MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
AND THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND ETHICS
Seventy-First Session
April 19, 2001
The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 7:14 p.m., on Thursday, April 19, 2001, in the Churchill County Administrative Complex, County Commission Chambers, 155 North Taylor Street, Fallon, 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.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christine R. Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache
Assemblyman Bob Beers
Assemblyman Greg Brower
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick
Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins
Assemblyman Robert (Bob) E. Price
Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley (Excused)
Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr. (Excused)
Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part), Lander (part), Assembly District No. 35
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. Van Nostrand, Committee Secretary
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
LeRoy Goodman, Member, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County
Marge Miller, Concerned Citizen
Don Dallas, Chairman, Nevada Republican Rural Caucus
Mike Franzoia, Mayor, City of Elko
Ellie Lopez, Concerned Citizen
Estella L. Gutierrez, Concerned Citizen
Jesse Gutierrez, Director, Nevada Hispanic Services
Bert Ramos, President, Latino Network
Michael F. Mackedon, City Attorney, City of Fallon
Dan C. Frehner, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lincoln County
Marilyn Brainard, Chairman, Voter Education, Truckee Meadows Chapter, League of Women Voters
Warren Russell, Member, Board of Commissioners, Elko County
L. Keyth Durham, City Manager, City of West Wendover
Bernie Curtis, Member, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County
Bjorn (B.J.) Selinder, Lobbyist, County Manager, Churchill County
Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist
William A. Kohbarger, City Manager, City of Carlin
Rachel Curtis, Concerned Citizen
Chairman O’Connell greeted members of the audience and explained representatives from the Legislative Counsel Bureau would provide background information on court cases and census data in relation to redistricting and reapportionment.
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provided the committee members and audience with two handouts. One summarized various legal requirements and court cases (Exhibit C), and the other listed “Traditional Districting Principles” (Exhibit D).
Mr. Wasserman reviewed the summary information in Exhibit C, beginning with the sources of legal requirements, which consist of the United States (U.S.) Constitution, the Nevada Constitution, federal court decisions, and state and federal law. Mr. Wasserman noted the most important legal principle of any redistricting plan is to draw districts of substantially equal population, and he read from two items drawn from the U.S. Constitution from Exhibit C:
Congressional representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers. (U.S. Constitution Article 1, § 2)
The equal population requirement for state legislative districts results from the application of the Equal Protection Clause (U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment).
Mr. Wasserman explained that, in relation to congressional districts, populations must be “as nearly equal as practicable;” practicable meaning capable of being done, as well as sensible and worthwhile. Any population deviation, he said, no matter how small, could render a plan unconstitutional, so any deviation among congressional districts must be necessary to achieve a legitimate state objective.
Continuing, Mr. Wasserman said a redistricting plan can withstand a constitutional challenge if it only has “minor deviations” in population among districts, which would be under 10 percent. He reminded committee members that legislation adopted under the Joint Standing Rules requires that plans must have a population deviation under 10 percent to be considered. Ten years ago, Mr. Wasserman recalled, population deviations were kept under 5 percent among legislative districts. A redistricting plan with a maximum population deviation greater than 10 percent creates a prima facie case of discrimination and must be justified by the state, he said, and affording representation to political subdivisions is the only rational state policy that has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. He noted that Court-drawn plans are held to a higher standard and districts would be nearly equal in this case, but this only occurs if the state Legislature fails to draw a constitutional plan.
In the past, said Mr. Wasserman, most challenges to redistricting plans on racial and ethnic grounds were raised under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all persons equal protection and due process under the law. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the abridgment or denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or color. Mr. Wasserman explained that, under either Amendment, the test is to show that there was a discriminatory purpose in the plan and that it had discriminatory results. Because it was very difficult to show discriminatory purpose, he said, the U.S. Congress revised the Voting Rights Act in 1982, adding section 2, which sets forth the following:
Prohibits a state from imposing any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of any citizen’s right to vote on account of race, color or status as member of a language minority group.
And section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that:
Covered states must preclear changes in voting laws and procedures, including redistricting, with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court.
Mr. Wasserman noted Nevada is not a “preclearance state.” He said there are 22 states that require preclearance, where any change, including redistricting, requires approval from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in those jurisdictions.
