MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

April 20, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 6:20 p.m., on Friday, April 20, 2001, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman (Excused)

Senator Terry Care (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Fernando Romero, Vice President, Hispanics In Politics

Sally Devlin, Concerned Citizen

George Cantu, Concerned Citizen

Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Andres Ramirez, Concerned Citizen

Ricki Barlow, Concerned Citizen

William Horne, Concerned Citizen

Anthony F. Sanchez III, Lobbyist

Brian L. Davie, Legislative Services Officer, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Las Vegas

Paul Willis, Concerned Citizen

William Raley, Concerned Citizen

Denna Howell, Director, Planning and Redevelopment, City of Mesquite

Jose Bolanos, Concerned Citizen

Luis Valera, Lobbyist

Ellie Lopez Bowlen, Concerned Citizen

Rodrigo Santa Cruz, Concerned Citizen

Marlene Monteolivo, Concerned Citizen

Frances Montes, President, Hispanics in Politics

Ben Contine, Concerned Citizen

Grant Herdlow, Concerned Citizen

Reverend Chester Richardson, Concerned Citizen

Eberth Mendez, Concerned Citizen

Stan Washington , Concerned Citizen

Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist

Gary L. Horrocks, Lobbyist

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We will go through the census figures and to give you specifics about what we need to be aware of.  Then we will take open testimony.  Mr. Wasserman, will you lead off?

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  I will be presenting a summary of a power point presentation that was presented to the interim study on redistricting (Exhibit C).  What we talked about was, what was the source of the legal requirements for redistricting.  The requirements come from the U.S. Constitution, the Nevada Constitution, the federal court decisions, and state and federal law.  The most important legal principle of any redistricting plan is to draw districts of substantially equal population.  That standard comes for the congressional districts from section 2 of article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires congressional representatives to be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers.  With regard to state legislative districts, the equal population requirement results from the application of the Equal Protection Clause (U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment).

 

So, what does equal population mean for congressional districts?  On page 2, you will see a slide regarding Court interpretations on equal population for congressional districts.  Population of congressional districts must be “as nearly equal as practicable.”  Practicable means, not only capable of being done, but also sensible and worthwhile. 

 

The Legislature has things of local interest they have to look at, like communities of interest and political subdivisions.  That is why, on a congressional basis, where you are looking at much larger statewide districts, the courts have insisted on population as nearly equal as practicable, but it gives the State Legislature a little more leeway in drawing the legislative districts, to take into consideration these local interests.

 

We then turned to racial and ethnic considerations, on page 3, you will see that initial claims of racial and ethnic discrimination in redistricting came under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.  The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all persons equal protection and due process under law.  The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the abridgment or denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or color.

 

You will see the test to establish discrimination under either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment was the same; you had to show there was a discriminatory purpose and there were discriminatory results.  Congress took a look at that and they realized it was very difficult to prove discriminatory purpose, basically having one party saying, this is what they intended, and the other party saying no, in fact we did not intend that.

 

So, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982; you will see that on page 3.  Section 2 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 a member of a language minority group.  Thereby, Congress eliminated the need to prove discriminatory intent.

 

We then talked about section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 which requires covered states to preclear changes in voting laws and procedures, including redistricting, with either the Department of Justice of the U.S. District Court.  Certain states had a history of discriminatory practices in their election laws.  So, section 5 requires those states, and there are 22 of them, to have all their changes approved by either the U.S. District Court or the Department of Justice.  Nevada is not a preclearance state.

 

Many of the initial cases under the Voting Rights Act, involved multimember districts.  A minority group would challenge multimember districts on the basis that, had the Legislature drawn a single-member district, a particular minority group could have been a majority in that single-member district.  So, if we look at two districts, if there are 100,000 people in each district, and there was a minority group of 65,000, they would be saying they could have been a majority in a single-member district but when put into a district of 200,000 people, 65,000 is less than a majority.  That is the type of situation that was being addressed.

 

The leading case is Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), page 4.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that multimember districts are not a per se violation of the rights of minority voters.  In order to show a multimember district is unconstitutional, the plaintiff must show the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute majority in a single-member district.  The minority group must also show they are politically cohesive and finally, that the majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.

 

After establishing those factors, based on the totality of circumstances, the Court must also find that members of a protective class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process, and to elect representatives of their choice.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held this three-part test also applies to challenges of single-member districts.  The next line indicates some of the Court decisions we discussed.  The first one is the 65-percent rule.  It refers to the fact the courts have recognized that when you are drawing a minority district you do not have to just draw a district with 51 percent and then stop and move on to the next district.  The reason is, in many cases, you have to look at the circumstances of each case, but a particular minority group may have less population of voting age, lower voter registration, and lower voter turn out.  So, the courts added 5 percent for each of those factors and have okayed districts that had a minority population of 65 percent.

 

We then talked about the Court cases that threw out plans for unconstitutionally packing minority groups.  So, the best way to describe that is to give an example: If we had a body that was made up of ten districts and there were 100,000 people in each of those districts, and a minority group had sufficient population to be 65,000 in three different districts, if the body that was drawing those districts, instead of putting 65,000 in each of the three districts, they put 90,000 in two of the districts making a super majority in two districts, but then only leaving 35 percent for the third district.  That minority group would lose the ability to have a majority in three districts.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Mr. Wasserman, let me stop you here.  When we were at the airport today, somebody mentioned there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision just 2 days ago that addressed this issue.  Are you aware of that, and did I hear it correctly?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

Yes, the Court case, currently called, Hunt v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. (2001), which is actually going to be renamed to Easley v. Cromartie to evidence the change of governors in North Carolina.  That case did address these issues consistent with the way the U.S. Supreme Court had addressed those issues in the past 10 years.

 

Now we will talk about fracturing.  Fracturing is the opposite of packing.  This is where, if you had a minority group that could be 65,000 in three different districts, instead if the legislative body split that minority group into six different districts of 32,500, you would see they would not have a majority in any district, and that is called fracturing.  That would violate the Voting Rights Act.

 

In drawing minority districts, a state must be careful not to make race the dominant factor in its redistricting plan.  You will find that on page 5.  The Court has held racial gerrymandering exists when race is the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines.  The Legislature subordinates traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations.  Basically, the Court said you can go too far, you have to be conscious of race, you have to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but you cannot make race the dominant factor over traditional redistricting principles.

 

So, what are traditional redistricting principles?  I have a list of just the traditional districting principles (Exhibit D).  You will find compactness on there.  I underlined compactness, because this is the one criteria the Court looks at and can see for themselves whether your districts are compact or not.  There is no legal requirement, federal law, or state law that says your district has to be compact.  When the districts are not compact, and the courts suspect there may be racial gerrymandering, that is one of the things they will look at.  If they are not compact they will be suspicious of those districts.

 

The other criteria include: continuity of districts; preservation of political subdivisions, cities, and counties; preservation of communities of interest; preservation of cores of prior districts; protection of incumbents; and compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

 

Senator Porter:

Mr. Wasserman, in looking at Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s comments, when it comes to minority districts, majority-minority districts can be created when they exist under traditional redistricting principles, correct?

 

Senator Neal:

Madam Chairman, may I ask Senator Porter what case he is referring to? 

 

Senator Porter:

What I did, I pulled up some information on the Internet and looked at some of the things that were discussed tonight and compared that.  I want to verify this information is correct; when there are traditional redistricting principles involved, you can create majority-minority districts, correct?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

That is correct.  In fact, majority-minority districts, drawn to comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, would not be a racial gerrymander if they were compact and met the other traditional redistricting principles.  The courts have been very clear that you still have to comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  You do have to be race conscious in order to do that. 

A couple of examples: at the bottom of page 5 is North Carolina’s twelfth congressional district.  This is the district as it was drawn in the 1992 version of redistricting.  This district was 160 miles long, no wider than highway I-85; it was winding through tobacco country, financial districts, and manufacturing areas, gobbling up pockets of African-American neighborhoods.  That is how the U.S. Supreme Court described this district.  They held this district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.  It was obvious to the Court, race was the dominant and controlling rationale, and the Legislature ignored the traditional race-neutral districting principles.  This district was thrown out as being unconstitutional, so, the legislature went back and redrew the district, and for the third time, it went to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The lower, district court had found, through summary judgment, the legislature had used race as their predominant factor for drawing their new twelfth congressional district. 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court looked at that and said, “you know, there was evidence on both sides, you should not have done that through summary judgment and referred it back to the district court to have a trial to hear both sides in the case.”  The district court held a 3-day trial and again found race was the predominant factor in drawing North Carolina’s twelfth congressional district.  That was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled the decision.  They looked at the evidence themselves and said the district court had erred in finding race was the predominant factor. 

 

This is the case, Madam Chairman, you were asking about that was decided this week, Easley v. Cromartie (Originally Hunt v. Cromartie, 532, U.S. [2001]).  This case reiterated the following things: the legislature can be conscious of race, but it also cited the principle that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering occurs when race is made the predominant factor over traditional race-neutral redistricting criteria.  The Court held race was not the predominant factor in drawing North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District; the Court said it was voter behavior.  The state argued they drew the districts based on voter behavior, which the Supreme Court believed to be the case.  They were taking precincts with a higher Democratic vote, not a higher Democratic registration.  What that translated to, in white versus black population, was that the black population had a higher Democratic voting pattern; 95 to 97 percent of the Democratic registered black population would vote Democrat.  There was a higher crossover to vote for Republicans among the predominately white precincts.  The U.S. Supreme Court said that was the main reason they were drawing the districts.

