Altering county districts could be costly process

Adrienne Packer

Monday, Dec. 14, 1998 | 11:04 a.m.

Creating new commission districts in Clark County may seem as simple as drawing a few new boundary lines and informing residents they have a new representative.

But as the county has learned during the past year, redistricting is an involved endeavor that could cost as much as $250,000 -- seven times the amount allotted by Clark County Commissioners in April.

When county planners present the complexity of the task to board members Tuesday, commissioners will have two choices: Go forward with the process or wait until the federal government conducts its decennial census.

Commission districts in Clark County have been off-kilter for years, with the smallest district -- represented by Myrna Williams -- containing 125,104 people and the largest -- overseen by Bruce Woodbury -- with 253,048.

The fact that the county isn't meeting the "one person, one vote" rule prompted Commissioner Erin Kenny to suggest redistricting six years ago. And recent cost estimates generated by the county haven't swayed her opinion.

"The cost is very inconsequential to what the ultimate result will be, and that is the basic constitutional right of one man, one vote in Clark County," Kenny said.

"It's time to right something that's been wrong for years, and this is the appropriate and legal approach to doing it."

If the county chooses to rewrite boundaries to balance out the districts, it must hire demographic and redistricting experts to generate population figures as accurate as the U.S. Census, according to the Attorney General. Otherwise, the county could be taken to court.

The county, according to a report by County Manager Dale Askew, would also have to appoint a redistricting committee to work with consultants and community leaders.

The state gave Clark County permission to redraw boundaries, which is typically done every decade after the U.S. Census, because its rapid growth has thrown population numbers out of whack.

Since the process already has been delayed six years and the county is three years away from receiving new U.S. Census numbers, many have asked why Clark County would spend the money on its own census.

Proponents argue it should be done before the election in 2000 and, besides, jurisdictions do not receive official U.S. Census numbers until two years after the survey is conducted.

Commissioners in densely populated areas -- such as the southwest and northwest regions of the county -- spend thousands more on campaigns than board candidates from smaller districts.

It's more costly to mail fliers and walk a district with 250,000 residents than it is to communicate with 125,000.

It is also more difficult to represent a quarter-million people. Kenny said when a commissioner's vote is weighed, those in small districts equal more than one vote and those in large districts equal less than one vote.

"The history of this has not been a rapid one," Kenny said. "This is very, very important, and it's been delayed by certain members of the commission."

Commission Chairwoman Yvonne Atkinson Gates, who has been accused of opposing redistricting because it may "dilute" her district, which covers much of North Las Vegas, remains vehemently opposed to the county funding the process.

She agreed that because of the growth rate in Clark County, redistricting should occur more often than every decade. But, she said, the counties throughout Nevada should ask the state to allow it every five years.

"Once the census is complete, it will be easier for us to keep track of everything," Gates said. "We would be starting off with valid, concrete figures and information, whereas this way we're sort of guessing."

Gates said claims that she is opposed to redrawing boundaries because it may dilute her district, which is perceived to be predominantly black, are ridiculous.

"My district is 52 percent white," Atkinson Gates said. "What they're doing is trying to make this a black-white issue. It's not; it's about representation."

The commission voted 4-3 in March to direct staff to identify redistricting options. Initially, board members suggested that staff members model the redistricting process after the city of Las Vegas'.

John Schlegel, the county's assistant director of the comprehensive planning division, said Friday that the city's method -- which dealt with averaging family size per household -- could have been challenged in court.

He said residents have already told the county they will sue if it does not base redistricting on the 2000 U.S. Census.

"You can use noncensus data to redistrict, but you have to do a really, really good job," Schlegel said. "It's become clear to everyone that if we move forward with redistricting, it will be challenged."

The county said the redistricting item was placed on a December agenda, as opposed to January when commissioner-elect Dario Herrera will be sworn in, because it must expedite the process if it is to be completed by the 2000 primaries.

The timing, however, may affect the outcome. When the vote to go forward with redistricting was taken in March it was 4-3. Atkinson Gates, Williams and Mary Kincaid voted against it while Lance Malone, Woodbury, Kenny and Lorraine Hunt approved it.

Hunt, who was elected lieutenant governor in November, will vote Tuesday. If the issue were placed on January's agenda, Herrera would vote. Herrera has said he hasn't done enough research to determine how he would vote.

"It's really sad that the item could possibly go through," Gates said. "We would be committing $250,000 and then if there is legal action, it ups the price more.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue so many times. ... I don't understand. But maybe it's not meant for me to understand."