Mr. Wasserman said the most common way for challenges to come up on racial bases has been through multimember districting. Minority groups have challenged plans on the basis that if there were the possibility of them being a majority in a single-member district, but they were combined in a multimember district, they would lose the ability to be a majority. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), he said, the U.S. Supreme Court held that multimember districts are not a per se violation of the rights of minority voters. He said there are three elements plaintiffs must show: 1) the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; 2) the minority group must be politically cohesive; and 3) The majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. Then, he said, the Court, based on the totality of the circumstances, must also find members of a protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
The U.S. Supreme Court has since held this three-part test applies to challenges of a single-member district as well, said Mr. Wasserman, so anytime a minority group challenges a redistricting plan, they have to meet the three criteria. In enforcing the Voting Rights Act, he said, the Court has set forth some guidelines for legislatures to follow that are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. When drawing a minority district, if there is sufficient population for a majority, the minority group can be represented at 51 percent, or an additional 5 percentage points each can be added for lower registration, lower voter age, and lower voter turnout. Therefore, Mr. Wasserman explained, the courts have accepted minority-majority districts with up to 65 percent of the population in the past.
In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Wasserman clarified this did not mean a non-voting population can be compensated by adding population to the district. Mr. Wasserman explained courts have upheld plans where minority districts comprised 65 percent, without viewing it as unconstitutional “packing” of a district. He gave an example of unconstitutionally “packing” a large percentage of minorities into one district, effectively silencing their voice in a second district. Another guideline given by the Court is to avoid fracturing, which, Mr. Wasserman said, is when a minority group is split among two or more districts resulting in less than a majority in any one district.
Under the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Wasserman explained, the justice department had determined to require maximizing minority districts; states were directed to create minority districts wherever possible and usual redistricting criteria were ignored. However, he said, the Court has viewed that if race is the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines, and the legislature subordinates traditional race-neutral districting principles, the plan would fall as being racially gerrymandered.
Mr. Wasserman reviewed traditional districting principles that were provided in a separate handout (Exhibit D). Compactness, he said, is the most common of these principles and can be easily judged by viewing a map of a district. Other principles include continuity, preservation of political subdivisions, preservation of communities of interest, preservation of cores of prior districts, protection of incumbents, and compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, he said.
Mr. Wasserman explained there are no federal or state laws that require districts be compact, but it is a traditional districting principle the Court looks at to determine whether racial gerrymandering has occurred. He described a recent case from North Carolina, where although the district was not compact, the Supreme Court held there was no racial gerrymandering, because the state’s rationale was the plan was drawn to create a Democratic district, where there were fewer crossover votes for Republicans among African-Americans than there were among whites. Therefore, he said, the Court, in part, accepted the rationale, because race was not the predominant factor. In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Wasserman said the Court has never held that a state has crossed a limitation by drawing a district based on “political gerrymandering.”
Included in Exhibit C are maps depicting what appear to be gerrymandered districts in North Carolina and Illinois. In the case of North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District, Mr. Wasserman said the 1992 plan was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the same district was challenged again in 1996 when the U.S. Supreme Court held there was no racial gerrymandering, as described above. In this case, said Mr. Wasserman, the Court’s finding was very fact-specific to North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District, and reiterated the burden is on the plaintiff to show that race was made a predominant factor, giving deference to state legislatures in the drawing of plans.
In response to questions from Senator Titus, Mr. Wasserman said, in the case of North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case because there was no intermediate court between it and the district court. When state legislatures draw redistricting plans, he said, federal courts “stay out” if state courts are active, but a plaintiff can file a complaint based on the U.S. Constitution, or they can choose to file a challenge in state court on state grounds. If the plaintiff files a complaint in both state and federal courts, he said, the federal courts would stay out of it until the state courts have made a decision. Mr. Wasserman provided further clarification for Chairman Giunchigliani, that only when there is concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts, are state courts given first priority. Otherwise, he said, it would depend on the grounds for the plaintiff’s claim. Senator Raggio added in order for the state to claim jurisdiction on a case that was already filed in a federal court, an appropriate motion would have to be made by the state.