Senator Porter:

Mr. Wasserman, in that case, what did that district look like?  The reason I ask, is to make sure I understand traditional districting principles, because if you look at districts in North Carolina and Illinois, they do not look compact or continuous, and do not appear to preserve communities of interest.  Those are the issues; they just drew lines to pick up certain parts of the community?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

The picture you are looking at on the bottom of page 5 (Exhibit C) is the 1992 version.  So, the new North Carolina Twelfth Congressional District looks different.  The Court did attach some pictures of particular precincts they were reviewing, but there is not a picture of the congressional district as it exists now.  I am sure I can obtain that, and would be happy to provide copies.

 

Senator Porter:

I am just trying to visualize for myself, the definitions of these principles; compactness means groups living together in an area, and continuity means they are connected.  Preservation of communities of interest, preservation of cores of prior districts, that is the substance of this, correct?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

That is correct.  The traditional districting principles take those factors into consideration.

 

At the top of page 6, is Illinois’ Fourth Congressional District, also known as the earmuff district.  You can see Chicago is the head and you have the earmuffs up above and below it.  A federal district court drew this district.  The federal district court stated they drew the district to create a Hispanic majority district.  This particular district withstood a racial gerrymander claim, because while the Court acknowledged they were looking at racial ethnic considerations when drawing this district, they were doing it to comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  When the district was reviewed, under strict scrutiny, it withstood that strict scrutiny because it was nearly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest of achieving compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  So, that district was actually upheld.

 

In the middle slide on page 6, we talked about minority-influenced districts.  A minority-influenced district is a district 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 an election.  For example, the minority group may be 35 percent of the population of a particular district.  So, the question has been raised whether or not that district has to be drawn under the Voting Rights Act.  The vast majority of courts have ruled the state is not required to draw a district, absent evidence the minority group is sufficiently large to be a majority in a single-member district.  There is no controlling law requiring the drawing of minority-influence districts in Nevada.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined on several occasions to determine whether the Voting Rights Act permits claims based on minority-influence districts.  They have had opportunities to review cases which struck down the requirement to draw minority-influence districts and they did not entertain that.  This is not the same as the Supreme Court saying you do not have to draw such districts, but they have certainly had some opportunities to look at the issue.

 

The last item on page 6 reviews partisan gerrymandering.  In 1986 there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision, which, for the first time, recognized political gerrymandering cases are justiciable under the equal protection clause.  This means the Court would look at whether or not a plan unconstitutionally violates the rights of one of the political parties.  In order to succeed in such a case, a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination in an actual discriminatory affect.

 

In the 1990s round of redistricting, everybody thought this would be where all the litigation was, but when they looked at how the test was actually applied by the courts, they discovered there has been no successful case showing partisan gerrymandering.  On the top of page 7, the Court set out the test you have to meet:  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.  This was a California case that was clearly gerrymandered.  The Court did not find that was unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, and there has been very little litigation in this arena.

 

The next topic we talked about, because of the use of multimember districts in the State of Nevada, was the Court decisions on multimember districts.  On page 7, Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 (1965), 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 equal protection clause does not require that at least one house of a bicameral state legislature consist of single-member legislative districts.

 

On page 8, in Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690 (1971), the Court held: “We agree that when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multimember districts as a general matter.”  So, again, when the court gets into the task of having to draw redistricting plans for legislatures, they tend to draw single-member districts.

 

Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), held that the use of multimember state legislative districts are not, per se, unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, but may be “subject to challenge where the circumstance of a particular case may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population.”   

 

That led us to Thornburg v. Gingles, which we talked about.  When you are challenging a multimember district to show it is unconstitutional, you would have to show the following: the minority group making the challenge is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; the minority group is politically cohesive; and the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it, usually, to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.

 

On page 9, you will see that federal law prohibits the use of multimember districts for congressional representatives.  The use of multimember districts in Nevada was specifically upheld by a federal district court in 1972.  That was in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

 

Finally, we looked at the requirements under the Nevada Constitution affecting redistricting.  Under section 5, article 4, it is the mandatory duty of the legislature to redistrict at first session after the taking of census.  If the legislature ultimately fails to redistrict during the session, the court could require the legislature to hold a special session in order to redistrict.  If the legislature fails to redistrict before the next set of elections, the court will ultimately step in and draw the plan for the legislature, because you cannot hold another election under the 1990 census.

 

On page 10, we talked about the requirements of representation in Nevada.  Section 13, article 1, states that representation shall be apportioned according to population.  The Nevada Supreme Court has held the purpose of this section is to secure to the citizen equal representation in the making of the laws of this state.  Section 13, article 15, provides that the census serves as the basis of representation.  We had talked about the use of adjusted or unadjusted numbers from the Census Bureau, but that issue has been settled in Washington D.C. as they have announced they would not be issuing adjusted numbers for redistricting.

 

Under the Nevada Constitution, we have some provisions governing the size of the legislature.  Section 6, article 15, limits the aggregate number of legislators to 75 and, section 5 article 4, provides the number of senators must not be less than one-third nor more than one-half the number of members of the Assembly. 

 

Finally, we talked about the legislature’s duties in redistricting.  The Legislature will redistrict the congressional districts, the legislative districts, the State Board of Regents, and the State Board of Education.

 

The last two pages of the handout (Exhibit C), is a summary of those principles.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Let me ask the audience; is there any question about any of the information Mr. Wasserman has provided for us?

 

Fernando Romero, Vice President, Hispanics In Politics:

Under traditional districting principles, protection of incumbents, I would like to ask Mr. Wasserman what he means by that.

 

Mr. Wasserman:

These traditional districting principles are principles that were specifically recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as permissible districting principles for legislatures to consider.  The Court has held it is constitutionally permissible to consider protection of incumbents and, the rationale was the citizens have a right to continuation of representation by their legislators and, therefore, upheld the protection of incumbents as a traditional districting principle.

 

Mr. Romero:

Does that take into consideration everything else; compactness, continuity, preservation, and so forth?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

Absolutely, this is just one of the criteria the Legislature can look at.  They could not use protection of incumbents for example, to violate any other constitutional principle, it is just one factor they can look at.

 

Senator Porter:

Mr. Romero, I can give you an example.  My senate district was done similar to that.  It is a donut around the valley of Las Vegas.  Senator Hal Smith was the senator when this district was drawn, and there is a sliver that goes into the donut to pick up where Senator Smith lived in Henderson.

 

Sally Devlin, Concerned Citizen:

I have a question from page 10 (Exhibit C), “Requirements of the Nevada Constitution,” regarding the number of legislators.  We have 42 assemblypersons and 21 senators.  Why not leave it at 21 senators and increase the number of assemblypersons so we can have representation?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

You could do that.  Either Mr. Erickson (Robert E. Erickson, Research Director) or Mr. Wasserman can give you more details on that.  You are capped at 75, and the Assembly must be at least one-third to one-half of the number of senators you have.  If you kept the senate at 21, it would then depend on what you would do to stay within the framework of one-third to one-half.

 

Ms. Devlin:

So, if we had seven more assemblypersons and just kept the Senate as it is, we would have differences in the numbers of assembly districts, is that correct?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

That is correct.  Anyone else with questions?

 

George Cantu, Concerned Citizen:

The notion of considering majority-minority districts, was just casually referenced, and I would like to ask counsel to explain in more detail what that really means to the Hispanic community at this moment.  I would also like to ask, in reference to what was just said about capping at 75, is this a decision made by the Legislature to arbitrarily move to that number, or is that controlled by other factors such as the growth of the population, and various other considerations?  The question might be, if you are at 63, would the Legislature be pre-disposed to move to 75 as a result of pressure from the constituencies, or is that controlled by other considerations not explained at this point?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

That is not controlled by anything else, sir; the Legislature could make that decision.  I am going to ask Mr. Wasserman to answer your first question.

 

Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  You will be hearing a presentation from Mr. Erickson on the Hispanic population in Nevada.  Being race conscious to the extent necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act, the Legislature is currently looking at demographics in Nevada, while at the same time, they have to walk the fine line of not going too far in considering race and ending up in the arena of racial gerrymandering.  I am not sure, beyond the comments I have made, if there is anything additional I can provide.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Mr. Erickson, do you think you can add anything to that?

 

Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:

I have some historical information for you; Nevada’s Legislature has been as small as 45.  During times when the economy was very bad, about the 1890s, on two different occasions in the 1880s, and also again in the teens, the Legislature went all the way to the maximum of 75.  In Nevada during both of those periods, there was extreme prosperity because of mining.  The first was the Comstock era in Eureka; the second period included “Tonopah and Goldfield days.”

 

More recently, in the 1981 session, was when the Legislature decided to change from 60 members to 63 members.  The 1991 session remained the same.  At this time, the question of how many members might be appropriate for the legislature, is again being considered.

Chairman O’Connell:

Does that answer your question, sir?

 

Mr. Cantu:

Not specifically, because I asked about the majority-minority district.  I wanted to know what are the criteria for establishing that.   My sense of this is you could conceivably have a percentage of racial minorities and a percentage of ethnic minorities within a particular district that would then constitute more than 51 percent.  The question is, is that on solid grounds, or might that be challenged if more than one particular minority constitutes a majority within a district?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I am going to answer the question and then go back to Thornburg v. Gingles.  The courts have not required legislatures to create minority-majority districts made up of different minority groups.  The main reason is, looking at the Thornburg test of being politically cohesive, it is a great assumption to assume members of two separate minority groups are going to be politically cohesive.  So, the courts have not required legislatures to draw a district.  Which is different than saying the Legislature cannot look at communities of interest. 

 

Clearly, if the Legislature deemed a particular area to be a community of interest, which included more than one minority group, obviously, that is a consideration the Legislature can make.  I will just reiterate Thornburg v. Gingles, basically interpreting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how you establish a claim under the Voting Rights Act.  A minority group must show it is sufficiently large and geographically compact.  As you saw in the first North Carolina case, you cannot draw districts 160 miles long just to create a minority district.

 

But, if you are sufficiently large, and geographically compact, if the minority group establishes itself as politically cohesive, and if the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate, the minority group would establish a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Does that completely answer your question now?  OK, anyone else?

Andres Ramirez, Concerned Citizen:

My question is, if the redistricting portion is based on census data, and the census has not classified Hispanics as a race, will it then be unconstitutional to build a district based on a Hispanic majority?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

The answer to that question is no, because under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, congress enacted a provision which says a state is prohibited from imposing any voting qualification standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of any citizens right to vote on account of that person’s status as a member of a language-minority group.  That is how congress included the Hispanic population in section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  Their intent was to protect the rights of minority groups based either on race, color, or status as a member of a language-minority group.

 

Mr. Ramirez:

So, if we were to draw a district specifically on the category of being Hispanic, it would be deemed justifiable?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I think you have to look at all the criteria when you are drawing your district, because again, you can cross over into racial gerrymandering.  So, if that was your only intent, if you sat down at a map and said you were going to create a Hispanic district, and forget all the rest of the other criteria, and it was not compact, if you were not preserving political subdivisions, then you could cross over into racial gerrymandering.  The task for the Legislature is to undertake to walk that line between being race conscious and complying with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and not going so far they are guilty of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.  That is also, I would note, in the joint rules of the Legislature adopted at the beginning of session, which demonstrate intent to comply with the Voting Rights Act as well as not considering plans with unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Does that help?  OK, anyone else?

 

Ricki Barlow, Concerned Citizen:

Just for a point of clarification, on page 3 (Exhibit C), “Racial and Ethnic Discrimination,” section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, provides covered states must preclear changes in voting laws and procedures, including redistricting, with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court.  For clarification for myself and members of the audience, would you please explain why Nevada is not one of the precleared states?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I would be happy to.  There are certain states with past practices of discrimination, this section was enacted to bring those states into coverage and require those states to have any changes in the election laws pre-approved either by the U.S. District Court or the Department of Justice.  They are looking at those changes to insure they did not violate the voting rights of minority groups.  Nevada was not a state under the formula to determine which states had these past practices of violations of the voting rights of minority groups.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Anyone else?  OK, go ahead Mr. Erickson.

 

Mr. Erickson:

I would like to report to the committee, just before I got here, I was over at the department of education here in Las Vegas for a meeting of the State Board of Education.  They are working on their districts now.  Their plan would have 10 districts instead of 11.  There would be seven districts here in Clark County and three for the rest of the state.  Our technical staff is preparing maps for them at their requests.  I just wanted to report, at least for the State Board of Education, they are moving ahead with their thoughts on a plan, and they will be presenting it to the two committees very soon.

 

Senator Porter:

Is there a deadline for them to get us that information, or could it show up in the final hours of the session?

 

Mr. Erickson:

We did not establish a deadline for them.  We were hoping it was going to come in on the earlier end, rather than the later end.  Do you want to add to that Mr. Wasserman?

 

 

 

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I suppose the only real deadline is if they do not provide those recommendations to you before you act, then you will still act before the end of session.

 

Mr. Erickson:

I am going to walk you through this exhibit (Exhibit E.  Original is on file in the Research Library.).  This information is all the tables we put out after the Census Bureau released its information to us.  They are also found on our web page at www.leg.state.nv.us.

 

Redistricting Fact Sheet No. 1 shows a very dramatic increase in Nevada’s population.  This is four decades in a row, forty years where Nevada has been number one in the nation in terms of percentage increase over the 10-year period.  Particularly in the 1990s it was remarkable, because if you start with a small base and you double, it is not as dramatic as when you are up over 2 million people. 

 

You will also notice, Clark County, 10 years ago, had 61.69 percent of the state’s population.  Today, it is almost 69 percent of the state’s population.  That will change the way these districts are established by the Legislature this year.  It means there will be more districts created in Clark County, most likely there will be a loss of representation in the rest of the state with the gains to come to Clark County. 

 

Redistricting Fact Sheet No. 2, page 1 of 4 includes racial data.  In Clark County, the white population is 71.58 percent, the black or African-American population is 9.08 percent, the American Indian and Alaskan native population is 1.11 percent.  On page 2 of 4, the Asian population is 5.27 percent.  The black population has grown about the same rate as the state population, and it continues to grow at a rapid rate just like the state population.  The Asian population has grown at a rate faster than the state population.

 

We have a small category here of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.  The next one is “Some other race.”  When the Census Bureau asked this question, I do not know what they were expecting to get, but 8.61 percent of the residents of Clark County said, “Some other race.”  We did some checking on this, the Census Bureau has not told the general public this, but I think about 99 percent of the people who checked “Some Other Race” also checked the box for Hispanic or Latino.  So, that is another indication, because keep in mind the Hispanic category is not a racial category according to the Census Bureau.

 

On page 3 of 4 of Fact Sheet No. 2, you will see another category called “Two or More Races.”  If you go to Fact Sheet No. 13, using the black category as an example, you will see for Clark County there are 125,885 people who checked the box, “I am Black or African-American.”  An additional 12,592 people checked the box, “I am black or African-American and One or More Other Races.”  This left a total of 137,477 people who said they were all black or part black.  The Census Bureau has gone into some new territory this year with the way they did their forms.

 

Senator Porter:

Local governments are doing their own census counts now, and it is very important to them because of the tax revenues.  There seem to be some discrepancies, and we are interested to know how that was left under federal law.

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I know some of the local governments are looking at whether or not the Census Bureau’s figures have been accurate for counting the number of people in their area.  There was a program the Census Bureau filed this time to allow local governments to appeal and bring to the Census Bureau’s attention, the fact that they were missing housing developments, or ask what areas they were planning to count.  So, they actually did it before the count.  That was the Census Bureau’s only plan method for allowing local governments to come in and question the number of people they were counting.  In the past there was a procedure they could appeal afterwards, but the Census Bureau is not using that this time around. 

 

Now, you are basically looking at litigation.  There are some local governments looking at litigating whether or not they can force the Census Bureau to adjust their counts.  I am not aware of any successful attempts through litigation to have that occur.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

OK, continue Mr. Erickson.

 

 

Mr. Erickson:

Finally the last category is the language category, the Hispanic or Latino category where a person could check any race category they wish.  This is a separate question on the form, to identify yourself as Hispanic or Latino.  This is the biggest most dramatic growth in Nevada’s population.   Statewide it is just under 20 percent; in Clark County it is about 22 percent when the census was taken.

 

Fact Sheet No. 3 talks about the make up of the congressional districts.  Fact Sheet No. 4 provides the specific population totals and the racial breakouts for each of the cities, towns, and census-designated places in Nevada.

 

Fact Sheet No. 5 shows the population of each of the assembly districts and each of the senate districts 10 years ago, and how they have changed over this 10-year period. You will notice when we did districting 10 years ago, we were shooting for a number over 28,000 in the Assembly.  This shows, if we do not add seats in the Legislature, each assembly district will now have to have 47,578 people, give or take 5 percent.

 

Page 3 of Fact Sheet No. 5 shows comparable data for the senate.  We have in Clark County some two-member senate districts and some single-member senate districts.  If there are any questions on that later, we would be happy to explain.

 

For a single-member district, a little over 57,000 people were required 10 years ago.  At this time, if we stay at a 21-member senate, we would have to have 95,000 people per district.

 

On Fact Sheet No. 7 you can check out the racial data by senate district and by assembly district.  There are very few little blocks in Las Vegas where you would have over 50 percent of a small block of perhaps ten homes, or some that would be over 50 percent in an Asian category or Hawaiian category.  I am going to concentrate on the black category and the Hispanic category.  In the Nevada Senate, Senator Neal’s district has the highest percentage in the black category, at 33.24 percent.  This is on Redistricting Fact Sheet No. 7, page 1.  On page 3 of 3, Clark County Senate Districts 2 and 3 are 35 percent and 41 percent Hispanic or Latino, respectively.  Clark County Senate District No. 4 is 35 percent Hispanic or Latino, which is a larger percentage than the black population.  Even in Northern Nevada you will find significant concentrations of Hispanics.

 

I have similar tables for the Assembly, on Redistricting Fact Sheet No. 8.  Notice the two most significant districts for African-American population are districts 6 and 7.  Assemblymen Williams’ and Arberry’s districts are 35.4 percent and 31.6 percent, respectively.  Page 3 of 3 show a number of districts where the population is over 30 percent and one district is over 70 percent.

 

Districts with significant concentrations of Hispanic population are: District 7, Assemblyman Arberry, 39.5 percent; District 10, Assemblyman Goldwater, 34.3 percent; District 11, Assemblyman Bache, 46 percent; District 19, Assemblyman Claborn, 41.8 percent; District 28, Assemblywoman Chowning, 73.6 percent; District 30, which is in Sparks, Nevada, Assemblywoman Smith, 33.8 percent; District 41, Assemblyman Parks, 31 percent; and District 42, Assemblyman Mortenson, 32.6 percent.

 

So, you can see the Hispanic population is indeed in a number of assembly districts in strong concentrations.

 

Going back to Fact Sheet No. 6, I would like to talk about the implications if the Legislature adds seats.  Senator Raggio had asked if Nevada’s Senate is small; he thought it was the third smallest senate.  In terms of the absolute number of members, Nevada is the fourth smallest Legislature in the nation with 63 members; the Senate is the third smallest.  One of those states smaller than Nevada is Nebraska, with a one-house legislature and they are all senators.  The only two states with smaller senates are Alaska and Delaware with 20 members each, and we have 21 members. 

