in the west. Would that factor be taken into consideration in looking at cohesiveness? Mr. Wasserman answered that when looking at the numbers that did not initially bring in the issue of political cohesiveness but the location of that group. Also, the concern lay with assuring a minority group was sufficiently compact and located within an area to be drawn as a majority in a legislative district. The politically cohesive portion arose after addressing the population question and then gathering a large group, such as the Hispanic population. With people from different backgrounds, the court looked at that minority grouping to assess political cohesiveness before they would find lack of drawing that district was a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Dr. Aldo Aguirre, Private Citizen and resident of Las Vegas provided testimony as seen in Exhibit E.
Denna Howell, Director, Planning and Redevelopment for the City of Mesquite provided testimony as seen in Exhibit F.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the decision to use adjusted or unadjusted census results was removed from legislative control, though she would research the tax distribution question.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked how 6,200 residents were not counted. Ms. Howell stated Mesquite participated in an update of their population on a monthly basis by following a state formula. The formula used included total housing units, provided by the Assessor’s Office, and verified by final building inspection reports or certificates of occupancy. That number was multiplied by a postal vacancy survey to account for people who may not be living in specific housing units. That was then multiplied by the persons per household, the numbers obtained from the most recent census, which provided a total housing unit population. That total was added to a group quarter count, thus resulting in the city’s total quarterly population figure. The Department of Taxation and the Governor used the figures. The census designated whether an entity was urban or rural. The city of Mesquite and the city of Henderson were designated as rural entities, which determined the way the census was completed as well as the programs of participation by those entities. They were able to participate in the Luca Program, an update of the local addresses, but that program ended mid-1999, and Mesquite was unable to add new housing units. Clark County, the city of Las Vegas and the city of North Las Vegas were designated as urban and were able to continually add new housing units to their population counts through new construction programs. Therefore, the city of Mesquite believed the error occurred because all of the housing units were not counted, as well as sections in town that were completely ignored during the census count. Thus, with a rural designation, the census was personally handed out at homes where, with an urban designation, they were mailed. There were a number of communities where possibly they were not delivered and the error occurred. Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if under legislative rules and the state laws, was there anything that could be done to help out the city of Mesquite in providing an accurate census count.
Mr. Wasserman stated the limits lay with the state’s constitution in using the census for drawing the districts to be equal under the law. Certainly, the legislature could look at the situation in Mesquite, the district being drawn with a lower population than the ideal district population numbers that Mr. Erickson provided, to account for the fact that it was a growing area and there were people not accounted for. He cautioned remaining within the limitations of the U. S. Supreme Court of under 10 percent for state legislative districts. The lines had to be drawn basically equal throughout the state for the Congressional Districts unless splitting for just two, as we had in the past.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she pledged to do everything possible to make sure Mesquite had their own rural district. She stated rural areas of the north needed to be protected, as well as those in the south, Moapa and Virgin Valley rural areas, and others that could be combined to create a rural district. She emphasized the need for a voice for the rural areas.
Assemblyman Bache pointed out the fact the federal government did take into consideration the “snowbird factor,” people who maintained two residences, such as one in Mesquite and one in Minnesota or Michigan. When counted twice in the census, one state was deleted. He felt that could be possible in Mesquite and the questionable miscount during the census.
Ms. Howell stated city officials thought that might be the fact as well, though there was an opportunity to review the population totals provided by the Census Bureau. They compared those to the number of housing units by voting district and also by census tract. From the initial review it appeared that in some sections of Mesquite where there was subsidized housing, there were more than twice as many housing units as counted residents. Those were not people who could afford to have second homes in another state. Those were individuals who lived in subsidized housing and were not counted.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification that in the rural areas the census questionnaires were hand delivered. Ms. Howell stated they were to be hand delivered.
Assemblyman Beers agreed there could have been an undercount, but pointed out what Mesquite considered an undercount was the difference between the census number and the city’s number. He stated the formula for obtaining the number by the city of Mesquite was very long and complicated fraught with potential error. He stated that formula would show an over count every passing year during the 1990s. He thought the number of people per household was being acknowledged as incorrect and that was just one component of the formula used to determine the city’s population. He stated the points made were very legitimate and asked if there was an appeal process available. Ms. Howell stated they looked at the persons per household count and multiplied the number of housing units by 2 persons per household and came out with a number that far exceeded that of the 2000 census count. The appeal process, The Count Question Resolution Program, began on June 30, 2001, and could take until September 30, 2003, to resolve.