In the case of the Illinois Fourth Congressional District, nicknamed the “Earmuff District,” Mr. Wasserman said it was drawn by a federal district court to create a Hispanic majority district, which withstood a challenge because a compelling state interest was shown to achieve compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Wasserman explained a minority-influenced district is one in which a minority population is not sufficient to constitute a majority of the population, but the minority group may be large enough to have an influence on the outcome of elections. In Nevada, he said, there is no controlling law requiring the drawing of minority-influenced districts. Although a district court in Ohio required the drawing of a minority-influenced district, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined on several occasions to determine whether the Voting Rights Act permits claims based on minority-influenced districts.
In response to questions from Senator Neal regarding a Nevada case, Mr. Wasserman explained both Nevada courts and the U.S. Supreme Court held that a multimember district, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of minorities. He said, only if a minority group could have been a majority in a single-member district and were put into a multimember district, would there be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Wasserman stated in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court found political gerrymandering cases are justiciable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination and an actual discriminatory effect. Specifically, he said, unconstitutional discrimination occurs only when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade the influence of a group of voters on the political process as a whole. He reiterated no court has found partisan gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.
With regard to multimember districts, Mr. Wasserman cited several case law examples:
Under Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 (1965), the Court held the equal protection clause does not require the formation of all single-member districts. In Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966), the Court held the equal protection clause does not require that at least one house of a bicameral state legislature consist of single-member legislative districts. In Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690 (1971), the Court “agree[d] that when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multimember districts as a general matter.”
Mr. Wasserman noted based on these findings, when courts draw plans, they generally draw single-member districts. He continued with more examples:
In Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), the Court found that the use of multimember state legislative districts is not, per se, unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, but may be “subject to challenge where the circumstances of a particular case may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population.” And under Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court held the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district, the minority group must be politically cohesive, and the white majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.
Based on this last case, Mr. Wasserman explained, multimember districts may not be used to dilute the minority voting power. He added federal law prohibits the use of multimember districts for Congressional representatives. In Nevada, he said, the use of multimember districts was specifically upheld by a federal district court in 1972.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out the Nevada Constitution requires the legislature to redistrict at the first session following the census, and the court-imposed remedies for failure to comply include a special session and a court-drawn plan. The Nevada Constitution also requires representation according to population with the census serving as the basis of representation, he said, and a decision was made in Washington D.C. that no adjusted numbers would be issued for the 2000 census. Mr. Wasserman reviewed additional requirements of the Nevada Constitution including a limitation to the aggregate number of legislators to 75, and the number of senators must be not less than one-third, and not more than one-half of the number of Assembly members. Currently, he said, there are 42 members in the Assembly and 21 in the Senate.
Concluding his prepared remarks, Mr. Wasserman said the Legislature’s redistricting duties cover congressional districts, state legislative districts, the state board of regents, and the state board of education. He noted the last two pages of Exhibit C were summaries of the information already presented, and therefore, he would not review them.
In response to questions from Chairwoman Giunchigliani, Mr. Wasserman explained a multimember district is defined as having two or more legislators of the same house in the same district. He said many plaintiffs have gone to court on the issue of having both multimember and single-member districts in Nevada, but the courts have held that this situation is balanced out by relative access to a representative. He added no multimember districts have been struck down by courts on the basis of discrimination in comparison to single-member districts, and they would have to be shown to unconstitutionally dilute the voting power of a minority to be struck down. This issue has been addressed through redistricting newsletters that can be made available, he said.
In response to a request from Senator Neal, Mr. Wasserman reviewed some Nevada history regarding representation in the legislature. Specifically, he said, at one time, each county had one senator and at least one member in the Assembly. In the 1960s, courts found in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), and Reynolds v. Simms, 369 U.S. 364 (1962), both houses of the legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, he said, so this has been a fairly recent phenomenon.
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provided a handout with census data and possible redistricting configurations for Nevada, to members of the committees and the audience (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). He pointed out Nevada is the fastest growing state in the nation for the fourth consecutive decade, and Clark County is the fastest growing county, moving from 61.69 percent of the state’s population in 1990 to 68.85 percent in 2000. In the rest of the state, he said, most other counties have grown, but there were net losses in Esmeralda, Lander, Mineral and White Pine Counties.