 

Senator Porter:

As to the size of the districts, if we could go back to Fact Sheet No. 5, page 3 of 3; look at some of the growth in these senate districts in the last 10 years.  I know Senator O’Connell and Senator O’Donnell are representing 281,000 individuals right now compared to 114,000, 10 years ago.  Even Senate District No. 1 was 57,000 and now it is 208,000; there has been huge growth.  So, when we are talking about the size, these are real legislators representing real people and there has been huge growth as far as the number of constituents in some of these districts.

Mr. Erickson:

You need to look at the last column on Redistricting Fact Sheet Nos. 9 and 10.  On the Senate side, Fact Sheet No. 10, you can see the column called “Percent Deviation From Ideal 2000 Population.”  This is assuming, if the Senate is to stay at 21 members, for example, Senator Porter is 118.73 percent over what you need.  All the figures in parenthesis are way too small, and are all going to have to add population.  In the whole Senate you see we only have maybe four districts over what they need to be: District No. 1, Senator Porter; District No. 2, Senators Carlton and Shaffer, just barely; District No. 5, Senators O’Connell and O’Donnell; and District No. 6, Senator Rawson.  All the rest of the districts were short population and will need to take out of the districts that are over.

 

I would like to go back to Fact Sheet No. 6.   I would like to point out, the number of members does affect the size of the individual districts.  I was asked what happens if the Senate went from 21 members to 23 members.  The average population size of a district would go down from 95,000 to 86,881.  On Fact Sheet No. 6, page 2 of 7: If the Senate desired to go to 23 members, the Assembly must be at least twice as big, so the Assembly would have to agree to go to at least 46 members.  It could be higher or more than twice as much, but if we are looking at twice as much, then the average assembly district would go from a 42-member district, with populations of 47,578 and under, to a 46-member district with populations of 43,440 and under.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Let me ask, is there any question on the information Mr. Erickson has given us?

 

William Horne, Concerned Citizen:

You have asterisks on Clark County Senate District Nos. 5 and 6.  It says these statistics are the actual numbers of each district, as corrected by the staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Is there any particular reason why these two were corrected and the others were not?

 

Mr. Erickson:

Before the census is conducted the state submits to the Census Bureau what we would like them to include as blocks, and so forth and so on.  We call that census geography.  The Census Bureau did not exactly follow the census geography when they reported the results to us so we had to make those adjustments to make it right.  If you were to go into the Census Bureau database and look up this particular district, what the Census Bureau says is that district is not correct.  They strayed over the lines that were submitted to them.  The numbers we have corrected are the accurate numbers.

 

Mr. Horne:

So, this was just a coincidence on Fact Sheet No. 10 where district Nos. 5 and 6 are adjusted, and district Nos. 1 and 2 are over the numbers needed?

 

Mr. Erickson:

That is coincidental.

 

Anthony F. Sanchez III, Lobbyist:

I had a question on Redistricting Fact Sheet No. 2, page 2 of 4.  It was indicated that the 8.61 percent of folks in Clark County who were in the category of “Some Other Race,” were actually estimated to be 99 percent Hispanic.  Was that factored into the other chart showing 22 percent of Clark County was Hispanic?

 

Mr. Erickson:

That is a good question, but no, the other total showing the 22 percent is the total number of people in Clark County who are Hispanic.  If you remember the census form when you got it, question 4 or 5 asked are you Hispanic, Latino, or Mexican-American.  You would check yes, then later on there were the racial categories.  Some people left that one blank if they had checked it Hispanic earlier; others might have checked other racial groups.  According to the research we did, almost all of the people who checked “Some Other Race” were Hispanic, but they were already counted in this other category.  I hope that explains it; 22 percent would be the accurate number for Clark County.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

The second question I had is somewhat related.  There was some testimony with respect to what local governments could do.  Is it my understanding then, local governments perhaps have that freedom?  I know on the federal level the issue of statistical sampling was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether or not the Legislature is going to take a position on that, I do not know, but is that something the local governments can do independently?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I think your question is different than what we were talking about before which was whether you can challenge the Census Bureau to adjust their numbers to account for people who were not counted.  Now you are asking if you can use a database other than the census figures such as a local census.  The bottom line is, when the courts have looked at bodies using information other than the census for redistricting purposes, the legislative body has to show their information is at least as accurate as the census figures.  Just to address it on a state level, the Nevada Constitution requires the Legislature to use the census, so that will not occur on a state level.  On a local government level, if the local government goes in that direction, it will have to withstand that challenge in court.

 

Senator Titus:

There were some of us who thought we should use the adjusted numbers from the Census Bureau, because we thought the actual count under counted certain minorities, especially in an urban area where there is a transient population.  The U.S. Department Of Commerce under the administration, chose not to provide those adjusted numbers.  So, we are not getting those any more and we do not have that option, so the straight census count is all we will be able to even consider using.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

That was my understanding.  The last question is on Fact Sheet No. 5, page 3 of 3, regarding the senate districts represented by two senators.  Just for my own edification, I was hoping for clarification of how those came to be, and if that is done in the Assembly.  What is the history behind having two senators for some districts?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I think we will have Mr. Davie answer that.

 

Brian L. Davie, Legislative Services Officer, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Las Vegas:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  Actually, after this meeting I can give you a memo tracing the history of multimember districts in our Legislature, because we have looked at that.  Basically, Nevada has had multimember districts in both houses since statehood.  The Assembly has had single-member districts since 1971.  So, ever since then, they have not dealt with multimember districts, but the Senate has retained them.  Over the years, the use of multimember districts in both houses has gradually been declining.  Ten years ago we had multimember senate districts in Washoe County as well, and they went to single-member last time.  There used to be one senator and at least one assemblyman from each county, and as counties grew to provide for the population match, some of those counties had more members than others.  But, each county at one point, was guaranteed at least one member in each house.  As that evolved, when we got into population-based redistricting in the 1960s when the Supreme Court required both houses to be equally divided by population they retained some of those multimember districts.  I believe, at that time, there were incumbents who lived in close proximately to each other and it was easier to have those as multimember districts.  Some of that rationale probably has been retained over the years, but some of it has also been the tradition of those districts in being multimember.  Especially in the Senate, to some extent there have been arguments those multimember districts were provided with more representation for certain areas because they could go to two senators as opposed to one.  It has been an evolving thing in Nevada over the years, which has been retained, but it has also been reduced over the years if you look at the number of multimember districts.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

Are there 21 senate districts?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

No, you have five multimember districts.  They are all located in the southern Nevada area.  Senators Titus and Care, Senators Shaffer and Carlton, Senators Wiener and Coffin, Senators O’Donnell and myself, and Senators Schneider and James all have multimember districts.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

I guess my confusion is, you could technically have 21 different senate districts then, so that is a potential option, as opposed to whether you increase the size of the Legislature.  That is one way to increase the number of districts, which for purposes of whether it is the African-American community, the Latino community, or other special interest communities which would have an opportunity to carve out particular districts as opposed to the traditional method of the past two census counts.  Is that correct?

Chairman O’Connell:

That is correct.

 

Senator Neal:

It would be the choice of the Legislature to do that.  There is nothing in the law prohibiting it.

 

Ms. Devlin:

How many different categories of race were there in the census?

 

Mr. Erickson:

Because of the different combinations, I think there were 63 or 62 race categories.

 

Mr. Wasserman:

There are 63 categories because that is what the Census Bureau agreed upon using.  Their original matrix came up with many more categories than 63, but they managed to slim it down to a possible 63 categories when people were responding on the census form.

 

Ms. Devlin:

I remember one had nine categories. What happened to the people who filled those in?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

I think what you are referring to is when you are looking at the racial data, and the demographics in the state, there is a method to consolidate those categories, because obviously out of the 63 categories possible, in the majority of those categories there is not a sufficient number of people in the state of Nevada recording under that category.  So, those get collapsed into “other.”  That is only if they are under 1 percent statewide.  So, we are talking only of the categories that do not have a significant number of persons recording.

 

Ms. Devlin:

I have never heard that 1 percent number, thank you very much, as always for your information.  One other suggestion is to do away with deficit counties.  Senator McGinness represents seven counties and several are deficit counties which should be done away with under our constitution, and others should be created.  So, we have a major problem here which must be considered.  I certainly would like to see 21 senators and 12 new assembly seats.  That would give the rural areas more representation than we are getting now.

 

Senator Neal:

Let me ask you a question before you leave.  You have suggested the Senate would remain at 21 and you would add 12 Assembly seats, which would bring that to a total of 54 assembly seats.  And, your rationale for that is what?

 

Ms. Devlin:

My rationale is what we have just been looking over; with multimember districts, five of them would have ten of the representatives in the Senate.  The numbers are there, and could be split.  I do not see any problem there.  Now, in the Assembly, it is entirely different, because you have some with 95,000, some with 45,000, and some with 12,000.  I think you have four with around 12,000 and some with 90 something. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

You know I often make light of the fact the Irish are a minority who do not get represented, but there was a documentary about the Irish and where they came from.  When they first came over here during the potato famine, they came to Louisiana.  They got the plague, and it was called the Irish plague.  They were kicked out of Louisiana and, they ended up in Boston.  It was not until the Irish elected a representative, a mayor by the name of Sullivan, that their self-esteem became prevalent.  They started to get jobs in the community; they became police officers and the whole Irish community came alive.  It was a very good thing for the Irish when they got their own elected representative. 

 

I think you have hit on the heart of the issue, and what we would like to do is be fair.  The Latino community has become prevalent in this state especially in southern Nevada.  I work with Latinos and I have a lot of respect for Latinos, because very few of them are on welfare and there are very few homeless Latinos, because they take care of their own.

