Commission boundaries debated

Jeff Schweers

Friday, Feb. 27, 1998 | 10:10 a.m.

Re-drawing Clark County Commission district boundaries in time for this year's elections is impossible, but could be done in time for the 2000 elections, county administrators advise.

However, the most accurate and cost-effective plan would be to wait until after the 2000 census, they said.

"The next decennial census population counts would clearly be a reliable and legal basis for reapportionment," County Manager Dale Askew told commissioners in a Feb. 25 memo briefing them for Tuesday's agenda.

Census data will be available in time for the 2002 elections, Askew said.

"Reapportionment before the census results are available in the year 2001 would be based on less reliable population estimates and would affect the districts for the year 2000 commissioner elections," Askew said.

Concerns were raised that the disparity in commission district populations violates the one-person, one-vote rule. The difference between the largest and smallest commission district is 102,000 residents, or 45 percent.

Even if reapportionment was undertaken immediately, it would not be completed in time for this year's elections, Askew said. Besides, the county has already spent $100,000 to mail cards to every registered voter to notify them of their new polling places.

Assistant County Manager Bonnie Rinaldi said the board must also weigh the reliability of the data and the $4 million cost of running population numbers versus the benefit to the public.

"In reality there is only one election cycle we think it would affect," Rinaldi said. And county planners can't even rate the accuracy of their best available population estimates, she said.

Commissioner Erin Kenny, who is up for re-election this year, said that the disparity requires immediate attention.

"Certain districts and commissioners are carrying the burden of the population," Kenny said last week.

Encouraged by a recent state attorney general's opinion that said counties can re-draw boundaries more often than every 10 years, Kenny has placed the item on Tuesday's agenda.

The opinion was issued to Washoe County officials who wanted to re-draw district boundaries because their populations varied by 17 to 24 percent. The attorney general said counties can reapportion districts sooner than every 10 years if practical, and as long as it doesn't pose an undue burden.

However, state law has no guidelines for how much districts can vary before reapportionment becomes necessary.

Kenny last asked the board to consider early reapportionment in September 1996. But then-County Counsel Mahlon Edwards said legislative changes were required to reapportion based on population other than the decennial census. Using less accurate data could open the reapportionment to a court challenge, Edwards said.

Askew said that "any reapportionment should be considered carefully, allowing room for expected growth in the election districts so that districts need be adjusted as seldom as possible."

Askew added that new district boundaries must be careful to "respect and not dilute minority representation."