Mr. Erickson emphasized the key to representative government is the one-person, one-vote principle, and while the average growth-rate statewide was 66.27 percent, the average growth-rate in Clark County was 85.55 percent. He concluded this would mean a loss of representation for the rest of the state, in comparison to Clark County. He noted there are very few states such as Nevada, with over one-half of their total population in a single county; Arizona, Maryland and Hawaii are the only other states with this configuration.
Summarizing the contents of Exhibit E, Mr. Erickson explained it contained background information such as racial data by county, population figures and racial data by census-designated locations, population figures for the districts of members of the legislature, and comparisons between the 1990 and 2000 data. He pointed out, in 1990, the average size of an Assembly district was 28,500, and if the Assembly membership were not expanded, that number would increase to 47,578. In the case of the Senate, he said, the average district was about 57,500 in 1990 and would increase to 95,155 currently, if additional members were not added.
Drawing attention to Fact Sheet No. 6 (Exhibit E), Mr. Erickson reviewed the regional makeup of representation from the 1999 Legislative Session, as compared to what it would be if the legislature were not expanded through redistricting. He pointed out page 6 shows deviations, or average percentage differences among districts, which Mr. Wasserman explained must be kept under 10 percent. “The bottom line,” said Mr. Erickson, “is that if we don’t add seats, there is a net loss of one and one-half senate seats and three assembly districts in the north.”
Using maps as visual aids, Mr. Erickson described an option, under the current number of seats, for senatorial districts which would combine approximately 43,700 people from Clark County who are outside of the Las Vegas Valley, with Senator McGinness’ district covering the counties of Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, and Mineral, and 8500 people from south Churchill County. In this configuration, he said, Senator Rhoad’s district would include all of White Pine, Eureka, Lander, Elko, Humboldt, and Pershing Counties, and about 15,000 people from Churchill County. For the Assembly, he explained it would be a little easier, with a net loss of three districts. One option, he said, would be to combine two representatives into each of three districts in the north, without utilizing population from Clark County.
In response to Assemblyman Beers, Mr. Erickson confirmed it would be possible to move White Pine County into another district and leave Churchill County as part of the Northern Nevada Senatorial District. LeRoy Goodman, Member, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County, agreed with Assemblyman Beers that this option would make more sense than splitting Churchill County, if additional seats were not added to the Senate.
Marge Miller, Concerned Citizen, asked who would decide where people end up in the case of split districts. Mr. Erickson said it would depend on how the Legislature draws the districts, and although they try to avoid splitting rural counties, cities, or tribal lands, he said, it may be necessary even if legislative seats were added. Ms. Miller stated she has a “real problem” with splitting counties and feels she does not get as much representation as do people from Las Vegas.
Senator Titus suggested one thing to consider is collapsing districts where representatives are not running for the legislature again, so that no incumbent would lose a seat. Chairman Giunchigliani stressed the legislature would be sensitive to communities of interest and maintaining their integrity. She noted no districts had been drawn at this time, the input received through public hearings would be taken into consideration, and many legislators are very sensitive to the needs of rural, as well as urban, populations.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if there would be a greater danger for Senators whose terms are about to expire versus those who are recent incumbents, and whether there were any protections, such as multimember districts. Mr. Wasserman responded the legislature is not prohibited from creating new multimember districts, as long as they are not used for impermissible purposes. With regard to cutting short terms of office, Mr. Wasserman explained the U.S. Constitution provision for one-person, one-vote supersedes state constitutional provisions for terms of office.
Senator Raggio asked for a review of options if the size of the legislature were increased, suggesting 23 senators and 46 assemblymen. Mr. Erickson directed attention back to Fact Sheet No. 6, page 6. He said to maintain the current representation in the northern 16 counties, there would have to be 25 senators and 50 assemblymen, resulting in the constitutional maximum of 75 in total. This would produce 17 senators from Clark County and 8 in the remaining counties, with 34 assemblymen from Clark County and 16 in the remaining counties, he said. With 23 senators, as Senator Raggio suggested, a split of 15 and 8, respectively, in Clark and the remaining counties, would create a deviation of 17.87 percent, which would not be acceptable, Mr. Erickson said. However, he said, if the split were 16 in Clark and 7 in the remaining districts, the deviation would be 3.31 percent.
Mr. Erickson noted in this last configuration, there could be some discussion regarding Pahrump and its possible affiliation with the Clark County legislative district. Otherwise, he said, on the Senate side there would be a loss of one seat in the north and a gain of 4 seats in Clark County; and on the Assembly side, which would increase to 46 members, there would be 32 seats from Clark County and 14 in the remaining counties, which would be a loss of 2 seats in the north.
Chairman Giunchigliani said she wants to make sure something is done to create incumbent protection without drawing criticism, and asked what would be the cutoff point. Mr. Wasserman referenced the handout on “Traditional Districting Principles” (Exhibit D) and pointed out that protection of incumbents is included. He explained the courts recognize the political nature of redistricting and protection of incumbents is a permissible factor for legislators to consider. The only concern would be partisan gerrymandering, he said.
Mr. Goodman encouraged the committees to consider expansion of the legislature to create better representation throughout the state and to avoid increasing the size of districts, which could create a greater hardship on representatives. He cited the requirement for populations to be “as nearly equal as practicable,” and said it makes more sense to have more representatives, even if it costs more, because in the long run the continued growth of the state will require expansion anyway. Senator Raggio explained there would be minimal cost to expand the legislature because the two chambers are already configured to accept 2 more senators and at least 4 to 5 additional assemblymen. He added if the legislature were expanded beyond 23 senators and 46 assemblymen, there would be additional cost. Even at 23 or 25 senators, he said, the Nevada Senate would be among the five smallest in the United States, and he believes the Nevada Assembly is among the smallest as well.
Chairman O’Connell noted a large majority of the audience indicated they were in favor of enlarging the legislature. Don Dallas, Chairman, Nevada Republican Rural Caucus, testified he had previously recommended adding two seats to the Senate and four to the Assembly, and he still supports these additions. He expressed concern people in rural areas would be disenfranchised if the legislature were not expanded, and asserted some people in sparsely populated areas of the state are already disenfranchised. Further, Mr. Dallas suggested if the legislature were not expanded, it would create greater difficulties for representatives of geographically large districts. In conclusion, he reiterated his support for adding two and four seats to the Senate and Assembly, respectively; and expressed his hope that in the end there would be no litigation on either side and people would feel it had been done fairly. In reference to Mr. Erickson’s earlier comments about Pahrump, Mr. Dallas said he spoke with a resident who is not interested in combining with the Clark County district. Mike Franzoia, Mayor, City of Elko, testified in support of expansion of the legislature and concurred with the statements from Mr. Dallas and Mr. Goodman.
Ellie Lopez, Concerned Citizen, introduced herself and three other members of the Hispanic community. She asserted it was appalling their collective voice had been diluted through redistricting that occurred 10 years ago and many minorities were not aware of this. She noted not one of the representatives in the state Legislature is Hispanic, and she said this is unacceptable. She testified in support of expansion of the legislature and asked that members consider the voices of the Hispanic community when developing reapportionment plans. Discussing their concerns with lack of representation, she and her colleagues were reminded of the Boston Tea Party, she said, and considered throwing out all the salsa in the state. She claimed most Hispanics do not trust government and believe there is a strategy of “divide and conquer” when their collective voice is diluted and they cannot elect their own people to represent them.
Estella L. Gutierrez, Concerned Citizen, testified there is a perception that the Hispanic community does not care about government, but she asserted they do care and because of her own candidacy for public office, she has become dedicated. She agreed with Ms. Lopez the Legislature should consider the voice of the Hispanic community.
Jesse Gutierrez, Executive Director, Nevada Hispanic Services, greeted the committees in Spanish.
Buenas noches. Ojala usted mi entiendo mi espanol por que las constitucion no es en español para usted tu entiendo mis sentimientos es como quando no uno tiene una voz.
Translated, Mr. Gutierrez said: Good evening. I hope you understand me in Spanish because the Constitution is not in Spanish, and for you to understand my feelings you need to understand that one only has one voice.
He explained he spoke in Spanish to help people understand how it feels not to be able to communicate or have a voice in their own language, or not to have someone they can go to with a face they can identify with and trust. He said the Hispanic community is supposed to grow to 20 percent of the population in Nevada, yet they have no representation, or lobbyists, in the legislature. He said the Hispanic community is mobilizing their forces and referred to Senator Reed’s Congressional race with Senator Ensign, in which Senator Reed claimed his victory was due to 400 votes from the Hispanic population. Based on his own involvement in this race, Mr. Gutierrez said he now knows Hispanics have to be political in order to get their voices heard and be properly represented.
Continuing, Mr. Gutierrez said for Nevada to be a great state, equal representation of all the population would be needed, and he said, this is particularly true considering the rapid growth in Nevada. He claimed the Hispanic population is bringing a tremendous amount of funds into Nevada, going from $1.7 billion to $3.7 billion coming into the state, based on entrepreneurship. In conclusion, Mr. Gutierrez asked that the legislators keep the Hispanic population in mind because they do not want to be diluted, but want to be able to make a difference and have some representation in the legislature.
Bert Ramos, President, Latino Network, testified he does not subscribe to all the different views held about Hispanics, but he thinks they want to be Nevadans and Americans. He said he was not seeking to “divide and conquer” anyone, although he controls enough votes to “push a lot of fear into a lot of people.” He suggested this would not do any good because the Hispanics in Nevada only care about being Nevadans. He added he does not want anything special from anybody, nor does he want a free ride anywhere; but, he said, he does expect to see some “brown faces” somewhere.
Mr. Ramos reported in a previous meeting, he was told to tell everybody, “there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s brown.” But, he said, “the sheriff has no bullets unless we have a district.” He asked the committees to consider giving the Latinos a voice because they want to be part of the state, and not separated out as in California with its ethnic subdivisions. He asserted there is unity in Nevada and said, “I’m proud to be here, I wouldn’t live anywhere else.”
Ms. Lopez clarified for Senator Neal that the Hispanic community would claim Senator Bob Coffin as their representative if they saw him in their communities speaking their language. She noted, in the history of Nevada, there has never been a Hispanic female legislator. Senator Titus reminded Ms. Lopez of candidate Emma Sepulveda, who was not successful, but was “certainly a viable candidate.” Ms. Gutierrez said if people in the Hispanic community see other Hispanics being politically active, they become motivated.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel thanked the testifiers for coming and said she agreed with them and recalled her first session in the Legislature when she served with Brian Sandoval, whom she said was an excellent legislator. She suggested that anyone in the Hispanic community who had questions about redistricting or other issues could call her secretary, who is Spanish, to get help.
Assemblyman Bache said he was in the legislature during the 1991 reapportionment when a Hispanic majority district was created in Clark County. He recalled two Hispanics were elected from the district in the first election, and then Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, who is bilingual, was elected and has not been challenged by a Hispanic since. He asserted Nevada is unique with regard to integration, particularly in Clark County where various minority populations are spread throughout the county, which presents some difficulty in creating minority-majority districts.
Mr. Ramos reiterated a lot of first and second generation Hispanics have yet to learn how to trust government, and if they do not see somebody they can identify with, he said, “it’s not going to work.” Ms. Lopez clarified the position of the Hispanic community, stating:
We are not saying that you cannot speak for us, because you have, and we have called on many of you. I feel very comfortable calling my representative, Senator Townsend, with my issues, and he responds immediately and is very caring. I have met Ms. Chowning and she’s a lovely person. We are not saying that you are unable to speak for us, or someone who is bilingual. We are saying that the population we deal with on a daily basis feels more comfortable [with someone who is from their community.]
Chairman Giunchigliani thanked the testifiers for their attendance and acknowledged the importance of hearing the voices of many immigrant populations around the state. She expressed concern about the dilution of voices and opportunities for all immigrants, and asserted that by keeping the Legislature small, it would be easier to create a district where the Hispanic community would be able to elect their own candidates. Conversely, she said, if seats were added they might have more difficulty creating a majority district because many Hispanics are not registered to vote, and some cannot legally register to vote. She affirmed there is a need to ensure minority groups are sufficiently large to be able to elect their own representatives, and warned they must be careful what they ask for, because the expansion of seats may not have that result.
Mr. Ramos said, “If you give us a district, I’ll bring you the votes. There is no way you can tell me there aren’t enough Hispanics in Las Vegas to fill the district.” Chairman Giunchigliani said, “speaking from the Democratic side,” the goal is not just to create one Hispanic seat, “but to look at the community of interest and create districts that are winnable, or electable.” She added that she thought this would be required to maintain the constitutionality of the redistricting plans, as well as to maintain the voice of minority populations and communities of interest.
Senator Porter asserted it appeared the Hispanic community was improperly fragmented 10 years ago, which he said did dilute their voice. He added with their current population of about 300,000, he believes there are a sufficient number of Hispanic voters to create multiple districts. He referred to a map which he suggested showed fragmentation of the Hispanic community into eight or nine assembly districts, which resulted in no minority-majority districts. He reiterated his belief the Hispanic community was improperly diluted 10 years ago and said, “We want to make sure that doesn’t happen this time.”
Ms. Lopez asserted the Hispanic community should not be stereotyped as non-voters because they can mobilize their community, and have done so in the past.
Senator Raggio claimed the Republicans appreciate the Hispanic population even more than do the Democrats. He supported Senator Porter’s assertions the Hispanic community was improperly fragmented through the 1991 redistricting, noting at that time, one party controlled both houses of the legislature and the Governor’s office. He said, “the Republican Party didn’t do that to you; remember that.” He pointed out that in this session, each party has control of one house of the legislature and the Governor is a Republican. Senator Raggio suggested if the legislature were expanded, the Hispanic population would have the capability of winning two Hispanic senate seats and four Hispanic assembly seats in Clark County. He added he did not think the Hispanic community wanted to be taken for granted as belonging to either party.
Mr. Ramos claimed his three colleagues and he represent a large majority of Hispanics, and he stated each of the four of them is a registered Republican. Assemblyman Hettrick stated that Republican members of the Assembly have drawn some expanded maps, and based on the Hispanic population in Clark County, four assembly districts could be created with 50 percent, or greater, Hispanic population.
Assemblyman Anderson said as the son of an immigrant, it heartens him to sit in the legislature as a first-generation American, and he assumes Hispanic representatives would want to sit in any open seat gained through open competition, and based on the belief and support of their communities. He stressed the difficulty of drawing compact districts that maintain communities of interest and ensure that government reaches all of the people all of the time, without regard to race or nationality. He expressed his hope this would be the final result, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are elected.
Senator Titus pointed out some of the comments made were reflective of the partisan and hostile nature of the reapportionment and redistricting process.
She said:
It’s interesting that a certain party is stumbling over itself to court you, because you are the new sheriff in town. The Hispanic population has grown more than any other in the state, if you look at the census figures. You are a voting bloc to be reckoned with, and I think both parties realize that; some just realized it a little later than others.
Senator Titus said she wanted to correct the record with regard to the map Senator Porter had referenced earlier. She asserted the legislature did not fragment the Clark County Hispanic population in 1991, but rather, they created a special-majority Hispanic district. She claimed the map referred to by Senator Porter was a 2000 map and pointed out that there has been significant growth since 1990.
Mr. Gutierrez said he has always heard Hispanics are taken for granted by the Democratic Party and ignored by the Republicans. He said:
Well the new sheriff is in town, and we are going to decide, not necessarily on partisanship, but [on] the issues and the people, like what Assemblyman Anderson was talking about. It’s who moves your heart about what’s right and not right, and what’s fair and not fair. Yes, we are registered Republicans. I was a Democrat before, but that doesn’t mean anything. I will vote my conscience on the issue, and that’s what most Hispanics are going to do, so keep that in mind.
Chairman O’Connell emphasized the committees were not there for partisan arguments, but to hear the “voice of the people,” and their concerns about redistricting. She asked discussion be kept on that level. In response to a question from Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Gutierrez said they wanted 23 senators with 2 qualified Latinos.
Michael F. Mackedon, City Attorney, City of Fallon, testified on behalf of Ken Tedford Jr., Mayor, City of Fallon, in support for expansion of the legislature along the lines suggested by Senator Raggio. He commented he was grateful to see Senator McGinness and Assemblywoman de Braga in attendance. Chairman O’Connell assured him that neither would have missed it.
Dan C. Frehner, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lincoln County, urged the committees to pass a measure to increase the size of the legislature. He asked them to consider creating a district to combine Lincoln County with Virgin Valley, Moapa Valley, Boulder City, Laughlin, and Mesquite.
Marilyn Brainard, Chairman, Voter Education, Truckee Meadows Chapter, League of Women Voters, testified there is a need to maximize the vote, and the way reapportionment is approached can make a big difference. She said:
I think that our citizens want to have faith in our elected representatives, and would favor a spirit of compromise. I think we’ve seen tonight a little flavor of the partisan situation, but I think the courts have spoken clearly that we want to see a fair reapportionment, and that will take compromise on everyone’s side. I would encourage you to do that so the citizens of our state can feel good about our Legislature, and I think most of them do. . . . I think fairness will prevail, and I have confidence that you all can do a great job and I especially want to thank you for making the effort to come out tonight and to have the meeting in our rural area.
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part), Lander (part), Assembly District No. 35, testified that when asked what she wanted at the beginning of the redistricting discussions, she asked for pieces of Churchill, White Pine and Clark Counties to add more Democrats to her district. She said one of the first plans she saw extended her district into Lincoln and Clark Counties, which would take a whole election cycle to travel for campaigning purposes. She asserted it would be detrimental to rural Nevada to create such large districts because people would be disenfranchised. She testified support for adding more seats to the legislature to keep districts as small as possible.
Senator McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, described his district as including Churchill, White Pine, Mineral, Nye, Lincoln and Esmeralda Counties as well as parts of Lander and Eureka Counties. Thanks to Mr. Erickson, he said, he could state that it covers 55,000 square miles, which is roughly one-half of the total square miles in the state and larger than 26 states in the continental United States. He stressed he is a citizen legislator with a “real job” that he tries to keep going once in a while. Senator McGinness described a campaign trip he took with his wife that stretched 1019 miles through Beatty, Pahrump, Alamo, Caliente, Pioche, Panaca and Ely, and missed Lund, Rachel, Gabbs, and other mountainside towns. He said he took no umbrage at Mr. Frehner’s request to be put into a different district, because it takes 6 hours to get to Caliente or Pioche. He expressed his appreciation to the committee members for having come to rural Nevada to hear some of the issues.
Chairman O’Connell related she and Senator O’Donnell have a different problem, which is representing about 300,000 people between the two of them. She said they are looking forward to giving some of those people to rural representatives who need them. She noted Senator Porter also has an unusual district, in that it covers all the smaller towns surrounding Clark County, as well as Boulder City and some of Henderson.
Warren Russell, Member, Board of Commissioners, Elko County, testified his preference for adding seats to the legislature. He said he has only been a commissioner for 3 months, but drove over 3000 miles in January to talk to people. He asserted people in rural Nevada want face-to-face contact with their representatives, which in larger districts takes a lot of driving. L. Keyth Durham, City Manager, City of West Wendover, requested the Legislature add seats to both the Senate and the Assembly. Bernie Curtis, Member, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, also testified in support for adding seats to both houses. Bjorn (B.J.) Selinder, Lobbyist, County Manager, Churchill County, also testified in support for enlargement of both houses. Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist, added her support for expansion of the legislature.
William A. Kohbarger, City Manager, City of Carlin, testified his support for expansion of the legislature and expressed the need for representation to facilitate funding from the Nevada Department of Transportation. He asked which lake the tea should be thrown in if the City of Carlin does not get representation.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she represents Lake Las Vegas and about 105,702 residents in an assembly district. She added she also represents rural areas of Clark County and understands the difficulty of competing with Las Vegas for funding. She stressed every rural legislator is fighting “like crazy” for rural areas and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with reapportionment.
Senator Neal said rural counties would not be treated “like a horse facing a cold wind,” and he would support expansion of the legislature in order to accommodate small communities throughout the state. He noted representatives from southern Nevada have often joined with northern representatives over the years to support programs to help northern and rural Nevadans.
Rachel Curtis, Concerned Citizen, spoke in support of adding seats to the legislature. She said she has heard many times from new Nevadans who express appreciation for the responsiveness of our elected officials, and she asserted adding seats would preserve the kind of relationships people have come to expect.
Chairman Giunchigliani thanked the committee, staff and hosts for their attendance and support of the meeting. She stressed representatives from Las Vegas were sensitive to rural issues and the Legislature would continue the tradition of drawing reapportionment plans that are not challenged.
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
__________________________________________________
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
DATE:____________________________________________