 

The question here is, do we expand the Legislature to 23 senators and allow the Latinos to have some form of representation, or at least a choice in their communities, or do we keep it at 21 and make the district such that the Latino representation is a smaller and smaller portion of a large district instead of a smaller one?  The question here today is whether or not to expand the Legislature to 23 senators and 46 assemblypersons or, keep the numbers as they are and not allow the representation, or dilute the representation and have the assembly seats at 46 and not 42.  That is my question to the Latino community, do you want us to stay at 21, or do you want us to go to 23?  Do you want us to stay at 42, or do you want us to go to 46?

 

Senator Titus:

I want to comment on what Senator O’Donnell just pointed out.  It is not a matter of just increasing the size of the Legislature; it is how you draw the lines of the district.  You can keep the senate at 21 and still draw a super majority Hispanic district, providing it is a community of interest and it meets these other qualifications.  Now, if you look at just a majority of any ethnic group, or racial group, or language group, that is not a guarantee a person from that district will be elected.  I do not feel that safe in a district with just 51 percent democrats.  I feel a lot better with 55 percent or 57 percent.  So, when you are talking about drawing a district, you do not want just necessarily a majority, you want to look at a super majority.  Constitutionally that is allowed if you meet the other requirements.  It is not just the size of the Legislature; it is how you draw the lines of the existing districts.  You could draw one of those districts with just 21 members.

 

Ms. Delvin:

I think you could, and I think that is very important to look at.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Madam Chairman, I think what Senator Titus said was absolutely true.  You can draw these districts to have one senator who is a Latino, but you can also draw two districts and give the ability for the Latino community to have two senators.  So, that is also an option.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Does that answer your question?

 

Ms. Devlin:

Yes, it does.  I really appreciate your consideration and your thoughts on this.

 

Mr. Ramirez:

Madam Chairman, thank you for calling on me again.  With regard to expanding the Legislature to provide more seats for Hispanics to be elected, I believe Mr. Sanchez asked a very interesting question.  Is it actually necessary to expand the Legislature or just in essence draw 21 districts, which would allow more districts and give Hispanics an opportunity to be elected without expanding the number of senators?  Would that be more effective and more in line with what our government is trying to do, given the fact we have such economic problems in providing enough funding for our community as it is?  Establishing more senators would only compound that.  Should we keep the amount of senators we have, use the same resources, and just open up more districts and give more people more representation?

 

Senator O’Donnell:

The cost of adding two more senators and four assemblypersons is negligible, the house and the senate are already designed, constructed, and the desks are already there.  When you have 21 senators I believe the number of constituents happen to be about 95,000 people.  If you are to have 23 senators, the number of constituents is 86,000 people.  So, you can see, if you draw a district to encompass some of the Latino community, and you have to have 10,000 more people, you are going to have to pick them from somewhere.  So, the district would have to have 10,000 more constituents in it than you would if you had a smaller district.  The ability to draw the line, as Senator Titus said, is easier when you have 23 seats versus 21 seats, because with 21 you will need to have 10,000 more people to represent.

 

Mr. Ramirez:

I understand that, but given the census numbers, Clark County alone has over 300,000 Latinos, so, even using a 21-member Senate, you can conceivably create two senate districts entirely consisting of Latinos.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Unfortunately, they do not all live in the same place. 

 

Senator Neal:

I am hearing something else that is not being clearly stated here.  I just came through an election, which counted the individuals who are supposed to be represented in my district.  There were three in the race, only one Latino.  The Latino got about 217 votes in the primary, and the other votes were split between the other guy and myself.  I wound up with the majority plus one.  I am trying to fix in my mind what is actually happening here, I heard something up north which disturbed me about the Democrats versus Republicans in terms of serving the Latino community.  I hope we are not trying to create a fight between blacks and Hispanics in the political arena.  When I look at the election, I have to take into account people like Dario Herrera who ran for the Assembly and got elected, ran for county commissioner and was elected, and who is now being asked to run for Congress.  Mr. Herrera and the gentleman who was elected up north, Brian Sandoval, both left the Legislature on their own accord.  When I hear Latinos are not being elected, I know that is not the case.

 

I do not have a problem with the drawing of the districts.  I think we should have the single seat districts.  I hope we do not get into any fights in terms of who is serving whom in terms of parties.  Nobody would win in that particular situation.

 

Mr. Ramirez:

I appreciate your comments Senator Neal.  The issue is not about competition, it is about representation.  I apologize if there were any competitive vibes between the African-American community and the Hispanic community.  It is not my desire or the desire of any person I know to engage in a battle between the two communities.  My question is simply on the number of districts and being able to provide representation.  As far as I am concerned, I never once thought Hispanics cannot get elected.  As you mentioned, Dario Herrera was elected twice, and both of his seats were non-Hispanic seats.  So, I do not personally believe you need a Hispanic seat in order for a Hispanic to win.  However, to have representation within communities of interest, I think is essential. 

 

In terms of “piece of the pie,” I do not think that simply because of an increase of Hispanics in the community there should be a decrease in the amount of representation African-Americans receive.  On the contrary, I believe they should have the same representation.  In addition, there should be Hispanics elected.  That is the proper distribution, I feel. 

 

Senator Neal:

You know we expanded the Las Vegas city council with the purpose in mind to try to get Hispanics elected to the council.

Mr. Ramirez:

Unfortunately, Senator Neal, I do not believe there were any Hispanics at the table to help divide the districts to ensure a Hispanic would be elected.  Not to say any malicious intentions were in the process, but when there is no one there to begin with, it is difficult for someone to say this is a district to cater to Hispanic communities.

 

Senator Neal:

Well, the council drew the district to bring in the people who resided on 27^th Street and that area around the freeway.  There were a large number of Hispanics represented in that area, but somebody else ended up winning the seat.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I need to let this gentleman speak.

 

Paul Willis, Concerned Citizen:

Just for a point of information, Assembly District No. 36 is the largest state assembly seat in the United States, and Central Nevada Senatorial District is the biggest geographic senate seat in the United States.  In the rural areas, we feel like we are a voice in the wilderness and slowly the voice is getting quieted because we will be losing representation.  Mathematically, if Clark County gains seats then the rural areas are going to lose seats.  That is why we are advocating raising the Senate to 23 and the Assembly to 46, to try to maintain the voice we do have.  As far as cost, it may cost some money, but what is the price of representation, and that is what this whole thing is about.  All the people in rural Nevada are interested in this and want this Legislature to expand to keep or maintain a status quo for our voice in the Assembly and the Senate.  We would like you to keep that in consideration so our voices remain heard.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We appreciate your testimony Mr. Willis.

 

William Raley, Concerned Citizen:

First I would like to thank the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff for assisting me with my analysis on my visits here.  I have a handout (Exhibit F), which consists of these remarks, and two spread sheets which summarize the information on the LCB Web site and the Census Bureau Web site.  One thing I have noted in looking at the numbers statewide is, if the senate stays at 21 members, Clark County will have about 14.5 senators; we would be gaining about 1.5 senators.  If you take the northern part of Clark County with 43,000 people and add people from all of Esmeralda, Mineral, White Pine, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, they would create an extra half seat.  It also has the advantage of not displacing any incumbents since there are no senators who live in those five counties.

 

Regarding the creation of Hispanic districts in Clark County, I would certainly welcome Hispanics in the Legislature, but I would trust you would not let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction regarding packing.  Having Hispanic districts is neither a prerequisite nor a guarantee of having Hispanic legislators.  In comparison, Assembly District No. 28 is 74 percent Hispanic, and their assemblywoman is not Hispanic.  Senators Matthews and Washington live in districts with populations less than 3 percent black.  Assemblywoman Angle lives in a district which is only 4 percent Asian.  In addition to redistricting, I think there are other things the Legislature can do to encourage Hispanic participation such as voter registration and voter education.

 

One thing I hope the Legislature does in slicing up the pie into 21 equal pieces of population is to also make an effort to create 21 areas of equal growth.  There are not a lot of new housing subdivisions going up in districts 3, 4, and 8, but if you drive west on Charleston or Alta there is a lot of vacant land there.

 

While Nevada’s situation with having two-thirds of the population in one county is very unusual, it is not unique.  In Arizona, more than half the population lives in a single county.  That county has also experienced more growth over the last 10 years than the rest of the state.  It is also approximately 25 percent Hispanic.  So, perhaps you can learn from each other.

 

Do you know if the Legislature will continue to have multimember districts, and whether a lot of the senate districts will have the same boundaries as the assembly districts?

 

 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Contiguous boundaries?  These are all questions that have not yet been addressed by the Legislature.  They are on our slate to be addressed but have not yet been addressed.  We are having public hearings before the Legislature begins drawing the lines or talking about those issues. 

 

Mr. Raley:

I would also like to point out, currently, Senate District No. 2 has almost exactly the ideal population under the new figures, so maybe that one does not need any work.  Also, in the spreadsheets in my handout, I have done my calculations on both the current 21-member Senate and provided the figures for a 25-member Senate so you can compare them. 

 

Senator Porter:

I appreciate your work Mr. Raley and looking at the back-up material you presented, I can tell you have put a lot of time into this.  I just want to assure you, the Senate and the Legislature want a fair districting process where all Nevadans have an equal opportunity to participate.  We are happy to provide these town hall meetings where individuals can stress their opinions and we welcome that.  The key is fair and equal access for all Nevada residents.

 

Denna Howell, Director, Planning and Redevelopment, City of Mesquite:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  If it pleases the committee, I would like to read a brief statement into the record (Exhibit G).

 

I am here before you today because Census 2000 did not count at least 6216 current Mesquite residents.  This has serious and negative consequences for the city, both politically and economically.

 

Economically, under the current tax distribution formula, using the incorrect Census 2000 population figure would dramatically penalize the City of Mesquite.  In fact, it would result in the loss of approximately $200,000 of tax revenue each year for up to three years.  This would be in addition to the city’s nearly $7 million dollar loss of revenue since 1998 under the current consolidated tax distribution formula.

 

Politically, using the Census 2000 population estimate for Mesquite would mean that Mesquite and other neighboring rural communities will remain in a predominantly Las Vegas-based assembly district.  The result will be diminished political representation for our residents, and residents of our neighboring rural communities for the next 10 years.

 

The State of Nevada has a well used, and well-documented system for counting population that more accurately accounts for faster growing areas in our state, because it is used each year rather than once every 10 years.  Under this system, the July 1, 2000, governor-certified population estimate for the City of Mesquite was 15,605.  That is a significant difference from the Census 2000 number of 9389.  Such a glaring and punitive discrepancy is not a matter of interpretation, or a minor oversight, it is a flat out mistake, a mistake that must be corrected.

 

We are here today asking this body to consider what is fair and equitable for rural communities like Mesquite with regard to tax revenue distribution and political representation.  We believe that what is fair and equitable in both instances is, for the state to use the July 1, 2000, governor-certified population estimate for the City of Mesquite rather than the Census 2000 number.  This would appropriately address the negative effect of the non-count of at least 6216 current Mesquite residents.

 

We respectfully request your serious and careful consideration of this critically important matter. 

 

I thank you for the opportunity to be heard, and will answer any questions you may have.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I believe Mr. Wasserman might have an answer.

 

Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  As far as the distribution of tax money, on a federal level, the federal government is looking into whether or not they are going to use adjusted numbers for those purposes.  They have addressed the fact they are not using adjusted numbers for apportionment and redistricting purposes.  On a state tax level, that is a statutory issue, which the Legislature could address.

 

Senator Porter:

It seems to me local governments can test population numbers most every year when it comes to some of these.  So, I believe there is a process currently in place for state tax revenues.  Is there not, Mr. Wasserman?

 

Mr. Wasserman:

Yes, there is.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

I have been enlightened.  There was a discussion earlier of the black versus the Hispanic districts; the black count went up, however, the proportion of blacks is less.  It went from 9.54 percent to 9.08 percent, as a whole.  So, if you have 21 senators then the black district as it stands now, would have to encompass more area and more constituents in addition to what they have now.  The chances are that particular population or representation, if we continued to stay at 21 members, would be diluted somewhat.  If we went to 23 members, it would be somewhat less diluted.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Ms. Howell, in answer to your question as to whether or not we could use the additional figure for the census, that cannot be done, but there is not a problem with your tax structure, because there is a process for handling that.  I just wanted to clear up that answer for you.

 

Ms. Howell:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

 

Jose Bolanos, Concerned Citizen:

I am here before you today as the first known citizen hired by the Census Bureau at a management level in the whole history of the census.  I serve as a recruited manager for the Las Vegas office for Census 2000.  In 1990 the State of Nevada was rated 49th out of 50.   We were the second worst state on the count.  In Census 2000 we rated seventh in the nation.  I believe that is one of the major achievements of this census because the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau understood the importance of diversity in the work force.  This allowed people like me to be hired and do a good job.  I do believe representation for Latinos and Hispanics is more than our food or our culture.  We do need the bodies to advocate for our rights.  We do need people to understand our feelings; it would be the right thing to do.

 

Luis Valera, Lobbyist:

I also worked for the Census 2000 as a recruitment manager for the Henderson office.  Just to reiterate what my colleague said, we did everything we could in our capacity to make sure the staff who worked on the census were representative of the community.  We would hope this body would advocate creating a Legislature to do the same.  Certainly, one remedy would be to redraw the existing districts.  To allow the Hispanic community to elect a Hispanic senator or Hispanic assemblyperson, would certainly go in that direction. 

 

Ellie Lopez Bowlen, Concerned Citizen:

I want to add a few more points for the record.  We have done some talking about redistricting in Nevada.  I would like to begin by telling you, the story of our lives is people focus on Hispanics crossing borders, but this begins with borders crossing us.  This was true when the area known as Nevada became American after its Mexican origin.  It was true again in the 1991 redistricting, when boundaries were moved which diluted our collective voice.  We are here today to tell you we want a voice.  We are here to tell you we do not want special treatment, this is about fairness and equality.  I would like to say we stand before you as very proud Americans and proud Nevadans and proud Hispanic-Americans.  We believe in our Constitutional rights, our right to vote, and our right to elect candidates who we feel understand our issues. 

 

Secondly, I would like to dispel the myth that Latinos do not vote.  According to statistics from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Hispanics are the only group in the last decade to increase their voting numbers.  In the 1992 election, 4.2 million Hispanics voted.  In 1996, 5 million Hispanics voted.  In the year 2000, it is estimated 6 million Hispanics voted.  This is in contrast to the rest of the population which has become somewhat apathetic and has lost votes every election. 

 

Between the 1992 and 1996 elections, the non-Hispanic vote dropped by 10 million.  In examining the numbers of Hispanics who are registered to vote, this has held steady at 59 percent, however, non-Hispanic registered voters have dropped from 74 percent to 72 percent.  We need to stop the stereotyping of Hispanics as non-voters, and remember we want a voice.

 

The problem we have seen with redistricting is, when a small Hispanic bloc is moved into a foreign larger district, the majority bloc will out-vote any of the Hispanics candidates.  Our voices are silenced and someone else is always speaking for us.  We want a voice.  This is about bringing fairness and equality, and it is our constitutional right.

 

Additionally, when blocs of Hispanics are moved out of their districts, the infrastructure of these communities is weakened.  It is a lose-lose situation for us.  We elected you to help us become a united and stronger Nevada.  We ask you to be fair with redistricting.  With our growing numbers, we need to focus on increasing opportunities for Hispanics.  This includes the opportunity to join you at the table and in decisionmaking.  We want to be there with you, we want to work with you side-by-side.  Thank you very much for your time.

 

Rodrigo Santa Cruz, Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your time and consideration.  I believe it all comes down to representation.  I do not see the dilemma in not conceiving of having 23 senate seats and 46 assembly seats.  I think these would fall within the traditional redistricting principles.  I do not think we are going against those.  Furthermore, I believe they also fall within section 13, articles 1 and 15 of the Nevada Constitution using population of representation.  The census clearly tells us roughly 22 percent of Clark County is made up of Hispanics.  Therefore, I do not see why we could not have those four and two seats accordingly. 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We thank you, and we appreciate your being here this evening.

 

Mr. Ramirez:

I have a question for Senator O’Donnell.  If we expand the senate to 23 seats, are we going to include multimember districts or, would they be single-member districts?

 

 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

That decision has not yet been made.  However, it is open, we can discuss it.  I think Ms. Bowlen made a very good point, she said, “we want to be part of the process, we want to be included in the decisionmaking.”  I think that was really a neat thing to say.  What we ought to do is, we ought to be including you in the decisionmaking process, including you as to where we draw the lines.  I would be in favor of that and I think the committee would be as well.

 

Marlene Monteolivo, Concerned Citizen:

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you.  I am here to tell you the results of the Census 2000 served as a wake-up call in Nevada, to wake-up a sleeping giant.  I am here to tell you the State of Nevada has a new accent and a new color.  The giant is brown and is bi-lingual.  That is why I am here in support of redistricting to allow the giant Hispanic community to have equal representation.  I am not asking for any special favors, I am not asking for any handouts, I am only asking for what is fair.  I am not asking you to do what is politically correct; I am asking you to do the correct thing.

 

I am proud to be a Republican Hispanic Nevadan and as such, I am here to tell you that all this time, the Hispanics have been divided, mainly because we come from 22 different countries in Latin America.  Today, the giant has finally awakened and realized unification is the key to our success.  That is why we ask for equal representation.  When I talk about unification, I talk about Hispanic Nevadans coming together with one goal in mind, equal representation.  When I talk about unification, I talk about Hispanics in the south working together with the Hispanics from the north to unify our state of Nevada.

 

We now see ourselves as Hispanic Nevadans, but primarily we are Americans who adopted this country, and who are here to contribute to the betterment of this wonderful nation of ours.  Based on the numbers, we deserve equal representation.  I am here to remind you, the Hispanics in Las Vegas alone enjoy a buying power of $3.5 billion dollars per year, which is a significant contribution to the economy of this state.  We are not asking for anything free, because the giant is a contributing force in this state.  The giant has awakened, and it is deserving of equal representation.

 

Hispanics are hardworking people, and I am very proud to be here today to remind you, the majority of southern Nevada has been built by the strength and sweat of Hispanic men.  I am also here to remind you, the number one industry in our state, the casino industry, is being supported primarily by the Hispanic labor force.  If the Hispanic labor force were to stay home from work one day, and one day alone, there would be a potential to paralyze the economy of the State of Nevada.  That is how powerful this giant can be.  We are not asking for any special favors, we are only asking for what is fair.  It is time to realize Nevada has a new accent, the giant has awakened, is here to stay, and deserves equal representation.  Thank you.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

For the benefit of the committee, after tomorrow’s 9:30 a.m. hearing, there will be a round table discussion of folks from the Latino community, and other communities are welcome to come and participate.  For the benefit of the community, this is a process which only occurs once every 10 years, so, it is a process not clearly understood.  We hope to get some clarification on what happens after the hearing tomorrow, in terms of deadlines and our ability to submit our own particular maps, or what we should look to after our round table discussion, as we do have a definite intent and desire to participate.  I came here and wanted to touch on the legal points, but I think they were very well covered by Mr. Wasserman. 

 

I did read the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion this week, which did reaffirm race can be a motivation for the drawing of a majority district.  It just cannot be the predominant factor in motivating the state Legislature redistricting decisions.  I think there are many controversial issues you will have to deal with, but we do appreciate the opportunity, and we will be participating to the extent we are allowed.  We would like to get a clearer picture of what we will be able to do from the committee’s perspective.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Well, you can almost do as much as you want to do.  You can do everything but “press the green button.”  You need to get your maps and information together as quickly as possible.  Both the Senate and the Assembly, through these hearings, are listening.  We certainly have a clear picture of what your goal is.  This is an issue which will probably be one of the last things decided in this legislative session.  It is a very partisan issue, and the best advise I can give you is, as soon as you have any information put together, get it to Carson City.  I do not believe we will have another opportunity to be down here in Las Vegas.  I will let you all know, in this building and on this floor, there is a redistricting workstation.  The computer has the ability of drawing district lines, and if you would call and make an appointment, Mr. Davie would be very willing to assist you in using the facilities.  Then, he could ensure we receive your information.

 

Mr. Sanchez:

On behalf of the Latin Chamber of Commerce in southern Nevada, Hispanics in Politics, Amigos for Democracy, and many other groups participating, I would like to insert for the record a copy of the Latin Chamber of Commerce 2001 report (Exhibit H.  Original is on file in the Research Library.). 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

There will be dozens of maps drawn, but the final map will not be addressed until the very end of the session.  Even though people are drawing maps for their own districts, that does not necessarily mean those maps are going to be accepted by anyone else.

 

Senator Porter:

To assure you, there are a lot of ideas, but nothing has been finalized.  The question I would have, as you are looking at your own communities of interest; do you want multiple-districts to represent your communities of interest, or do you want fewer districts with less dilution.  We are open for those ideas and suggestions as long as we fit those into the redistricting factors mentioned earlier.  As I look at the Hispanic Latino population, right now you have about eight assembly districts with over 30 percent of the population.  You have three with over 40 percent and one with over 50 percent.  As we look at these districts with a piece of a certain community of interest, you need to decide and let the Legislature know how you feel we should be looking at the lines. 

 

Senator Neal:

So far, I have heard concentration on the Legislature, we also have congressional districts to draw with an additional one more than we had 10 years ago.  We also have the regent seats and the school board seats to draw.  They are all in the charge of the Legislature.  I have not heard any concerns about those, particularly the congressional seat, which would be two right here in the Clark County area.

Mr. Sanchez:

From my own personal perspective, with respect to the educational seats, the Board of Regents and others, those particular races do more often than not attract folks from the minority community.  From my perspective, one of our primary focuses in the Latin Chamber of Commerce has always been education.  I think, on a percentage basis, you have many more folks from the minority communities running for those seats.

 

I would not want to leave here with folks having the impression the Latino community has won a victory in the redistricting process, if there are six seats created with 51 percent Hispanic districts.  Having been involved in campaigns myself, that is not a guarantee of anything.  I personally would rather have high concentrations.

 

Senator Neal:

Do you have any concerns about the congressional districts?

 

Mr. Sanchez:

I am familiar with an earlier proposal by one of the rural legislators to draw the congressional districts in three vertical strips through the state. 

 

Frances Montes, President, Hispanics in Politics:

We are a non-partisan organization here in Las Vegas.  I just want to reiterate what you have heard this evening.  We would like for you to consider the numbers of the census.  We want you to look at them and consider us when you consider the redistricting in a fair, equitable, and just way.  We also want to be part of the decisionmaking process.  We want this, because frankly, it impacts our Hispanic community.  We just want our fair share.  Thank you very much.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you.  OK, let us hear from Mr. Contine.

 

Ben Contine, Concerned Citizen:

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the committee.  I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you tonight.  I have two concerns when it comes to the redistricting.  Number one is maintaining strong communities of interest in homogeneous districts, both in the State Legislature and in Congress.  I am a homeowner here in downtown Las Vegas and I am also president of my neighborhood association.  We are continually dealing with issues of homelessness, urban crime, and those types of issues.  Having representatives who represent similar people gives us a more effective tool in fighting those issues in the Legislature as well as in Congress.

 

The second item I would like to address is the expansion of the Legislature.  I would testify that, not only is it important who is represented when it comes to redistricting, but how they are represented.  With the issue of expanding the Legislature, I would ask the committee to consider, with the shortened period and financial restrictions, we are already having trouble getting enough public comment, meeting deadlines, acting in an efficient way, as a Legislature, and expanding the Legislature would add more factionalism and inefficiency. 

 

I think it is important for the State Legislature to be able to take care of the state’s business in an efficient and proper way.  I do not think it serves the people of Nevada to expand the Legislature.  I thank you for the opportunity to testify Madam Chairman.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I think Senator O’Donnell has a question.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Well, you indicted the whole U.S. Congress.  There are only 21 of us up there and we are only adding two if the communities want it.  In Congress there are 435 members.  I guess that would be a heck of an indictment of inefficiency to the Congress.

 

Mr. Contine:

Absolutely, but the difference is, Congress has full-time staff and they do find it difficult to represent those amounts of people.  But with the State Legislature and the burdens already upon you, the part-time nature of this Legislature and the shortened 120-day session, I have seen the difficulty in getting enough public comment, and learning enough about each bill.  Adding more legislators would add more bureaucracy and would add more to the process.  I think it does not serve the people of Nevada well to expand.

 

 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

There are two things here that are going to happen.  The question was asked as to whether or not this issue had already been resolved in Carson City, and we are just going through a dog-and-pony show.  The answer is no, we are not.  We have not made any decisions.  The first puzzle piece which needs to be put into place is the minority districts.   Once you have determined where the minority districts are, then you can determine where the rest of the districts are going to be. 

 

As far as the inefficiencies, we have to weigh that against whether or not we are going to give the Latino community the representation.  So, do we weigh more on the fact it is going to be a little bit more inefficient, or do we weigh it more on the fact we need representation on effective communities?

 

Mr. Contine:

We can certainly create those communities of interest, and we can create Latino districts and still maintain the 21-member seats.  We can do that in a couple of ways.  We can either reduce some of those districts with two representatives down to one, or, we have the maps and the population, and we can redraw the districts and make Latino districts.  That should be something we strive to do.  It is certainly not going to be accomplished by increasing the number of seats.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

OK, I appreciate your opinion.

 

Grant Herdlow, Concerned Citizen:

Madam Chairman, I have watched the Nevada political scene change rather radically over my lifetime.  One thing most people look at, and it is valuable, is what kind of a neighbor is that other guy.  Is he there watching your back, if you get hurt is he over helping to take care of things, is he reasonable to deal with when you are trying to get together to build parks, these kinds of things.

 

We now have a new system available to us, and the proof of the system was in the 1950s.  Most people missed that completely.  I saw it again in California briefly, in two communities in the 1960s where terrible ghettos were created because of the civil unrest, except in two communities.  One was Palo Alto and the other was Berkley.  Those communities did not create terrible ghettos because the college kids went to all the new people coming in, mostly people from the rural south, with no education, no background, and no idea of how to live in the city.  The college kids went and talked to the kids of these people who came in.  The idea was to help them in school.  What happened, they passed on the middle class values, city values in California, which as you know, are a little on the weird side.  They passed on those values and those two communities did not develop ghettos, while everybody around them developed severe ghettos.  How anybody could miss that lesson, I cannot imagine.

 

The next thing that happened, we had two communities in this country, one was in Georgia, and they were called “Appalachians.”  Most people thought they were genetically defective and could not learn anything.  A private group came in, gave the seventh graders laptops with some interactive computer software, algebra, English and things like that.  When the kids learned how to run those computers, they took them home.  Their parents started to play with them.  It took a few months, but it straightened out the whole community.  It was absolutely astounding.  The federal government, with billions of dollars, could never have a prayer of making such an impact.   These guys with the computers straightened it right up. 

 

Same thing happened in Paducah, Kentucky not long ago.  So, we have access to tools now, we do not care what anybody’s background is, what their opinions are, or anything else.  If they are highly educated, they can work those things out.  But where we have rural schools, those kids do not have a prayer.   I was talking with someone the other day who finished Beatty High School with straight As.  He still had to take “bonehead” math and “bonehead” English in order to get into college.  What kind of a school system is that?  It is so easily straightened out with a few laptops.  The federal government spends a billion dollars a year in the Department of Education that would give us enough laptops to straighten the whole country out.  Nevada does a similar thing.  We have the money to do that and we are spending our time arguing, and dealing, and bickering about things that do not make any difference compared to something that can really make a huge difference.  I just wanted you to be aware this is available for you, and I think you are the right people to implement it.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We thank you very much for your testimony sir.

 

Reverend Chester Richardson, Concerned Citizen:

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of this committee.  Ten years ago we did not have one black elected official in northern Nevada.  A few years later, we ended up with a black assemblyman, two black state senators, and a black city councilman.  Our battle was never to try to create a district to elect a black assemblyperson or a black state senator.  Our goal was to preserve our community of interest.  At that time, our goal was to expand the State Legislature, but there was tremendous pressure.  There was a very influential newspaper writer down south who was threatening to do all kinds of things if we expanded it.  I am here to tell you today, I am not concerned about increasing the representation of minorities in our State Legislature; that is the furthest thing from my mind.  But, I am concerned about preserving the quality of representation of communities of interests.  I am concerned about our rural community.  I believe we should consider, as citizens of this state, insuring those citizens who live in rural Nevada maintain the quality of representation they have.  Not just in our State Legislature, but also in our congressional area.  I think we should do everything in our power to take their interests into consideration.  They already have enough of a difficult time competing with southern Nevada and even with Reno.  We should not forget them.  I am concerned about the voices of all people.  This is an opportunity for us to insure their voices are heard and not diluted into a larger majority of conflicting or different interests.

 

I believe this state has been doing a good job of representing the interests of all the people.  Senator Raggio was my state senator for 13 years.  He heard every one of my pleas and answered every one of my calls, and addressed every one of my concerns in his own way.  I was not dissatisfied.  Senator Neal is now my state senator and has been for almost 8 years.  He has answered all of my calls and, addressed all of my needs.  I am here to tell you, I want to look past the color of one’s skin and look upon the character of the people who are representing me.  Thank you for your time.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

You are very welcome.  Is there any further testimony?