Assemblyman Price said some states had done their own population count and made adjustments and asked if the Nevada Constitution prohibited the state from performing a recount for the purposes of drawing legislative districts. Mr. Wasserman answered yes, the legislature could direct a state census five years after the federal count. The poll would be under the scrutiny of the court that the numbers be more accurate than the census taken five years previously. But, for the present redistricting effort, the legislature was limited to the 2000 census.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the appeal was successful, was the Nevada census restated. Mr. Wasserman answered that issue had arisen at the national conferences. An adjusted number was issued but it would not change the official set of numbers from the 2000 census, though it would possibly be used for increasing federally financed programs to meet the needs of the state. The numbers would not reflect back to the official census.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel referenced Speaker Perkins’ bill before the legislature to help adjust the Mesquite figures.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if there was a process where the voter could bring forth a disenfranchise challenge upon proving there was a demonstrable difference in an assembly or senate district, forcing the legislative body to redistrict or reexamine the numbers. As he understood it, that took place after the first or second election after redistricting. Mr. Wasserman stated, no, as the courts had been quite clear that the census was a sufficient basis for redistricting. They recognized it was a difficult and time-consuming process, and was impossible to do every two years. Thus, they consistently upheld the use of the census as a sufficient basis for redistricting. If the lawsuits were brought under the current census figures, it would be established that one district as being too large and unconstitutional under the “One Person, One Vote” mandate. Assemblyman Anderson then asked what happened when Nevada’s state demographer had a demonstrable pattern after the census figures were out that showed such a dramatic difference and the state was out of compliance by plus or minus the 10 percent. Mr. Wasserman understood the situation described, especially with the rapid growth as had been witnessed in Nevada. Again, the U.S. Supreme Court had consistently held that the census was a sufficient basis for redistricting. If using other numbers it was done within the limitation of the state’s constitution and demonstrated the numbers were as accurate as the census.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated that in fairness, statewide assessments would have to include other portions of every community that were undercounted. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered not only undercounted, but also over grown. She showed a huge disparity between districts, stating hers was one of the smallest in the state where Assemblyman Beers’ district had a population of 100,000 plus.
William G. Raley, Private Citizen, presented testimony that was found as Exhibit G. He closed his dissertation by asking how many members the Assembly would seat and the timeframe before the numbers would be announced. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was a decision to be made prior to the lines being drawn.
Speaker Emeritus Dini voiced amazement on the theory of growth brought forth by Mr. Raley. In his legislative district, which covered northwest Nevada in the counties of Lyon, Douglas, and Carson City, there was a crossing of lines. He stated Lyon County had the same percentage growth rate as Clark County though a much smaller county. He stated in future growth of the three counties; Lyon would in 20 years surpass both of the other two counties when projecting on growth. It was an interesting theory. Mr. Raley stated the spreadsheets included all assembly districts as well as figures by counties. He offered to fax or e-mail the spreadsheets, and commented that in the past ten years Lyon County had grown by 72.5 percent and was actually growing faster than Clark County.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the issue of growth could not depend on the issuance of building permits for lack of knowing exactly from which county the permits were issued. She felt that was unfortunate because there were pockets of growth, especially in Nye County where a major growth had occurred in Pahrump, a city that did not want to become a part of Clark County.
Rodrigo Q. Santa Cruz, Private Citizen, resident of Henderson, stated it was evident at the Senate debate that it was conceivably easy to draw two Senate and four Assembly Hispanic district seats. Furthermore, the committee agreed it could be accomplished within the traditional redistricting principles and in compliance with Section 13, Articles 1 and 15 of the Nevada Constitution. The Hispanics asked to be included in the process and have equal representation. Roughly 22 percent of Clark County residents were Hispanic yet there was zero representation. As he perused the heavy pockets of Hispanic concentration on the maps as indicated in the northeast, Hispanics were criss-crossed by eight different districts. He realized those districts were drawn in 1991, but in looking at it today, the Hispanic population was severely diluted within the 1991 lines. He felt four Assembly and two Senate seats could be drawn in that area alone. He said that would meet with the continuity and compactness rulings. The Hispanics asked for serious consideration of the lines being drawn.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they were sensitive to the Hispanic growth and it would take a consensus of the committees, both Senate and Assembly, as to where the lines would be drawn. She stated her first session was in 1991 and the Democrats put forth the opportunity for Hispanics to run. Two ran for office and unfortunately neither was elected, but fortunately the Hispanics had been well represented by Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning. Both African-American and Hispanic populations were more integrated throughout Clark County but there were still clusters into which they were taking a serious look. She asked if he was most concerned with size or equal representation. Mr. Cruz answered the representation. She then asked what percentage range were they considering when creating four new Assembly seats to make sure they did not dilute the voice of the people. Mr. Cruz stated one district in the northeast corner of the map showed roughly over 60 percent Hispanic and the other three areas would have between 51 to 55 percent Hispanic population. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered those figures would definitely be taken into consideration. She affirmed neither party was going to do anything that would dilute any voice. Mr. Cruz understood that one Senate district was to be drawn that would have two Senate members and was in agreement with that plan.
