Drawing The Lines In 2011
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Every 10 years the process of reapportionment is carried out, re-aligning the legislative districts and Congressional district boundaries to fit with the information gathered by the U.S. Census. The 2011 Nevada Legislature will be carrying out this process, along with the other things that are on the 120-day session “To-Do” list.
As we consider the details that will go into the project there are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to how things unfold. Expectations include the addition of another Congressional District for the Silver State, bringing the total for the state to four members in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Having participated in Nevada Legislative sessions since 1989, I’ve had the opportunity to watch the process a couple of times and can find validity on some of the points made in this piece by Kyle Gillis. His surfacing of ideas that are working in neighboring states are also worth consideration and discussion.
Of specific concern, (or at least should be really high on the list) is the outcome of the process with regard to legislative districts for rural Nevada. Under the current district configuration, rural Nevada has two state Senatorial Districts and about four state Assembly representatives (there are actually two full districts and portions of two other Assembly districts with significant “rural” territory).
Following the expected pattern, with rough population calculations in play – Nevada’s rural counties could end up with one state Senatorial District and maybe only a couple of Assembly Districts. Legislative Districts in Clark County might be drawn to cover a few square miles of Las Vegas while those living in the rural portions of the state will have their elected representative(s) covering the distance and diversity of several combined states.
When I first came to Nevada, there were those who I worked with who remembered the “good old days” when each county had a representative in the state Senate and the make-up of the state Assembly was directly districted to fit populations from various areas of the state. Somewhere along the line the one-person – one vote idea filtered into the mix and suddenly it became the accepted process that all legislative seats should be driven by population criteria.
While I doubt that the toothpaste on a state-Senator-per-county will ever fly again, I do believe that something has to be done to address legislative district size which doesn’t allow for an elected representative to adequately cover the district they were elected to represent. The easiest solution to this situation is to increase the number of legislators in the legislative bodies.
Since the past concern has been that the majority -- in terms of the community with the most people – doesn’t want to see their “power” diminished by dilution of there being more seats…leave the ratios as they are and increase the number of legislators for all parts of the state. The issue, at least in this context, is there being legislative districts that aren’t so large the person who is elected can’t get to the far-flung corners of the district. Citizens should have the ability to reliably be able to interact with their legislator and that should include having reasonable sized districts.
From our read of the state constitution, there could be arrangements made to increase the size of the Nevada Legislature and still fit the requirements of the governing document:
Every 10 years the process of reapportionment is carried out, re-aligning the legislative districts and Congressional district boundaries to fit with the information gathered by the U.S. Census. The 2011 Nevada Legislature will be carrying out this process, along with the other things that are on the 120-day session “To-Do” list.
As we consider the details that will go into the project there are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to how things unfold. Expectations include the addition of another Congressional District for the Silver State, bringing the total for the state to four members in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Having participated in Nevada Legislative sessions since 1989, I’ve had the opportunity to watch the process a couple of times and can find validity on some of the points made in this piece by Kyle Gillis. His surfacing of ideas that are working in neighboring states are also worth consideration and discussion.
Of specific concern, (or at least should be really high on the list) is the outcome of the process with regard to legislative districts for rural Nevada. Under the current district configuration, rural Nevada has two state Senatorial Districts and about four state Assembly representatives (there are actually two full districts and portions of two other Assembly districts with significant “rural” territory).
Following the expected pattern, with rough population calculations in play – Nevada’s rural counties could end up with one state Senatorial District and maybe only a couple of Assembly Districts. Legislative Districts in Clark County might be drawn to cover a few square miles of Las Vegas while those living in the rural portions of the state will have their elected representative(s) covering the distance and diversity of several combined states.
When I first came to Nevada, there were those who I worked with who remembered the “good old days” when each county had a representative in the state Senate and the make-up of the state Assembly was directly districted to fit populations from various areas of the state. Somewhere along the line the one-person – one vote idea filtered into the mix and suddenly it became the accepted process that all legislative seats should be driven by population criteria.
While I doubt that the toothpaste on a state-Senator-per-county will ever fly again, I do believe that something has to be done to address legislative district size which doesn’t allow for an elected representative to adequately cover the district they were elected to represent. The easiest solution to this situation is to increase the number of legislators in the legislative bodies.
Since the past concern has been that the majority -- in terms of the community with the most people – doesn’t want to see their “power” diminished by dilution of there being more seats…leave the ratios as they are and increase the number of legislators for all parts of the state. The issue, at least in this context, is there being legislative districts that aren’t so large the person who is elected can’t get to the far-flung corners of the district. Citizens should have the ability to reliably be able to interact with their legislator and that should include having reasonable sized districts.
From our read of the state constitution, there could be arrangements made to increase the size of the Nevada Legislature and still fit the requirements of the governing document:
“Article 4 - Sec. 5. Number of Senators and members of Assembly; apportionment. Senators and members of the Assembly shall be duly qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent, and the number of Senators shall not be less than one-third nor more than one-half of that of the members of the Assembly.It is understandable that political nature of the redistricting will always be an aspect of the process and while I believe that the article by Kyle Gillis offers ideas of merit – the primary consideration that I’m hoping to see addressed is simply having legislative districts of a workable size to allow citizens and their legislators work together.
It shall be the mandatory duty of the Legislature at its first session after the taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year 1950, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix by law the number of Senators and Assemblymen, and apportion them among the several counties of the State, or among legislative districts which may be established by law, according to the number of inhabitants in them, respectively.”
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/27/2010 4:45 AM 
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Reapportionment Nevada 2011 Legislature Legislative Districts
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Reapportionment Nevada 2011 Legislature Legislative Districts
NHFB participated in a ballot initiative about 6 years ago to guarantee representation from rural areas. Question 2 passed by a surprising amount since even the city folks could see the value of having "local" representation.
Reply to this