 

Eberth Mendez, Concerned Citizen:

I am here to testify on behalf of the Latino community.  I think the Latino community needs more representation.  This is clear when you walk on the streets, when you go to different government offices, and when you go to non-profit agencies to receive services or to provide services.  I am proud to say I am an immigrant.  I came from Bolivia, South America in 1990.  I have two daughters, one was born in Los Angeles and one was born in Henderson, Nevada.  My wife is a Mexican-American, so I do have persons of Latino background in my family from different countries.  I do not have a special interest, but I do have an interest in more representation.  I would like to testify we need expansion of the number of legislators.

 

I am also interested in other spheres of representation.  When reorganizing the districts for the council positions last year, we saw some fracturing of the community.  Specifically, the Latino community was split into different districts when it really did not have a voice, or enough power to elect individuals it would like to have as representatives in council seats or in any other seats.  I would really encourage this committee to look into it.  Bilingualism is becoming something to be appreciated for anyone who lives in Las Vegas.  I see a lot of African-Americans and Anglo-Americans going to community colleges or universities to take Spanish classes.  We appreciate that and I think we are coming to a common ground where we want to understand each other.  We also would like to work with you.  We would like better standards of life for our families.   We would like the Latino community to be seen not as a burden, but as a community that works. 

 

When I came here I became attached with the real world.  In Latin American countries you hear many different things about the United States.  I can tell you I appreciate the time I have been here.  I have had many more opportunities than I had in my own country.  After being here 3 years, I became a U.S. citizen. As a U.S. citizen, I urge you to look at the Latino community as a community that is progressing and growing, and needs to be heard.

 

I want to say on behalf of the rural counties, right now I know the rural counties are not receiving the services they should.  The only way we can assure this is through fair representation. 

 

Stan Washington, Concerned Citizen:

I just caution the Hispanic community, it has been my experience that true representation comes from the person versus the color.  In dealing with politicians and trying to get things done for the people, I have not always had my best results from African-American politicians.   So, therefore, you end up going to the politician who is going to be able to relate and be compassionate about the work you need to get done.  For example, in my opinion, from a diversity standpoint, you would think a person who would have been at the forefront of that fight would be an African-American commissioner in Clark County.  But, as far as African-Americans are concerned, he was not that person.  I caution you, while you may get your Hispanic district, you better make sure you get someone in there who is not going to be afraid to step to the plate and fight for you and not have a personal agenda they are exercising.  Thank you.

 

Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist:

I just wanted to address a question Senator Neal asked, and that was, how we looked at congressional districts and how we would like to see those presented.  My main concern would be to preserve the congressional district for Jim Gibbons up in the north.  We are in favor of horizontal lines versus the vertical lines that I heard Senator Neal mention.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Senator Neal referenced them as part of one of the plans put forth.

 

Ms. Forsythe:

I just wanted to make that point, because in the rural areas we are looking at the horizontal line versus any vertical lines drawn within our state for the congressional district.

 

Gary L. Horrocks, Lobbyist:

I worked for the Census 2000 during all three phases and I would like to say, we tried our best.  My question is, does the decision of the Senate to increase its numbers lie solely within the Senate, which would then compel the Assembly to also add seats?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

It is in our constitution that the numbers must be one-third to one-half as many representatives in the Assembly as in the Senate.  So, if we did add two more senators yes, it would require the Assembly to add four more members.

 

Mr. Horrocks:

That decision lies solely within the body of the Senate to increase the numbers?

Chairman O’Connell:

Correct.  Both houses would have to agree to that.

 

Mr. Horrocks:

So, in other words the Assembly would have to agree to your increase in numbers, which would compel them to also increase their numbers?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Yes.

 

Mr. Cantu:

I tell you I was not too endeared to the comments the staff member made with regards to multimember districts.  It seemed to have been born more out of history rather than any enabling legislation or law.  I know it would be premature to ask you, and I think a number of people have felt the frustration, but what are you predisposed to in the Senate?  It may be premature to deal with it; however, I think there is a certain sense of frustration in that question. 

 

Could it be this particular Senate could be so devious as to increase the number of districts by five and increase the representation by zero?  You realize, if you are predisposed to do away with multimember districts, you could conceivably end up redrawing lines, increasing the districts by five, yet increasing your representation by zero?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I do not think the Senate is predisposed to a thing.

 

Mr. Cantu:

Well, nobody has spoken to that, and I think it is creating a certain amount of frustration with some of the people who keep asking the question about where you stand with respect to multimember districts.

 

Senator Titus:

I was not going to answer that specifically, but I would tell you there is not a possibility to add five seats and not add representation.  Because, if it is possible to draw a district which represents a community of interest, that is Hispanic or whatever that might be, if we did not draw that, we would be subject to a constitutional challenge. 

 

So, if you have a bloc of voters in a district to meet those other requirements, if we did not draw it, you could take us to court.  I think you have at least one district in there regardless of what we do.

 

Mr. Cantu:

I hope this is the case, however, you have to understand, in terms of the traditional criteria normally used, I remember Mr. Wasserman indicating that protection of incumbents is a priority consideration.

 

Senator Titus:

It is one of many considerations.

 

Mr. Cantu:

I believe people in power like to hold onto that power.  I do not think they are generally receptive to relinquishing it, so consequently, if you were predisposed to increasing the number of districts by five, you would have to somehow address those people who are in power.  I would find it difficult to believe, those incumbents would be willing to basically give up their seats in view of other redistricting considerations.

 

Senator Titus:

Here is one thing you are not remembering.  The population shift, whether we increase the size of the Legislature or not, will result in southern Nevada getting more seats.  Even if you keep the Senate at 21 members, southern Nevada is going to get 1.5 more seats.  You could draw one more seat down here where no incumbent would even be, so, you would not have to worry about that as a problem.  If you increase the size, then southern Nevada will get more than 1.5 more seats, depending on how large you increase the size.  Again, where there is no incumbent, even if you think the worst of incumbents, there will be new seats drawn, whether you increase the size or not.  If we do not draw a Hispanic district, you can take us to court.  So, I do not think that is going to be a possibility.  I think you are going to have at least one district, regardless.  You can make an argument for a community of interest, you can make an argument for compactness, and all of the other criteria, but I think you can put your mind at rest; you will be getting some districts.

 

 

 

Senator Neal:

One other thing I would like to point out that I think you should consider, is the Assembly is up for election every other year.  So, if we draw the district, the whole Assembly will have to run and half the Senate would be up for reelection after we draw these lines.

 

Mr. Cantu:

With regard to redistricting assembly seats, particularly Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning’s District No. 28, which is 72-plus percent Hispanic, would you be required to revisit that particular district in view of the high percentage of Hispanics?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

You have to revisit every single district in the state because of the population.

 

Mr. Cantu:

I am more concerned with the potential loss or re-shifting of populations within that particular district because of the 72 percent Hispanic representation.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

As Senator O’Donnell explained earlier, the first seats to be addressed are the minority population seats.  So, yes, Assemblywoman Chowning’s district would definitely be one of the first to be addressed.

 

Mr. Cantu:

So there is potential for the shifting of a substantial percent of that Hispanic population into either a new assembly district or into another existing district?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

It would definitely be expanded, because it is the smallest assembly district currently.  Assemblywoman Chowning’s numbers would have to be increased.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Madam Chairman, let me address the gentleman’s comments regarding power.  If the Hispanic community thinks they are going to elect a representative from the community, and that Hispanic is going to hold power, they are sadly mistaken.  We, here on this board, on this committee, hold no power.  All we have is authority.  That authority is given to us, and can be taken away.  Power is assumed, and authority is given.  We have no power; the power is in the people.  So, please do not send a Hispanic or a Latino representative thinking they are going to have power, because if they do, they probably do not belong there.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Not only that, but you are only one of 63 people, which makes a very big difference. 

 

Ms. Valera:

Madam Chairman, actually Mr. Cantu addressed some of the questions I had.  I fear my first statement may have been diluted by answering Senator Neal’s question.  I just wanted to re-emphasize, I do urge this body to increase the size of the Legislature because logic dictates that.  Given the growth in the state, it would make it much more efficient for representatives to be in contact with the concerns of their constituents, and make their representation at the capital a lot more effective.  I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

Mr. Mendez:

I just want to make a comment to what I heard about Hispanics being cautioned on electing people for the seats and thinking they would have power.  I have seen people when they get power, or when they get elected, who think they have power; that is very true.  They tend to do things they would not do in their normal lives.  I want to say, when the community has a representative, and it is a representative from his own community, the community children tend to model that individual.  That is the kind of model we are looking for.  I work well with blacks, Hispanics, whites and people with different backgrounds.  However, I think each group or each community needs its own role models.  I would like to impress that in your minds and I would like to urge, when we consider regrouping or redistricting, we think on that.  If the Hispanics would be the larger group in a district, would that district be enlarged to bring more members to that community, or would the Hispanic community actually be shifted to different districts?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

No sir.  When you have a center of population you must start with the drawings of the maps and the lines.  They must be started where you have minority populations.  Then, if you remember, the percentiles must be used from that.

Mr. Mendez:

What I am hearing then is, the minority community would be the center of the district?

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Well, it is pretty much the district as opposed to just the center of the district.

 

Mr. Mendez:

I just want to make sure we are going to get our fair share and we want to be represented.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

The law assures you of that, sir.

 

Mr. Mendez:

OK, thank you.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you very much for spending the evening with us.  With that we will adjourn the committee hearing at 9:29 p.m.

 

(Exhibit I was given to the committee but never formally discussed.)

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Sherry Rodriguez,

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: