Friday, April 10, 1998 | 11:09 a.m.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN A RUSH to pass an ordinance or statute immediately perk up the ears of experienced government watchers. Unless there is a requirement that demands immediate action, most lawmakers are willing to follow precedent and go through time-honored procedures. Certainly, the hurry to redraw the election-district boundaries of the County Commission doesn't qualify for the rush it's now being given by a majority of commissioners.
This urgency act has given good reason to believe it's being driven by people wanting to create re-election problems for Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates. There's no doubt that a great disparity exists in the numbers of constituents in different election districts. Usually, the district lines are redrawn after the U.S. census is completed every 10 years, and that's what a minority of the commissioners believe should happen after the 2000 census.
Sen. Joe Neal, a candidate for governor, believes the move to rush the redistricting "is an arrogant use of power" and, very likely, also a violation of our state statutes and constitution. The proposed use of estimates of populations instead of solid information gleaned for the U.S. census flies in the face of common sense and good government, according to Neal. The senator is also aware of the political game being played to enlarge Atkinson Gates' district to endanger her re-election. Joe, after 25 years in the Nevada Legislature, can't be treated as a guy who just fell off a turnip truck as it arrived in town.
I had the opportunity to work with the Nevada Legislature when we reapportioned the state election districts following the 1970 census. For this reason, I have great respect for the ideas of Commissioner Myrna Williams. Williams told her colleagues, "I can't support moving forward with the reapportionment plan. Having chaired the committee that did reapportionment for the state of Nevada in 1990, it seems clear that spending staff time and consultant fees for a plan that, in my opinion, cannot meet a constitutional or legal test is a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars."
Williams concluded, "It hardly seems possible that a small group of people could even semi-accurately identify communities of interest in a county with 1,200,000 people without diluting communities-of-interest voting strengths. Therefore, a challenge in the federal courts could be a real possibility. If that should occur, not only would even more taxpayer dollars be expended on legal fees, but the case would probably not even be adjudicated before the 2000 census would be either underway or completed."
Both Williams and Neal believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau can give the commission a more accurate interpretation of state reapportionment laws than the attorney general. The attorney general might agree with this conclusion, because the LCB has dealt with reapportionment every 10 years since the one man-one vote ruling. The commissioners have asked the AG for an opinion, and Neal has asked the LCB for its opinion.
Neither Williams nor Neal are arguing that Clark County must wait until 2000, but rather are concerned about the possibility an early estimate will not result in a fair or legal conclusion. They point to the ruling in Burns vs. Reynolds, 384US73, 1966, which made clear the U.S. census must be used or some other method that is just as accurate. This is their main concern, because the Mickey Mouse proposal now before the commission shows little similarity to the U.S. census.
Neal points out that Nevada has deferred to the U.S. census since 1870 and complies with the ruling in Burns vs. Reynolds. Neal told the commissioners, "Estimates are not recognized because they are not as accurate as the census. Moreover, the commission has visited the Legislature two times, in 1991 and 1993, in an attempt to change the law to allow it to be reapportioned more frequently. Each time, the commission failed to get legislative approval. It would seem that the commission was well aware of the lack of authority to proceed; nevertheless, this commission has chosen to move forward with reapportionment without legislative authority."
To go ahead with their shortcut redistricting plan is, according to Neal, "arrogant" and illegal. He's telling them now to prevent the cost of taxpayers' dollars and the whining of commissioners if they proceed with this latest political scam.
archive