Assemblyman Beers stated some would argue that a 51 to 55 percent majority in a district would not be enough to assure the election of a Hispanic member to the legislature. That data was gleaned from a younger Hispanic population and a lesser number of Hispanics registered, as well as being less participatory in the political process. Mr. Cruz felt Mr. Wasserman answered the opinions expressed earlier as voter registration was not a factor in looking at population or representation. He argued that regardless of the voter registration numbers, the population was there, though he did not know the impact that would have when it came to electing a Hispanic representative. Assemblyman Beers asked Mr. Cruz if he felt that with 51 to 55 percent majority, a Hispanic representative could be elected. Mr. Cruz answered in the affirmative.
Linda M. DeMer, Private Citizen from Pahrump, Nevada, stated for the record she did not want to become a resident of Clark County. Residents of Pahrump wanted to remain “rural” as Clark County was exempt from many of the rural regulations. The residents did not want to become connected with those problems being dealt with in Clark County. She commented about Senator Rhoads’ bill that requested increasing the membership in the legislature and voiced support for that measure as well.
Mark Nichols, Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), as well as being a member of the Executive Committee of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), expressed appreciation to the chairwoman and members of leadership for the decision to have the public hearings. The public’s image of reapportionment was “smoke filled rooms” filled with maps and decisions being made without their input. Neither NASW nor PLAN took a formal position but as social justice advocates offered to provide a framework to which steps were taken. They appreciated the open process, the fairness and justice that was incorporated into the decision-making process, and the diversity and inclusiveness of the legislative commitment.
Mr. Nichols supported the concept of single Senate districts and encouraged looking into that option. Having a district of one common Senate seat and two Assembly seats within the Senate boundary offered a legislative team representing geographical areas within the communities. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated his suggestions would be taken into consideration.
Assemblyman Beers served in an Assembly district where he and his neighboring Assemblyperson shared a Senator. He confirmed that they did, in fact, work as a team on issues in both houses, which was a very effective method of representation for the citizens.
Tony F. Sanchez, III, Las Vegas Resident, appreciated the opportunity to testify before the committee. He stated he asked several questions at the Senate hearing the evening before, and wanted to make brief comments to the committee today. One of the perceptions in trying to “rally the troops” to become involved, many did not realize the importance of political representation within their community of interest. One of the perceptions repeatedly heard was “this is already a done-deal,” that the maps had already been drawn and the hearings were just part of the process. He did not believe the decisions had been made, and one of the problems as a community of interest was certain the Senate and/or Assembly, allowing more influence in terms of map drawing, had not made final decisions. He asked that notice be provided when the discussions began on the size of the legislature, whether there would be single member districts with increased legislative membership. He stated they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that reapportionment was a once-a-decade process of which they did not know all of the rules. His questions were answered though the bottom line was to provide input as soon as possible as the decisions would be made prior to June 4, 2001.
Mr. Sanchez stated that in his day job he had the opportunity to testify in a professional capacity and the rules in that instance were much more defined. With the process before him, it was the old adage of how laws were made. He asked that anything the committee could do to help would be greatly appreciated. He also knew the way districts were drawn in Nevada would have an enormous impact on whether the Hispanic community would be able to elect representation of their choice. He realized the task of creating a district of a minority population according to Title II was sensitive. When the Supreme Court made its ruling in Hunt vs. Cromarde, they reiterated the proposition that race was a motivation for the drawing of a majority district, but could not be the predominant factor motivating the legislation when the districts were drawn.
Upon the conclusion of the Senate hearing, Mr. Sanchez stated several groups were meeting to attempt to become more aware of the process. One of the issues Assemblyman Beers posed to Mr. Cruz was how the districts would be drawn, and asked a question of Mr. Wasserman regarding the 65 percent rule. Three of the factors addressed was the panel began with 50 percent of a particular percentage of population and added three factors, 5 percent for each one:
That totaled to the 65 percent benchmark, which potentially enabled a community of interest to elect someone of their choice. He thought those three factors were of particular significance in a Latino community as they had the youngest population in the country, one of the lowest voting registrations, and very low voter turnout. Mr. Sanchez was asked and was in agreement the legislature should be expanded in size but did not want that issue to divide the Latino community. There was a good argument that the more seats out there, the more opportunities there were to elect candidates of choice. At the same time, it had to be recognized that arbitrary numbers were going to be tossed out. As to enlargement and districts that contained 51 percent of a community of interest, the Latino community would not be helped. He was personally willing to have one less seat if a higher percentage was allowed. It was an ugly secret throughout the Latino community that there was a perception not everyone could vote, and yet within the population they were counted to obtain that 51 percent rule. He did not want people to hang their hat on saying that 51 percent Latino districts were developed when that would not solve the problems.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she had heard from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who cautioned the legislature to not dilute the voice by ignoring the three factors noted by Mr. Sanchez. The other issue was who chose to run for office. She spoke of Dario Herrera who served in the Assembly during the 1997 Legislative Session. From there he moved to the Clark County Commission. She felt sensitivity was needed in drawing the State Board of Education seats, as well as the County Commission drawing their lines and look at expanding to accommodate potential there.
Mr. Sanchez recognized the counter argument that because a district was created with a large percentage of a community of interest that the elected official would be someone from that particular community. That did not happen in Assembly District 28, represented by Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning. Several other districts, whether they be African-American or otherwise, those elected were not necessarily from a community of interest. Thus, he was not overlooking the complexity of the situation. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that Assemblymen Williams and Arberry had always had a higher Caucasian population, but now those two districts were almost equal with the Hispanic and African-American populations.
John Gwaltney, Ph.D., State Board of Education, stated he realized the formidable task before the committee and they, in no way, wanted to complicate things further. He represented the district from Highway 80 North in the city of Reno.
Barbara Meyers, State Board of Education member, stated her district encompassed Carson City, Douglas, the southern portion of Washoe, Storey and the southern portion of Lyon Counties.
Dr. Gwaltney stated for the record that the board voted overwhelmingly to reduce their numbers from 11 to 10 members. There were those who were concerned that the northern part of the state was losing representation, but the concept was there would be one less seat on the board from the northern part of the state. On the other side of that was the clear debate about efficiency within smaller numbers on a board versus too many members. Given that thought, the suggestions varied from 9 to 13 members. They agreed with a ten-member board because of efficiency, cost, and organization purposes.
He took the opportunity to thank Mr. Erickson for his work on behalf of the state board and drawing of the district lines. They attempted to preserve the rural district covered competently by Mr. Dave Sheffield, which covered roughly 14 counties. It was the largest educational district in the nation. Seven seats would reside in Clark County and Mrs. Meyers and he would handle the remaining areas in the north. Members in the north had generally agreed with the submitted plans, however, he felt the seven seats in the south would require modest change before lines were drawn. He stated they were well ahead of schedule. There was a full understanding of the community of interest with a substantial discussion of representation and while looking at the maps, he saw an effort was made to accomplish those tasks.
Mrs. Meyers stated that for the past 20 years, since 1981, they had shared the same lines as the Board of Regents. They wanted to know if the committee felt that was a procedure to be maintained or if it was neutral. Looking at ten members, they were breaking with a former pattern.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani liked the ten-member idea and felt they would be encouraging the Regents to look at the same number rather than expanding as they had recommended.
Private citizen Brian Ayala appeared to encourage the legislature to provide redistricting to allow Latinos and everyone an opportunity to elect officials of their community of choice needs. Assembly District 28 was currently the only Hispanic district represented in the legislature, and Assemblywoman Chowning represented 73 percent of the population, with only 4,000 of that total population being registered to vote. A count of the Hispanics throughout the state did not accurately reflect the populace’s voting strength due to simple eligibility issues, lack of registered voters, and fear derived from experiences in the countries of origin. Much consideration needed to be given to the super-majority districts. He did not want to provide a situation that diluted the representation of the community. Assemblyman Beers questioned earlier the 50 percent number, of which Mr. Ayala was frightened. He was involved in getting the Latinos to register to vote during the past three years and registered over 6,000. There were so many who, based on past history, were intimidated, frightened and would not register to vote. Thus, his point if 50 percent in fact prevented dilution, he would support it. He felt there needed to be serious conversation on that because Assemblywoman Chowning’s district spoke volumes. He felt the task could be fairly accomplished by using traditional redistricting principles as well as being in compliance of Title II of the Voting Act. Thus, the 65 percent rule would come into play when drawing the minority districts.
Assemblyman Beers asked if the Hispanics would feel comfortable with one 65 percent district and three 55 percent districts, or one 65 percent district and six 27 percent districts. Mr. Ayala stated he was not comfortable with one 65 percent district, and did not feel that was a fair approach. He asked that whatever the number was, study it and come out with something that made sense. He stated also it should be approached on a bipartisan basis. Assemblyman Beers stated the Supreme Court had long recognized and reiterated repeatedly that partisan gerrymandering was allowable in the process. Mr. Ayala knew it was allowable, but to accomplish the task it needed to be done on a bipartisan basis.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani was of the same belief. No one disagreed there was an under-represented population and there was an absolute responsibility to accommodate, no matter which party. Referring to Mr. Sanchez, she stated though time constraints were tight, any information would be accepted during the time of the process. Even if each party drew maps, other suggestions were still welcome. Part of the problem was many of the upward and mobile Hispanics had moved out of some areas of concentration, a dilemma for recruitment of a candidate. Even so, the committees needed to be sensitive to where individuals were concentrated while reviewing the map drawing.
Speaker Emeritus Dini stated there could be a 75-25 percent Hispanic district but that did not mean a Hispanic would be elected. He stated his district was 65 percent Republican and he was a Democrat, having run there and won 18 terms. He felt the same would relate to nationality or origin, having a good candidate and organization to get that individual elected. We would do what was necessary to afford the opportunity, but the community of interest had to provide the candidate. Mr. Ayala stated the present elected officials were of the community of interest’s choice, an important distinction. He did not feel it had to be a Latino representing Latino interests, but it had to be that community of interest making that decision.
Another Las Vegas resident Andres Ramirez touched briefly on the previous conversations with Brian Ayala with the acknowledgement that it was not necessary to have a Hispanic district to win, as demonstrated by former Assemblyman Dario Herrera. The issues were representation and giving the Hispanic community an opportunity to elect a member. He thanked the LCB staff in Las Vegas for the training received on drawing census maps that would be submitted to both the Senate and the Assembly.
He focused on the history of all factors, and promised there would be qualified Hispanic candidates. Census redistricting was a major focus of the candidates. Mr. Ramirez stated the largest focus on redistricting was at state level. Regarding communities of interest in southern Nevada, most of the funds allocated to assist the community came from local governments. To him, redistricting of the cities and counties were also very important. He asked where the status was on that and if the legislature deferred to the cities and counties as to how they redistricted their boundaries.
Further, Assemblywoman Von Tobel mentioned a very important issue, that of preserving the rural areas. Thus, when redesigning the Congressional districts, he asked that Congressman Gibbons continue to represent northern Nevada and the rural areas, and in the same token, provide Congresswoman Berkeley the opportunity to continue to represent the core area of Las Vegas. He felt those communities deserved just as much opportunity to elect someone to represent their values as did the rural areas.
While testifying at the Senate hearing on April 20, 2001, Mr. Ramirez stated there were inquiries as to whether or not the emphasis on Hispanic communities to have Hispanic districts would pit the African-American and Latino communities against each other. He personally did not think that would transpire and those definitely were not his intentions. He also did not feel that by drawing Hispanic districts African-American districts would be eliminated. There was enough growth and separation between the two communities to draw districts to represent both. He stated in his efforts he would be working with both communities to ensure adequate representation for both groups.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered his questions regarding the county commission and city councils, stating that they each drew their own lines and that the county had just begun theirs. The school board also drew their lines. She stated there were a variety of different areas that affected all nationalities. She suggested getting their feet wet in one race, which would give them exposure for the future. She did not feel there would be conflict between the Hispanic and African-American communities.
Fernando Romero, citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada, stated Mr. Wasserman, Mr. Erickson and the gallery had answered most of his issues and questions. However, the issue of Assembly District 28 kept arising. Ten years prior, the legislature was faced basically with the same matter; and to his knowledge, as a 34-year resident, such a hearing was not held. If it was, it was held very secretively. They were called to a meeting and told that a study had been done and it just so happened that the Hispanics lived in an area that formed a small crescent shaped district. In driving the entire district, he and the two individuals who accompanied him, determined the poorest area within the state had been singled out and it happened to have a 73 percent Hispanic population. In working with the matter, they found a very capable individual with a Master’s Degree to run for Assembly District 28. He was very interested and motivated and picked up on all the issues right away, when it happened another Hispanic decided to run against him in that district. At that time, Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning decided to enter the race and won, the two Hispanic candidates having neutralized the votes by each receiving 300 and 310 respectively and the remainder of the votes, 317, going to Assemblywoman Chowning. She had been a wonderful representative for the people, was very fluent in Spanish, had lived in Mexico, and was very much cultured.
Since that time, 260 percent of the community’s population was Hispanic. What that translated into was more Hispanics in institutions of higher learning, more professionals, more interested in the prolificacy of Latinos, and more Hispanics not leaving the areas in which they were being raised. They were individuals who had the heart, willingness, and interest to run for office, but they needed the opportunity to do so. Mr. Romero requested incumbent free districts, thus creating two new Senate and four new Assembly Districts according to the new census. Directing a comment to Assemblyman Beers, he asked for the new districts to afford the opportunity for the communities of interest, Hispanics and African-Americans, to run for office.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Mr. Sanchez’s point was to not dilute the voice when taking into consideration adding the additional seats. The point was also well taken about creating seats where nonincumbents were not located, affording more opportunities for new voices to be heard.
Assemblyman Beers clarified his earlier question regarding drawing the maps, and the best percentage that could be addressed was one 65 percent and three 55 percent districts. At that point the decision reflected on the 65 percent rule and did that mean we did not create the 55 percent districts. Mr. Romero stated he would not answer either yes or no, because no one on the committee was able to answer that question. He wanted decisions based on the population and how it would affect the community overall.
Marlene Montevlivo, Amigos 4 Democracy, stated she knew the committees had reviewed the data and looked over the maps, plus agreed that equal representation was needed. The results of the Census 2000 were a wake-up call to Nevada that awoke the “sleeping giant.” She stated the state of Nevada had a new accent and a new color, the “giant” being brown and bilingual. She was present to urge support for equal representation, which meant two new Senate seats and four Assembly seats. No special favors were being requested, nor was the Hispanics asking the committees to do what was politically correct, only what was fair to all communities of interest.
Ms. Montevlivo stated she was very proud to be a Hispanic Republican Nevadan, and as such, she was before the committee to explain that the Hispanics had been divided in the past because they came from 22 different countries in Latin America. Today, the community finally realized that unity was the contributing key to their success. When she spoke of unification, she spoke of Hispanic Nevadans with one goal, which was equal representation, and the Hispanics of the north and south working together to unify their home. They saw themselves as Hispanic Nevadans, but primarily they were Americans who adopted America and were here to contribute to the betterment of “this wonderful nation of ours.” She reminded the committee that the Hispanics in Las Vegas alone enjoyed a buying power of $3.5 billion a year, a significant contribution to the economy of Nevada. She reminded the committee that the majority of southern Nevada was built by the strength and sweat of the Hispanic men. Primarily the Hispanic labor force supported the number one industry in Nevada. If the Hispanic labor force was to stay home from work one day, they had the potential to paralyze the economy of the state of Nevada. She emphasized that was the power of the “sleeping giant.” It was time for the Hispanics to take control of their destiny, which was accomplished with equal representation in the Nevada legislature.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if during deliberations and while looking at the population figures, communities of interest, and other various factors, and it was shown that through the different factors we legally could consider a voter registration turnout, age of voters, and other numbers, would your opinion change on the number of seats if the hard data indicated that the Hispanics would win less seats. Ms. Montevlivo stated the Hispanics were very much interested in making sure the new lines focused on the entire Hispanic community, not singling out an area where Hispanics congregated that did not have the voting power. She wanted the consideration of looking to the areas of the voting Hispanic community for drawing the lines to afford them the opportunity of equal representation. Assemblywoman Buckley understood her to mean the legislature should consider all areas. Ms. Montevlivo agreed.
Mr. Ramirez returned to the table and complimented Ms. Montevlivo on her testimony. He stated for the record that equal representation in the Nevada legislature at 20 percent would equal four Senate seats and eight Assembly seats, not two and four respectively. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all had to be very cautious because if anyone had told the Hispanic community they were guaranteed two and four seats, they were not being truthful. The committees were bound by the legal realities of the factors to be taken into consideration as the seats were drawn. What might look good on a map may not necessarily translate into those factors. She appreciated their understanding and openness in making sure the issue was equal representation so that the opportunity was there to elect a candidate of their choice.
Thanking Chairwoman Giunchigliani for her response to his e-mails, Franklin Simpson, African-American community representative, voiced the need for a nonpartisan approach to reapportionment. He agreed that the local municipal and commission level seats were almost negotiated as far as the districting was concerned. He felt that was helpful because those who knew the turnout demographics of the area were working in the key positions in drawing those lines. He spoke to Assembly Districts 6 and 7, both perfectly nested in Senate District 4, where expansion became a grave concern if the redistricting expanded those precincts that were known as base precincts. Those precincts overlapped with Ward 5 at the City Council level, Commission District D at the county level, School District C, University Regent Linda Howard’s seat, and Board of Education Marshall Washington’s seat. When redrawing lines and “interfering” with those dynamics, he hoped the redistricting was looked at from an educated standpoint, factoring in input from the existing incumbents and work with the nature of preserving the core districts. It was his hope that the lines were not drawn through the middle of predominantly African-American precincts. If cut and spread, he felt that would prevent those areas from being properly represented. He addressed the congressional seat and redistricting for that seat.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the factors of the political subdivision were very important when considering the steps ahead of the committees making the decisions.
Reverend Gary James, Greater Saint James Baptist Church minister, a new resident to Nevada as of one year ago, voiced the importance of nonpartisan reapportionment. He was present because of his love and compassion in communities where he had resided and his past political candidacy for several offices in Detroit, Michigan. He stated most people did not pay attention to meetings such as the one being held but they did pay attention after-the-fact. He did not want to be one of the “after-the-fact” individuals. He did not care what party a person belonged to as that only counted toward getting the person elected. When talking about the common needs of the people, that factor should be erased.
He stated it was essential to understand the minority communities, be they Hispanic or African-American, especially in the school districts. He felt the committees needed to look at the working portion but not on the redistricting, i.e., “whom can we work with as a total people, not a selective people.” He wished for reaching a point where the best candidate was chosen for the job, not the color for the job. He asked for the establishment of a core group in a community as an ad hoc community to assist in the redistricting process. He felt the “jellybean” syndrome of Texas would find its way into the redistricting process if the committees did not relate to people the way the entire population did. Rev. Hunter stated neighborhoods could not be cushioned, as seen with the Columbine school shooting. He affirmed that people, especially in schools, were not relating with the real issues at hand.
Rev. Hunter asked for involvement with the community through an ad hoc committee to help with redistricting. He stated he had worked with Jesse Jackson for many years and they did not want to come back through next year saying, “We want to be counted.” He asked that they pre-acknowledge the need to identify with the community and the community leaders to prevent any racial contraindications.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated his point was very well taken and was the reason the process of redistricting was being done much differently than in the past. She pointed out she represented downtown Las Vegas and noted there were still problems throughout the community, though the area had changed a great deal from when she entered into the picture 20 years prior. Nevada was a citizen legislature, which was unlike Michigan and many other places. All legislators worked out of their own homes with no assigned staff. Rev. Hunter interjected it was difficult to represent the people when overworking themselves. He pointed out the casino industry was making millions of dollars and the legislators did not have year-round staff. He did not feel that was fair and said it was truly insulting. She indicated there were many problems, one of them being the disparity of distance, an important area being dealt with in the redistricting. She asked how were urban, rural, and all other needs equated. All of the issues addressed mandated a balance for equal representation. There was a short period of time to pull it all together and if mistakes were made, they had to live with them for the next ten years. She reminded the gallery this issue was bigger than the Congressional, Assembly and Senate redistricting and everything that affected ones life was via an elected or appointed board. She stated she was a schoolteacher, as was Assemblyman Bache and Assemblyman Anderson. The state school board affected everything they did each day.
Rev. Hunter offered his church and expertise to arrange a town hall meeting for the purpose of pulling everything together. He wanted to stop the violence and the dropouts. He stated there were children in his church that were trying to enroll into a dropout program because no one cared enough to do it. It was not that the parents did not care, but their jobs and other essentials left them little time. Chairwoman Giunchigliani welcomed his offer and explained the Nevada Constitution mandated the legislative session had to be completed by June 4, 2001. Rev. Hunter stated he would figure out a time and notify the committee.
A nurse practitioner and member of Latinos for Political Education, Ms. Lopez-Bowen appeared to dispel myths and share her feelings on redistricting. Those who spoke in Fallon on April 19, 2001, had worked very hard to better their communities, whether it was through volunteer work, boards, or combined efforts to improve the census count in Nevada. Many members of the community did public service announcements, flyers, and brochures. As seen by the numbers, they were instrumental in encouraging Hispanics to fill out the census forms and stressed the importance of being counted. In 1980, the census count in Nevada for Hispanics was 54,000. In 1990, the Hispanic population was 124,000. Today they numbered almost 400,000. Because of the efforts to improve the census count, Nevada benefited from increased federal dollars, and according to Section 13, Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution, the census served as the basis of representation. However, when it came to representation, there needed to be improvements in the areas of equal rights and equal representation.
The American public focused on Hispanics crossing borders when in reality it began with “borders crossing the Hispanics.” This was true when the area now known as Nevada became American after its Mexican origin. It was true again in the 1991 redistricting when the boundaries were moved and had the devastating effect of diluting the collective Hispanic voice. She stood before the committee as a proud American, proud Nevadan, and a proud graduate of the University of Nevada where she obtained both her undergraduate and graduate degrees. The Hispanics believed in their constitutional rights, the right to vote and the right to elect candidates they felt understood their issues.
Secondly, she wanted to dispel the myth that Latinos did not vote. She too respectfully disagreed with Mr. Sanchez and wanted to clarify his statement on the issue. According to statistics from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Hispanics were the only group the in the last decade who increased their voting numbers. In the 1992 election, 4 million Hispanics voted. In 1996, 5 million Hispanics voted. In the year 2000, it is estimated that 6 million Hispanics voted. This was in contrast to the rest of the population who had become somewhat apathetic and lost votes every election. Between the 1992 and 1996 elections, the non-Hispanic vote dropped by 10 million. In assembling the number of Hispanics who were registered to vote, it held at 59 percent over the past few years. However, for non-Hispanic registered voters, it had dropped from 74 percent to 72 percent.
The problems seen with redistricting in the past were when a small Hispanic block was moved into a foreign district and the majority block out-voted the Hispanics’ candidates when they became a minority voice in a larger district. Their voices were silenced and someone else was always speaking for them. Mrs. Lopez-Bowen stated they wanted to be active participants. Additionally, when blocks of Hispanics were moved out of their districts, the infrastructure of the community was weakened. It became a “lose-lose” situation for the Hispanics. She also addressed an earlier speaker as well as Mr. Sanchez, stating they were not guaranteed they would elect Hispanics in a Hispanic district; however, it was about eliminating barriers for a growing population. It was about working together to bring individuals with knowledge of specific populations to the table, and they were invited because they knew their culture. Simply speaking the language did not guarantee that an individual knew the problems of that population. It was about creating opportunity, not barriers. If a couple of Hispanics ran and did not win, so be it. The non-Hispanics were never questioned when they lost.
She closed by saying they (the Hispanics) elected all of those on the committee because they believed in them and felt they would help the people become united and strong in Nevada. They asked for fairness in the redistricting and increasing opportunities to meet with the growing numbers.
Private citizen Bert Ramos thanked the committee for listening to everything shared and saluted their friends in Las Vegas for their support and statements. They only requested increased seats – two Senate and four Assembly. The decision was for Nevada.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was the one who raised the issue about the voting because of the factors that had to be taken into consideration when looking at the super majorities. She asked Mr. Ramos and others not to take her word as misrepresenting that Hispanics did not vote. The issue was they had to consider the 5 percent issues if looking at a super majority, which included voter turn out.
Coordinator of the statewide census campaign and the chief government liaison for Nevada, Dave Byerman, offered his residency was in Sparks, Nevada and he was President of the Byerman Solutions Group offering government relations, corporate communications, and policy analysis services. He testified four times before the interim committee on reapportionment and redistricting. He announced he was no longer an employee of the Census Bureau, having left that department approximately one year prior.
He offered to clear up some areas brought up in earlier testimony. Regarding Ms. Howell’s comments about Mesquite, he reassured the committee members they should not look down on the process because it was said they classified Mesquite as rural. They used a process for counting the population in Mesquite, which was typically used in rural communities. He did not believe the verbiage “rural” was ever used in connection with Mesquite or Henderson. It was a mistake and he would not defend the mistakes made by the Census Bureau, but it was a decision made three years prior. Assemblyman Bache mentioned the possibility of snowbirds being deleted from the rolls. The census was a snapshot of one date, April 1, 2000, about the time many snowbirds were transiting. That tended to help a community like Las Vegas where people migrated for the winter, and hurt communities like Lake Tahoe where people left for the winter. Therefore, there were no deletions from the rural, but people who lived in one section of the state one season and perhaps another state altogether were only counted where they lived on April 1, 2000. That also affected Mesquite because it was also a “snapshot” of one year. It was quite possible the Mesquite community had ballooned in the 12 months since April 1, 2000.
Finally, Assemblyman Price raised the possibility of holding a five-year census count. Arizona, in 1995, did a five-year census count because of exceptional growth. Nevada’s growth outpaced Arizona’s, and there was every reason why the legislature would want to look into a long-range plan on how to change the Nevada Constitution or enact legislation that would allow for a five-year census. This whether it be for keeping the legislative districts constant and proportional, or to compensate for the changes experienced in the next ten years in terms of the movement of the population within the state.
He was happy they were not hearing the African-Americans and Hispanics voicing they had been undercounted during the 2000 Census. He then strongly recommended taking advantage of Mr. Wasserman’s advice to accommodate any anticipated growth when the boundaries were drawn. There was nothing that said you could not have districts as long as they were within the 10 percent threshold that was not constant and equal as of 2001. It was allowable to work within the 10 percent threshold to accommodate and anticipate growth where it was easily predictable. Referring to the size of the legislature, the difficulties of the 120-day session had been discussed as well as the disparity of distance. In his view there was good reason to increase the size of the legislature because of the pressures and timelines, and voiced concern that Nevada’s participatory democracy would be harmed if the legislature did not grow. Mr. Byerman stated anyone with census questions could reach him at (775) 626-8849. The official line to the Census Bureau and the person to contact was Pamela Lucero in Denver, Colorado, at (303) 969-7750.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked when Arizona held the five-year count and the cost? He had no idea but stated Ms. Lucero in Denver would be able to provide the information having been personally involved in the process in Phoenix.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked the committee members for giving up their weekend to hear testimony on the redistricting issue and adjourned the meeting at 12:48 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: