MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 23, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:23 p.m., on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4412, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman (Unexcused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Beverly Willard, Concerned Citizen
Paul Willis, Concerned Citizen
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
James R. Thorpe, Concerned Citizen
Luis Valera, Hispanic Coalition, and Latinos for Equal Representation
Andres Ramirez, Latinos for Equal Representation
Mike Slanker, Consultant for the Redistricting Process, Republican Party
Tom Keeton, Concerned Citizen
Lia Roberts, Concerned Citizen
Sherry Dilly, Concerned Citizen
Joseph Catania, Concerned Citizen
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners
Marlene Monteolivo, Director, Amigos for Democracy
Carlos MacKarthy, Staff Member, Amigos for Democracy
Bob Milz, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County
David Fulstone II, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County
Stephen Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County
Fernando Romero, Amigos for Democracy
William G. Raley, Concerned Citizen
Marilyn Kidwell, Concerned Citizen
Lee Rathbun, Concerned Citizen
We will open the hearing and begin with Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 5 of the Sixty-ninth Session.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-308)
Assemblyman Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17:
For the last few years we have had 7 states still on biennial sessions, including Nevada. Since we began the session this year, Kentucky has finished their process and changed over to annual sessions. Now, it is down to 6 states out of the 50.
One thing I would like to call to your attention is where the question has been asked whether the public would support annual sessions (Exhibit C), in all cases, the people supported the idea there should be annual sessions. One reason might be most people who come to our state are, in fact, coming from states that have annual sessions.
When we come into session, from the first day we are projecting 2½ years down the road what our budgets are going to be, and what we are going to need to spend, and so forth. It is difficult to do, but we get by. We have the constitutional provisions so we cannot work in a deficit situation.
We have been able to do our biennial sessions by having the interim finance and the Legislative Commission. With the Interim Finance Committee not being made up of one man, one vote, this is not constitutionally proportional, yet, the committee is making decisions that should be made by the legislature itself or by a constitutionally proper body. Otherwise, these decisions could be seriously challenged and if that happened, we would have to figure out some way to correct it.
We are the elected board. We are here trying to direct and do the best we can for our state; we represent the “people.” When we are not here, the more decisions made by the bureaucracy in the state not having the direct interest or not answerable to people electing them and saying we would like you to do this or the other, I think, the more it takes away from the system.
We are all such strong supporters of the “Citizens Legislature” concept, but if we, as citizens and legislators, are not doing what we should be doing and we are letting bureaucracy and other people make decisions because we are not here, I do not believe it is the correct thing.
It was pointed out, in fact, when you are having annual sessions, you do not have as many interim committees meeting as we do today. While there would be some expense to having the sessions every year, some of it would be offset by the fact our committees would be working and crossing on a more frequent basis and, therefore, we would not have as many long interim studies. So, there would be some offsetting value there.
Back in the 1950s, we had one annual session. The citizens voted for an annual session. The interest groups hired a gentleman to eliminate annual sessions and he did his work as a lobbyist very well and did, in fact, get it changed. But, it was interesting, many years later this same gentleman had become an advocate of annual sessions and helped me in the early years.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions from the committee?
(Assemblyman Price passed out a greeting card on the passage of A.J.R. 5 [Exhibit D].)
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else who wishes to address A.J.R. 5?
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
We are in opposition to A.J.R. 5. I want to point out to you the concern we have with this 45-day annual session: there is no real limit on it other than the number of days. It is not just a budget session; there is no limit on the number of bills to be introduced. It would not bring you more time to carefully consider the issues brought before you, but instead, would bring you another 1000 or 1200 bills to be considered in too rushed a fashion, and it would not be adequate.
I do have to tell you, our primary concern with this is not the cost of having an annual session, although if such an annual session were needed, then it should be adequately funded. Frankly, salaries should be attached for the number of days people have to work; it is in this bill and we do not have a problem with it. Our problem is simply it would bring approximately double the number of bills you are dealing with now, and would not provide you with adequate time to consider them. If, at some future time, you wish to consider annual sessions, we would specifically request the interim session be limited to either budget matters, items the Interim Finance Committee deals with now, or limited very tightly in terms of the number of bills to be considered.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any more questions from the committee? OK, we will close the hearing on A.J.R. 5 of the Sixty-ninth Session and open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 575.
SENATE BILL 575: Revises districts for state legislators and representatives in congress. (BDR 17-1558)
Chairman O’Connell:
Let me give you a little background to the bill. We have held four meetings to date on redistricting, plus this meeting. We held one in Fallon, two in Las Vegas, and one in Carson City. This afternoon, the Senate government affairs committee has really tried to respond to the information we received at those hearings. Three major things came out of those hearings. One was to increase the size of the legislature. The second was to create an open seat for Nevada’s Hispanic population. And the third was to keep communities of interest together so we are not pitting one race against another.
The Senate plan has 23 Senate seats: 16 of the seats are in Clark County, 7 seats are outside of Clark County, and 6 of these 7 are single-member districts. One seat has two incumbents, Senator Jacobson (Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District) and Senator McGinness (Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District). Clark County has 3 double districts and 13 single-member districts. Two of the 13 are majority Hispanic districts and 1 is an open seat for them.
The Assembly plan consists of 46 seats: 32 of the 46 are in Clark County, and 14 are shared between the north and the rurals. Hispanic districts consist of 2 open seats and 3 existing seats so there would not be any dilution of their influence. In addition, the plan keeps the central Las Vegas districts intact. Those are the overall things that went into the drawing you see in the Senate plan. With that we will begin taking testimony on this bill.
Beverly Willard, Concerned Citizen:
I am supporting the Senate bill for redistricting. What I am looking for is fairness for all of Nevada, and fairness for the Hispanic people; I believe they should have their five districts. I hate to see districts taken away from the voters. I understand some seats will be eliminated. We, the voters, should have the right to eliminate a representative on our own, as opposed to a committee doing it. Again, I want to stress fairness above everything else. If the lines are drawn fairly, it is a win-win situation for everybody.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions for Ms. Willard? If we have anyone in Clark County who would like to speak to the bill, please come forward.
Paul Willis, Concerned Citizen:
I would first like to thank you for all the hard work you have done; I fully endorse this plan. To us, it is imperative we increase the size of the legislature to preserve what representation we have in the rurals. We have unique problems which may not be understood by a lot of the urban representatives, and, to us, preserving our representation is crucial. For the last 10 years we have struggled with very little voice and this will almost, unless the legislature is increased, be the same as a death rattle. You might as well put a pillow over our heads and let us pass quietly into the night, because we do not get much voice as it is now, and if we have seats eliminated, then we are effectively neutered.
We fully endorse this and we would like to see it expanded even more, but for greater expansion, the cost would be prohibitive. We cannot tolerate our representation being reduced, because we have a small voice as it is. It would at least give us a fighting chance of keeping seats and keeping some kind of voice. It also expands opportunities for the Hispanic community to get their representation. My perception of what redistricting is supposed to be all about is fair and equal representation. With the state growing at the pace it has been, not adding seats seems shortsighted. I am a lifetime, native resident of Nevada and I love the whole state, and I think the whole state needs fair and equal representation.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, are there any questions? Thank you, sir.
Senator Neal:
I notice in S.B. 575 we are dealing with census tract numbers. I wonder if we have anything up there, where we have displayed these maps on the wall, showing these numbers where the public might be able to look at those numbers and determine where they are located in those various districts we have drawn.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Neal, I believe we do have some handouts at the end of the table (Exhibit E), (Exhibit F), and (Exhibit G).
Senator Neal:
I am not just talking about maps. Maps show lines, but what I am concerned with is the actual census tract numbers reflected in the bill. This is what we have to look at and understand: how these lines are drawn and who goes where.
Chairman O’Connell:
We did announce, prior to your arrival, the information is on the handouts at the end of the table.
Senator Neal:
What I see here are figures, but not necessarily census tract numbers. When I talk about census tract, I am talking about these numbers in the bill. When I go to District No. 4, which I currently represent, I am looking at numbers based on census tracts. In section 5, which would be District 4, you have census tracts; this represents the drawing of the maps. I think the data would have to be available to the public, in order to understand how it matches the maps.
Chairman O’Connell:
Let me have Mr. Wasserman address it for the audience.
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The census tracts and the census blocks you see in the bill are actually generated on a computer from the maps you see in the back of the room from the way the census bureau has broken down the state into blocks and block groups and census tracts; it is actually the data going into the bill. You can see the data on the public workstation. If you bring up the districts, you bring up the maps on the public workstation, which will actually show you the census tracts within those districts. What we have found is when members of the public are looking at the descriptions in the bill, they do not understand the whole picture. This was why we generated the maps, and brought the maps into the hearing room, because they are much more understandable than trying to determine what a district looks like from the bill draft itself.
Senator Neal:
You do not have a map of the census tracts along the wall?
Mr. Wasserman:
They are not in the room at this time.
Senator Neal:
I think we need one so the public can better understand the maps. If they want to see where they are located, they can identify the block and look for it on the map. I would hate to have some legislator vote on something and get home and find out he was not where he thought he was located.
Chairman O’Connell:
Let me ask if any members of the public would like to have the information Senator Neal has described. If you would like to leave your name and address with the gentleman at the desk, we will try to provide you with the information.
James R. Thorpe, Concerned Citizen:
I am for this bill; we need a better process than what we are doing now.
Chairman O’Connell:
You are a man of few words. We appreciate you being here very much, sir.
Luis Valera, Hispanic Coalition, and Latinos for Equal Representation:
I wanted to comment on the proposal that has been submitted, and how it compares to the maps submitted by the Hispanic Coalition. Just to make sure everyone is familiar with what the Hispanic Coalition is, the name of our committee is actually, “Latinos for Equal Representation.” Basically, it is a coalition of Latino community members who have come together to develop a plan we feel will ensure equal representation for the Latino community. The formation of this coalition was basically in response to the need for our community to educate and inform our governments regarding the issues and concerns of our community as they relate to the redistricting process. I find it encouraging the Senate plan creates two open Senate seats and the one open Assembly seat. Is that correct?
Chairman O’Connell:
There are two Senate seats in the Hispanic district, one of which is an open seat, the other seat is currently held by Senator Coffin (Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3). There are other open seats. There are five Assembly seats, two of which are open, and three are presently occupied.
Mr. Valera:
Either way, I would encourage the Senate to come closer to what we as a coalition have submitted to you. Certainly the lines are drawn around the concentration of Hispanic populations in Clark County, but what we have proposed in our maps calls for five Assembly seats and two Senate seats. While this is encouraging, it is certainly more favorable than what was passed in the Assembly. We would hope it would move even closer to what we have proposed.
Chairman O’Connell:
Sir, I do not believe I have a copy of your maps. Have they been sent to the legislature?
Mr. Valera:
Yes, I believe they were.
Chairman O’Connell:
I guess we have had a miscommunication, because we do not seem to have the maps, I wonder if you could forward those to us?
Mr. Valera:
Sure, absolutely. I will get those to you and make sure you have those as soon as I can. Basically, what our maps propose are the five Assembly seats and the two Senate seats.
Chairman O’Connell:
There is a gentleman in the audience who says he has the maps with him.
Senator O’Donnell:
I had a question. We are dealing with Hispanic districts and Democrat, Republican and Independent issues. I would just like to throw out a question to Mr. Valera. I do not need to know what your party affiliation is. Let me ask it this way: Would you consider yourself Latino first and then a party affiliate, or would you consider yourself a party affiliate and then Latino?
Mr. Valera:
My party affiliation is definitely secondary.
Senator O’Donnell:
OK, thank you.
Mr. Valera:
Madam Chairman, I would request, if I could, to wait to follow up on my comments once Mr. Ramirez has gone over the maps with you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Ramirez, would you like to come up?
Andres Ramirez, Latinos for Equal Representation:
What we have submitted is a request for five different Assembly seats and two Senate seats. We have established what we determined to be the best communities of interest and the best breakup to determine what would be Hispanic districts. We held a press conference recently and we have been very vocal about our desire to ensure Hispanic districts contain a population mix of at least 60 percent Hispanics. Now, the United States Supreme Court holds a threshold of about 65 percent Hispanic. Our community is willing to support 60 percent. My documents were drawn without the premise of expansion, we were able to draw two Assembly seats at 60 percent. Having said that, I am absolutely convinced, if it can be done without expansion, then it can definitely be done with expansion.
We are concerned the maps introduced by this body did not meet the criteria of having at least 60 percent Hispanic population in those districts. I am looking at your maps as well. I am looking here at the Assembly, Senate, and Clark County; you drew Assembly seats here and my understanding is when you are drawing an Assembly seat, it is because you have demonstrated there is a community to be represented that is a “community of interest.” Am I correct in that assumption?
Chairman O’Connell:
That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ramirez:
If you draw Assembly District No. 17 containing one geographic area, why would you cut it up differently when you draw the Senate districts? Why would they not incorporate the same community of interest, if you have already established it in the Assembly districts? Furthermore, you draw your congressional districts, and those geographical areas are divided up even differently than your Assembly and your Senate districts, which to me, seems like you are carving up the communities of interest you originally established in the Assembly areas. To me, it dilutes the votes of the Hispanic community.
What we have done is we have determined what we feel are the best geographic locations for Hispanic representation, including a minimum of 60 percent. The reason we feel we need at least 60 percent is obviously because of citizenship rights among the Hispanic community and for voter turnout. We feel we need to have 51 to 52 percent; really, that is not a majority in the Hispanic community. U.S. Supreme Court cases and other court cases have documented it, so we are requesting beneath the 65 percent level, but at least 60 percent, to have a chance to have a true Hispanic majority. Again, it just troubles me. I see the districts here drawn in your maps and you have established communities of interest; then, you have cut them up in different locations in your subsequent maps. I do not understand how it works. If you have clearly determined this should be a community of interest, why would you cut it up differently in your state Senate districts, and then furthermore in your congressional district. So, if I could have some clarification as to why you chose to take those measures, I would appreciate it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Slanker (Mike Slanker, Consultant for the Redistricting Process, Republican Party), could you come forward and address the question? I can tell you, for the two Senate seats, one is 55.30 percent the other is 54.33 percent.
Mr. Ramirez:
Right, they are all under 60 percent.
Chairman O’Connell:
Yes. For the Assembly, one is 53.80 percent, another is 56.83 percent, and the other is 51 percent.
Mr. Ramirez:
Again, they are all under 60 percent.
Chairman O’Connell:
Would you pose your question to Mr. Slanker?
Mr. Ramirez:
My question to them is, I am analyzing your Assembly districts, your Senate districts, and then your House districts, it was my impression, when you draw Assembly districts, it is because you have determined it to be your community of interest, correct? So, if you have determined this Assembly district to be your community of interest, why would you draw it differently and cut it up differently in your Senate district, and furthermore, in your congressional districts? Why would you not incorporate those exact same geographical areas into your subsequent maps to maintain the communities of interest?
Mike Slanker, Consultant for the Redistricting Process, Republican Party:
First of all, the same basic area, except for a handful of blocks, is taken into account for the four northern Assembly districts. Obviously, there is one off by itself in the south, and the two state Senate districts are almost exactly the same surface area. The reason they are cut up and not exactly two-inside-one is they are nested; so if you do that, you end up with some Assembly districts under 50 percent or right at 50 percent. In order to get them into the 55 to 56 percent range, you need to change the lines a little bit. They are not dramatically different. If you notice the tops, the northern, western, and eastern boundaries are exactly the same. The lines within the Senate districts do not cut Senate districts exactly in half because, if you cut them in half to create two Assembly districts, you end up with one district under 51 percent.
Mr. Ramirez:
I understand. My system is you start with the smallest seats first, which are the Assembly seats. So, once you have created the Assembly seats, then you overlay the Senate districts on them, correct?
Mr. Slanker:
Not necessarily.
Mr. Ramirez:
Well, it is just my impression, to start with the smallest building block and build upward. So, if you have established an Assembly district as a community of interest, I do not understand why it would be cut up differently for a Senate district.
Senator O’Donnell:
I think what we did there was we cut those districts up so we could get two Senatorial districts that were Hispanic. Otherwise, if we did the overlay just as you say, then we would have one predominantly Hispanic and the other one would not be.
Mr. Ramirez:
I would have to disagree. If you look at simple mathematics, if you have one Assembly district with a 55 percent Hispanic population, and a second district with a 55 percent Hispanic population, and then you overlay a Senate district on top of them, you are going to have a 55 percent Hispanic Senate district. It is just the way it works.
Senator Titus:
I think you are right; it is how it works; and what has happened is the notion of community of interest has been abandoned for some other pragmatic adjustment of the lines. When you say you are the consultant to the Senate, let us be sure you make it clear, you are the consultant to the Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats had nothing to do with drawing these lines.
Mr. Slanker:
I have not seen your maps either, Mr. Ramirez, except for in the newspaper, but the problem is to create the two 60 percent districts. Obviously, two other districts suffer dramatically because they are basically right at 50 percent. I do not know where you have them, but they have to be very close. The dilemma and the questions to be answered are: Are districts ranging 54 to 57 percent the way to go? or, Is it to start at 60 percent and work all the way down to 50 percent? I think you have stated your position, but I am willing to wager the area of town we have encompassed in four seats and the area where you have encompassed the four seats are probably almost identical. It is a matter of where you draw those lines internally; it is a perfect discussion to have between the organizations. However, we must decide whether or not it is to be 60 and 50 percent, or if 57 and 56 percent are the opportune ways to go.
Mr. Ramirez:
Well, several of your districts are at 51 percent; so why would 50 percent be so much of a big difference to you? I do not quite understand the argument. We would prefer to have two Assembly districts at 60 percent and the other two at 50 percent, to know we at least have two safe Assembly seats we can establish.
Again, if you create the two Assembly seats first . . . you can overlay a Senate district directly over those two areas and have the same population. The same goes if you create two Assembly districts at 60 percent and you overlay a Senate district exactly over those boundaries, you are going to have a Senate district of 60 percent.
Senator O’Donnell:
Mr. Slanker, how many people need to be represented in an Assembly district?
Mr. Slanker:
Well, you have a range of people who can be in the district, but the number we are using is approximately 43,000, I believe.
Mr. Ramirez:
It is roughly half of a Senate district.
Senator O’Donnell:
So, if you have two Senate districts, you will have four Assembly districts. You are saying our plan differs from your plan in that the lines in the Senate districts are slightly different than the Assembly’s. They are not directly overlaid.
Mr. Ramirez:
Not just that; our percentages are much higher. We provide for two Assembly districts at 60 percent; you do not. We provide for one Senate district at over 60 percent; you do not. We are trying to push for that, and what we said is we can accomplish it by overlaying.
Senator O’Donnell:
Let me just ask this question: You want two Assembly districts at 60 percent?
Mr. Ramirez:
At least 60 percent. If it can be done without expansion, I am sure it can be done with expansion.
Senator O’Donnell:
And for the other districts, you are willing to go with 50 percent?
Mr. Ramirez:
We would like to have them as high as possible. We have determined 50 percent, without expansion. Your maps advocate for expansion, so you have a smaller group of people to work with to be able to adjust and create a higher percentage of Hispanics in a particular group of people in a particular geographic location.
Senator O’Donnell:
It has been my experience, in running for office for the last 16 years, a 5 percent edge, usually, is a good indicator of a very comfortable district.
Mr. Ramirez:
No disrespect to you, Senator O’Donnell, but I do not believe you ran in an Hispanic district before.
Senator O’Donnell:
I run in a Democrat and Republican district. Usually, if you have 5 percent more Republican, it is considered a Republican district. If it is 5 percent more Democrat, then it is considered a Democratic district. If it is 5 percent more Hispanic, then it is an Hispanic district.
Mr. Ramirez:
Not according to the Supreme Court, Senator O’Donnell.
Senator O’Donnell:
Well, OK, I am not going to argue with you.
Senator Titus:
I think the facts you are overlooking are, when you are counting an Hispanic district, you are counting every single person. In Hispanic districts, you have had low voter registration, low voter turnout, and you have a large percentage of the people who are under 18 who are not eligible to vote, but who count in the population. For those reasons, the Supreme Court has said you need 65 percent to really ensure it is a truly Hispanic district with a better chance to elect an Hispanic candidate. I think also, what is being said is you are not just comparing your map to the Senate map. What you are saying is, in regard to the Senate map, put your map aside. You have created an Hispanic Assembly district which supposedly would represent a community of interest. Then when you create a Senate district, you split up what you have created as a community of interest in the Assembly district, because the Senate district does not overlap the Assembly districts. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Ramirez:
Yes, and then it is further cut up differently in the congressional districts.
Senator Titus:
So, it is a three-time cut up of what you have established as a community of interest?
Mr. Ramirez:
Correct.
Mr. Slanker:
If I may add, briefly, the difference between what the Hispanic organization has put forward and what is in this plan is actually very, very insignificant. If the argument really is you want five districts, and this plan has five districts, then the argument is over just the percentages in the top four districts. It is a very simple change and we are really not so far apart in these two maps. If it is five districts and five districts, and just a matter of 60, 60, 50, 50, rather than 56 through 54 percent, it is not a terribly difficult switch. What I am saying is I do not think your plan is really all that far from this. If you are arguing there should be a shift in the lines between the districts, it is not a monumental change and something you should advocate for.
Mr. Ramirez:
Exactly, and my point is there is not much difference, but I am troubled they were not included. If you have established communities of interest, they should be maintained at every subsequent level. They should be maintained at the Senate level, and at the congressional level, because it has already been established; it should not be cut into different areas.
Chairman O’Connell:
Now we have your map, we will certainly look into it, sir, and we appreciate you bringing the maps up to us.
Senator Neal:
May I ask the consultant a few questions? What went into drawing these maps? Let us narrow it down to the Senate districts in southern Nevada. What districts did you start with in terms of drawing these maps?
Mr. Slanker:
Well, we started internally, in the center of Las Vegas, with the communities based in the center of Clark County. There are obvious communities of interest there.
Senator Neal:
Would my district be there, District No. 4?
Mr. Slanker:
It would be the area. We started in that area and tied together communities of interest. You have a unique situation in that you have a minority-influenced district, and we believe we are compelled to give you that district again. Obviously, you had to pick up some area, and you did. We expanded out from there with communities in all directions. You will see in the map, the area, formerly Senator Shaffer’s and Senator Carlton’s Senatorial district, is basically intact, except for the fact within the district, there is a majority Hispanic Senate seat. So, the same area where we used to have a multi-member district, is now two single-member districts, with the Hispanics pulled out. There are a lot of things going into these districts. We did our best to maintain the will of the voters and allow people to keep the elected representatives of their choice. We tried to account for the growth in the suburban areas of Las Vegas, within the guides of the constitution, by not giving one representative or one senator the entire ring of the county. We split it up so they could share in the growth.
Senator Neal:
Would you tell the committee whether or not voting patterns, looking at what precincts and looking at who got what votes in the last election, were taken into account in drawing these districts?
Mr. Slanker:
Absolutely, if a Democratic area of town had elected a Democratic senator or representative, they have every right to re-elect their senator or representative and it is part of the process. It is not the only part, but it is a part.
Senator Neal:
Was it partisan in that sense, in drawing the map?
Mr. Slanker:
While the process may or may not be partisan depending on your point of view, if a Democratic area of town, or of a county, or of a state, elects a Democrat, they probably have the right to keep re-electing that Democrat.
Senator Neal:
Say for instance, in Senate District No. 4, I would assume you are familiar with the drawing of those particular lines. Are you familiar with the area north of the community college?
Mr. Slanker:
I know the area you are talking about, but I am not extraordinarily familiar with it.
Senator Neal:
According to the map you drew, in terms of my district, the section north of the community college was cut out. I was wondering why, because the section is predominantly black, and it went into the Hispanic side of the map.
Mr. Slanker:
I would have to go back and look at the numbers to tell you exactly why. I would not want to guess, other than it may be more Hispanic than black. If it is the case, then it may be an Hispanic community of interest and that small area was put into another district.
Senator Neal:
I was curious. As I looked at your map, you pushed me to the west into a predominately white population. My vote total has a tendency to go down in those particular areas. Then, you add some sections there. I was wondering about it when I saw it on the map.
Mr. Slanker:
I understand your curiosity. Your district, in land size, had to grow a little bit. It was inevitable, you had to go in some direction.
Senator Neal:
But, you cut out a portion, a large portion.
Mr. Slanker:
I do not know if it was a large portion, but, your district had to grow to some degree, and I think if you looked at the partisanship, as you called it, I think you are in pretty good shape.
Chairman O’Connell:
I think I could say the same thing about my district, Senator, but if you wanted to talk to Mr. Slanker, I am sure he would be happy to talk with you. But, let us hear from the folks in the audience.
Tom Keeton, Concerned Citizen:
I am for the bill. I think it represents the fairest approach I have heard so far for everyone, not just the minorities, but for everyone. The districts are compacted as best as they can be; they have a community of interest. And, by increasing both the Senate and Assembly, we maintain representation in my part of the world, Carson City and the northern counties, which we feel is important.
This particular bill, obviously, is very difficult. I sympathize with all of your activities. It is impossible to be totally fair in everything you do. I would say though, in this case, I hope you can all transcend politics, at least to some point. This is the most important thing you are going to do in many ways in this session of the Legislature, because it is going to last for 10 years, at least. It is going to affect the votes of everyone in the state, including me, including you. I hope you can be as fair as you possibly can, and take all other interests and put them aside, and be as fair as you can to the people of Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you for taking the time to be here today. Committee, do you have any questions?
Lia Roberts, Concerned Citizen:
I am here to make a statement, as a matter of principle and a matter of fairness. I do commend the Senate for taking an approach such as this one where we all see a great amount of fairness, interest and willingness in setting the record straight in this regard, and where maybe there could have been a little bit different redistricting as far as the Hispanic districts are concerned in the Senate and Assembly, as well. I think it is a great willingness in redistricting in a manner which reflects the growth of the population that is up 22 percent and growing here in Las Vegas. When we talk about the 5 percent, more or less, I heard Mr. Andres speaking about a little earlier, I do believe I would take, anytime, a district as such. I think this is going to be very fair for the Hispanic community and for all the rest of us as well. Again, I do commend the Senate, and thank you very much for all the effort you are putting in.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, for taking the time to be down there today.
Sherry Dilly, Concerned Citizen:
I understand from all the papers around this afternoon, we in Douglas County will lose representation. To tell you the truth, I would have a better chance of understanding Greek than understanding everything you people have to go through on this redistricting. Therefore, I am putting my trust in you as Nevada’s elected officials to do the fair and non-partisan, correct thing for redistricting the State of Nevada by approving S.B. 575, and allowing Douglas County to have fair representation. Thank you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, we appreciate you coming down today. Any questions from the committee?
Joseph Catania, Concerned Citizen:
Upon looking over S.B. 575, it seems to me, the merits of the case would call for a decision asking people to support the Senate’s plan. I was looking for principles of population, of quality, contiguous districts, compact districts, and traditional communities of interest. We realize these new districts must protect incumbents, as well as help the Hispanic community obtain their equal representation. I also noticed in the addendum, Senator Porter’s population for his current district is 208,229; the ideal population is 95,155 for a deviation of 118 percent. Generally, in the business school I attend, they teach us you get paid for the job you do. I do not know that Senator Porter is not entitled to double the salary of everybody else.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, for coming down, we appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify?
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners:
I am here today to say we appreciate you expanding the size of the legislature, so those areas of the state without the major urban areas will not be more diluted in their voices. Nothing worth doing and doing well is attained without some kind of sacrifice. So, what are we willing to sacrifice? Are we going to sacrifice voices, or are we going to spend a little more money? We hear many bills and many issues in the legislature, where cost is not an issue when it comes to serving the needs of certain groups of people. There are many people in the 14 or 15 rural areas of the counties whose families have been here for four, five and six generations. Many or our Native American people have been here a lot longer than that. We, in the rural sections, prefer no further dilution of our voices at the state legislature, where the legislature decides a lot of what local government does. We encourage the Senate plan be adopted.
Chairman O’Connell:
We have some folks in Las Vegas who are waiting to testify. Please state your names for us.
Marlene Monteolivo, Director, Amigos for Democracy:
I am also here in support of the Hispanic Coalition, and we are asking for five Assembly seats and two Senate seats. I am also here to tell you there are more Hispanic women who are registered voters than men and we need to take it into account. Please be aware Hispanic women will be the voice of the Hispanic voter, and I am here as a woman in support of the Senate plan. This takes into account Nevada’s exploding population by adding two seats to the Senate and four seats to the Assembly. In contrast to the Assembly plan, which does not take into account Nevada’s exploding population and creates unnecessarily large districts which will undoubtedly lead to voter confusion, the Senate plan adheres to the Voting Rights Act (of 1965) and draws together Hispanic communities of interest, creating five majority Hispanic Assembly seats and two majority Hispanic Senate seats. Additionally, it takes into account Reno’s rapidly growing Hispanic community by creating an Hispanic-influenced district, whereas the Assembly plan limits Hispanic Nevadans’ ability to elect the candidates of their choosing by unnecessarily splitting their communities and only creating two Assembly districts and one Senate district. The remaining Hispanic communities are split up, and this limits their influence. The Senate plan draws together incumbents only when necessary to create minority districts, or when population shifts force incumbents to be drawn together, whereas the Assembly plan mysteriously draws together incumbents, while creating open seats in the same area for purely political reasons. The Senate plan keeps Hispanic communities together in one congressional district, increasing their voice, whereas the Assembly plan splits the Hispanic community into two congressional districts, unnecessarily diluting their ability to elect the representatives of their choice. The Senate plan creates a congressional district mostly outside Clark County, reasonably cutting into the county’s population; whereas the Assembly plan creates the same district but it unreasonably runs to the southern edge of the county, creating an unmanageable district that is unfair to the constituents of southern Clark County. The Senate plan creates two open Hispanic Assembly seats; the Assembly plan creates no open Hispanic Assembly seats. I am here to remind those elected officials who chose to disregard the Hispanic vote, we will evaluate their efforts and they will ultimately have to face the consequences. Thank you.
Carlos MacKarthy, Staff Member, Amigos for Democracy:
We have developed the Hispanic registered voter and the registered home owners database in Clark County and the state of Nevada, and the business licensees of Hispanic businesses database as well.
Our concern is the Hispanic registered voters total 58,272 in Clark County, of a total of 620,000 registered voters. The population used to establish the guidelines, to date, are based on census reports. Those census reports are flawed. The fact is, the majority of the Hispanics living in Nevada cannot vote. It is not that they choose not to vote, it is that they are unable to vote. We think the voting history records are very important data to be used. We did supply Republican and Democratic parties with the precinct counts from Clark County, the 801 precincts. I am hoping the voting records were used to help in the redistricting guidelines.
Ms. Monteolivo:
There are 35,000 Hispanic Democrats; females are 17,789 versus 15,907 male Democrat-registered voters. Of Republicans, there are 14,550 registered Republican Hispanic voters, of those, 7147 are female, 6965 are males. There are 6519 Republican home owners; there are 14,635 Democrat home owners. There are 2821 Hispanic-owned businesses.
Mr. MacKarthy:
Anyway, that is the data we would like to have the Assembly use, if possible, in their finalized redistricting and rezoning of the voting guidelines.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, we appreciate both of you coming down to testify today.
Bob Milz, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County:
Today, I rise in opposition to S.B. 575. Since Lyon County is the second fastest growing county in Nevada, we do not need to incorporate Mineral, Douglas, Nye, Lincoln, and Esmeralda counties in the same district. There are some ongoing issues with Mineral County regarding the Walker River and the Walker Lake.
The Lyon County population will reach 50,000 within the next few years. It should have the opportunity to not be split at this time and to be left whole. We need to maintain a sense of community in Lyon County. This is one of the main reasons Fernley has just achieved city status. If this were approved, it would split Fernley, which is exactly opposed to the reason they wanted to become a city. Lyon County does not need to be divided. It has been difficult to achieve a sense of community because of the geographics of our county, and this would further divide our efforts. We need at least a solid Assembly district, and there needs to be more work on this issue regarding where the lines are drawn.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Milz, you mentioned you are expected to be at 50,000 shortly. Could you give us an idea of when you expect it to take place?
Mr. Mills:
I would assume in the next 3 to 4 years.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, thank you.
David Fulstone II, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County:
Fernley is one of the most rapidly growing cities and it is also the newest city in Nevada. It will become an actual city on July 1, 2001. Many negotiations are going on between the county and the city; some of those will only be resolved in the next legislature. I think, to put a senator in half of Fernley and another senator in the other half of Fernley and the rest of Lyon County, and then expanding it out to what it will do to the Assembly districts, could put us in a rather onerous situation. Our county is very much like the state; it has some real differences between the north and the south. Fernley, which is growing, right now the population is approximately 10,000, has wonderful industrial growth and residential growth going on at a high rate. It appears Fernley would be split 50:50, between the Capital and Central Senatorial Districts. Going south we have central Lyon County, which runs along Highway 50 near Carson City all the way to the Churchill County border. This is our single largest populated area, with about 17,000 people. Going further south, we get into the rural and agricultural areas of Mason Valley and Yerington with an 8000 population. It appears to me, this would be split approximately 4000 and 4000, depending on where Yerington is divided in the split.
I have a ranch split by a state highway, one part of the ranch would be in one senatorial district, the other would be in another senatorial district, the way it is here (in S.B. 575). Presently, Smith Valley is the only area represented by a different senator than the rest of Lyon County. Senator Jacobsen (Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District) represents about 2500 people in a highly rural, highly agricultural area. The rest of Lyon County is in Senator Amodei’s (Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District) district. It appears, with the numbers and the way of the split, there is an ability to keep Lyon County whole. It really adds into the central district and Mineral County. Lyon County is rapidly going from a rural county to becoming a part of the Gardnerville, Carson City, and Reno urban areas. If we can keep ourselves whole in the senatorial district, it would also help us in the assembly district, which would be important to us in the future. Thank you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions?
Stephen Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County:
There are just a couple of points I would like to touch on. You talk about “communities of interest.” I think we referred to it as “the sense of community.” I am expressing our concern the bill, as proposed, would not maintain the integrity of our sense of community. Lyon County has at least five distinct population centers; I feel this would further fragment Lyon County. We have a pretty good sense of community right now; in fact, we feel it is getting even better. But, what this bill proposes is parts of Fernley would be represented by two different parties. I think county government is where the wheel hits the road. It is hard for residents to understand, when you live in a so-called “Cow County,” a fragment would split the county, north and south. We already have an issue north and south of the Carson River. I think this would further antagonize some of the interests out there and destroy some of their sense of getting along.
My last comment is just to voice the concerns of the county manager and the county government regarding accessibility to our representative, and I think this would make it doubly difficult.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Mr. Milz:
I do not think this has anything to do with being a Democrat or Republican, or that race has anything to do with it. I think you guys have to decide on population and what the best thing to do is.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, is there anyone else who wishes to testify?
Mr. Valera:
Allow me to clarify, my previous statement was based on the understanding the committee had received the maps proposed by the coalition. While on a personal note, I find it encouraging the Senate has moved in the direction it has, we would respectfully ask the Senate, seeing as how these proposals have the potential for modification and adjustment, take into consideration the maps we have submitted and proposed as a bipartisan coalition.
Chairman O’Connell:
Anyone else in Las Vegas wishing to speak?
Fernando Romero, Amigos for Democracy:
Just to clarify one point, Ms. Monteolivo did specify she was giving her own personal opinion relevant to the endorsement of the Senate plan. Let me simply state, Amigos for Democracy still continues to be a very strong member of the coalition in support of the coalition’s efforts, and I, too, echo the words of Mr. Valera. We hope you take our map into account, and hopefully, you will redistrict the lines per our recommendation. I am also concerned, although we submitted those maps over a week and a half ago, to this very date, they had not reached you, Madam Chairman. Apparently, they may not have reached the Assembly, either. However, you now have them. Hopefully, when you do get together, you will consider them very strongly.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else who wishes to come forward?
William G. Raley, Concerned Citizen:
I want to primarily address the U.S. congressional districts, although I do have a few comments on the Assembly districts. I believe, in a perfect world, five districts would be a great idea. One thing I noticed with the Assembly’s plan and also with S.B. 575, which I have not reviewed in detail, is outside their five districts there are some issues regarding incumbents in the surrounding districts. For example, so much territory is taken away from Assembly District Nos. 9, 10, and 41, there may not be enough room there for one district, let alone three.
In the Senate bill, I noticed in Washoe County, for example, which currently has 9 Assembly seats, without expansion it would go to 7 seats, and with expansion it would still go to 8. Obviously you have to combine incumbents. In Clark County, especially under expansion when you are going from 26 assemblymen to 31 and a fraction, it should not be necessary to combine incumbents. The districts may look a little odd, but it can be done.
I am working on a plan which is based in part on the Hispanic coalition’s work and part on my own. I do not have maps for that part because it is not yet complete. I do have Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning in a 60 percent Hispanic district, Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, also, has an Hispanic district, and Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall’s is a heavily Hispanic district, although not entirely. Bache’s is at 62 percent Hispanic, Chowning’s is 60 percent, and Ohrenschall’s is 50 percent, and it would create one open seat, which is 45 percent Hispanic, in Clark County. As a bonus, I have made Clark County Assembly District No. 8, which is currently 30 percent Hispanic, a 45 percent Hispanic district.
On the U.S. congressional seats, I have addressed Congressman Jim Gibbons’ concern about preserving Nellis Air Force Base in this district, and removing the southern half of the county as well as Congresswoman Shelley Berkley’s request to have her district made up of the existing district, as much as possible.
I can tell you the maximum deviation from the ideal for those three districts is four persons out of 666,000. Not having looked at the Senate bill, I am not sure at what level the districts are drawn. I do know on the Assembly side, A.B. 665, being 90 pages long, is very difficult for someone outside the legislature to analyze in terms of precincts, census tracts, and blocks.
ASSEMBLY BILL 665: Revises districts for state legislators and representatives in congress. (BDR 17-1542)
Mr. Raley:
The main benefit of my map (Exhibit H) is that for the open congressional seat, Congressional District No. 3, it is 41.8 percent Democrat and 41.8 percent Republican, so it would be a fair fight, as it were, which is actually a little closer than it was in your bill, although it is fairly close.
One thing I would like to point out on the Assembly’s plan is, I have noticed for the most part, the outlined districts are a little bit below the ideal population and the central Las Vegas districts are a little bit above, to better account for growth in the outlying areas, so 10 years from now, hopefully, things will not be as out of whack as they have become over the last 10 years. I would like to thank the committee and the Senate for their work. As a writer and editor, I very well know it is much easier to criticize some work other people have put together than it is to come up with something on your own. I hope you take this as constructive criticism.
Senator Neal:
In your independent drawing of the congressional districts, which district did you start with first?
Mr. Raley:
I started with Congressman Gibbons’ first, and drew a line in the sand and said okay, what is the population of the other 16 counties. This one needs 30,000 or 40,000 people from Clark County to make up the difference. Then I said, from what point in Clark County going north, equals the same population numbers? It gave me the two remaining districts, Congresswoman Berkley’s and the open one. From there, I took Congresswoman Berkley’s existing district and whittled away at the edges to get the population for the new district to the number it should be, and to make the Republican and Democratic numbers equal. That is the process I used.
Senator Neal:
What were you mostly concerned with, just the equality of the districts in terms of population numbers?
Mr. Raley:
Yes, sir. It was the primary consideration, but beyond it was the realization the plan has to be passed by the Republican Senate and a Democratic Assembly, and what may be accepted by both parties is something where the open seat has equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Obviously, there are many different plans which can come up with 666,000 in each of three districts, but only a small subset of them would have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in the open seat.
Senator Neal:
What numbers did you eventually come up with in terms of the district numbers?
Mr. Raley:
The total population of the three districts, the maximum deviation from the ideal of 666,086 is 4; Congressional District No. 1 is 4 below, District No. 2 is 2 above, and District No. 3 is 1 above. For Republicans and Democrats, the absolute registration figures are within 33 persons out of 300,000 registered voters, which is 0.01 percent. If you look at it as a percentage of the total population, it is 0.005 percent.
Senator Neal:
And the configurations of the districts, these are the fairest numbers you could have gotten?
Mr. Raley:
I could tweak it a little bit to get the numbers more perfect, and if I could find a precinct or a census block on the edge of Congressional District No. 3 and one of the others which had equal population but a difference of 33 in Republicans versus Democrats, it would be a slight improvement.
Senator Neal:
Just one other question, you are not party to any group or anything, you took this upon yourself, on your own, to do this?
Mr. Raley:
Yes, I am a math major and a systems analyst. I find this a very interesting and complex problem, although I realize it is not entirely abstract because it has a large impact on everyone in the state. But I am neither Republican nor Democrat and not officially a member of any group, although I have worked with the Hispanic Coalition, but this is my own plan.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, very much.
Marilyn Kidwell, Concerned Citizen:
We left the area and come back every few years and find Clark County changing. It has exploded beyond our comprehension, beyond what we ever thought it would be.
I commend the previous speaker for stating we need to plan for growth in the future. The Senate plan will accommodate the growth we have had in our area. Look at it in terms of population; we have over 1000 new children coming into our schools each month. If we fail to get the proper representation in the Las Vegas and Clark County area, many people will be left behind when it comes time to address various issues with which they are concerned. We find this Senate plan is fair.
Senator Neal:
I have one question for you. Could you tell me when you saw the Senate plan?
Ms. Kidwell:
It was about a week ago; I have not read the whole thing, sir.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else in Carson City who wishes to speak?
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:
Are you on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 2 or S.C.R. 4, or both?
Chairman O’Connell:
No, we are on the bill itself, the redistricting bill, Senator Rhoads. We have not gotten to yours, but since your bills definitely depict certainly one of the issues, please go ahead.
Senator Rhoads:
I will be brief because I know we have discussed this and it has been talked about ever since we have been in session. I will talk about S.C.R. 2, which would expand the legislature from 21 to 23 senators, and also S.C.R. 4.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2: Provides that Senate must consist of 23 Senators and Assembly must consist of 46 Assemblymen for purposes of reapportionment and redistricting. (BDR R-41)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4: Adopts requirements for overall characteristics of congressional districts in this state for purposes of reapportionment and redistricting by 71st session of Nevada Legislature. (BDR R-705)
Senator Rhoads:
I know all of you probably have seen the Senate plan from the Democrats and the Senate plan from the Republicans. In both of those plans, my area is massive. It is from the California border to the Utah border, and goes down into White Pine County. It is difficult, right now, in a smaller area, for me to go to all the PTA meetings, the county commission meetings, and everything. To get to some of those places, I have to drive 800 miles, round trip. I urge you to increase the sizes of the Senate and the Assembly. I think it would be a lot better for the rural areas.
Back to the congressional seat. I had research prepare two maps. My idea of the way the three congressional seats should be divided, I think I am going to lose this one, but I want to present it anyway. Each congressional district should include part of rural Nevada, part of Washoe County, and part of Clark County. So, when they go back there to Washington, they represent the whole state and not just the city of Las Vegas. There are 666,000 people for each congressional seat. This would be one option. The other option would actually be wilder, but it would be good districting because each congressman would represent, truly, part of Clark County, part of Washoe County, and part of rural Nevada, and could make decisions on mining issues and other issues Clark County probably does not have. But, anyway, each congressional seat would have 666,000 people, divided up proportionately. I know you are going to have lots of discussion on this. I just wanted to bring it up and when you do make the final decision, I would hope the rural areas would be considered in each one of those congressional seats.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Lee Rathbun, Concerned Citizen:
I do support S.B. 575; I would advocate the increased numbers. I think it would be the fairest way. I think a great number of people in this state would also support the financial costs, which would be minimal. So, in general, I support this version as superior to the other. Thank you, very much.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else?
Mr. Ramirez:
First of all, I just wanted to say I reviewed your maps. As many of my Latino colleagues have said, having five Assembly districts and two Senate districts you attempted to make Hispanic districts, is a step in the right direction, even though there are some discrepancies as to what we feel the percentages should be. However, I wanted to address a different approach and Senator Neal actually commented on it earlier. My concern is just with the way this process is working. I understand this is new process, and it only happens once every 10 years. Everyone is still pretty new at it. But I did not get to see the maps until today; I am sure most people did not actually get to see them until today. I know the language was released on Monday, May 21, 2001, through the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and they were available through the Internet yesterday evening. Yet, the hearing is today, scheduled for 2:00 p.m. My concern is I do not feel it actually gave people an adequate opportunity to assess the maps, analyze them, and give educated opinions and responses as to how those districts are going to impact our communities.
Chairman O’Connell:
I just need to interrupt you a minute, sir. We did not put the maps all together until we had heard testimony from people and what their interests were. And then we tried to address the interests we heard.
Mr. Ramirez:
Correct, but the language was available on Monday. So, if the language was available on Monday, my assumption is the maps where drawn by the weekend, which means the maps should have been available to us Monday as well, so we could have at least reviewed them and had a couple of days to see where the lines are. The time was not allowed to us.
Chairman O’Connell:
Excuse me, they were up here. And, I think the newspaper carried them the following day.
Mr. Ramirez:
I think the redistricting process shows not everyone in Nevada lives in Carson City, and neither of the Nevada newspapers down south included any pictures of the maps for us to look at. My concern was I had no idea what they looked like, where the boundaries were, or what they contained. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but did any of the Las Vegas newspapers . . . ?
Chairman O’Connell:
I think it was kind of the same situation we have been in with your maps.
Mr. Ramirez:
I understand. I am not an elected official; I am not obligated to inform the state what those maps look like, and to address that, my maps have actually been published in the newspaper for a few weeks now, for everyone to look at, whereas the Senate proposals were not. Again, the Senate proposals were only offered on the Internet. Many Nevadans do not own computers, much less have access to the Internet, and those numbers are higher in the Hispanic community. My concern is you waited for such a long time, almost until the last minute. I mean, there was a self-imposed deadline of May 25, 2001, which is roughly this Friday, and people did not actually get a good chance to look at the maps until today. I just feel a large part of our community was excluded from the process and was not given a fair opportunity to review to give a good rebuttal; not necessarily even a rebuttal, we may have agreed and endorsed it, but we would not have known had we not seen the maps earlier. We had only today to review them, see the lines, see the boundaries, see what they do to our community, see what they do and do not offer us, and so forth. That is my concern. I know this is still just starting and we still have a ways to go, but, my request and encouragement to this body . . . I want to clarify, this is not a partisan attack. I think the Assembly Republicans did a great job by releasing their maps so early, even though I did not agree with their maps. They, at least, gave us a chance to view them and give our opinions on how we felt. The same with the Assembly Democrats, but this body waited too long. Session is going to end pretty soon and I do not think we were given enough time to react to this body’s proposals. I encourage you to make the process more available between now and until it finishes, to actually give us a good opportunity to see the additional proposals and the revisions, so we can continue to be a part of the process.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any questions?
Senator O’Donnell:
Mr. Ramirez, you talked earlier about four Hispanic districts, two of them you would like to have at 60 percent, and two you would like to have at 50 percent?
Mr. Ramirez:
Well, we would like to have two at 60 percent and the other ones as high as possible, whether they are 50, 51, 52 percent, whatever they may be, but we want to make sure we have at least two at 60 percent.
Senator O’Donnell:
Would you be happy then with two at 60 percent, and two with as high as we can get them?
Mr. Ramirez:
On the condition as well, that we would like to have at least one Assembly seat open and, at least one Senate seat open at those percentages.
Senator O’Donnell:
Would you sign off on it?
Mr. Ramirez:
I would have to see the lines. Numbers are one thing; I would actually like to see the communities being included. But, I would be willing to endorse a map with two Assembly districts at 60 percent, one of them open, and at least one open Senate seat at 60 percent. I would be willing to support a map reflecting our map as much as possible.
Senator Neal:
You had indicated you did not see these maps until they were released last Monday?
Mr. Ramirez:
I saw them this morning. I was informed they were released last night.
Senator Neal:
Did you hear the question I asked the lady in Las Vegas?
Mr. Ramirez:
Yes, she said she saw them a week ago.
Chairman O’Connell:
Anyone else wishing to address the bill?
Senator Porter:
I had a question for Mr. Slanker. I thought I heard you say earlier, in regard to the maps presented by Mr. Ramirez, it would not be a problem for us to come up with lines very similar to what he has proposed, correct?
Mr. Slanker:
Yes, as a matter of fact, we have been discussing this in the back of the room. The basic outside lines, if you want to talk about the entire Hispanic community, are extraordinarily similar, if not almost identical. It becomes a discussion of whether you create two districts at 60 percent and, two at 50 percent, or three around 55 percent. If the Hispanic community and the committee agree it is the way to go, with two at 60 percent and two at 50 percent, it is very simple to make the change. The biggest argument is we have drawn five and the Assembly has drawn two, which is dramatically different. The differences between our map and the Hispanic Coalition maps are very small. So, if it is the committee’s choice to go to two at 60 percent and two at around 51 percent, we can do it very easily.
Senator Porter:
Of course, I cannot speak for the balance of the committee, but I would highly encourage this body to do just what you are suggesting.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, are there any other questions?
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:14 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: