PHOTO/DENNIS MYERS
How Nevadans are represented by the candidates they elect could change, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court comes out on a pending case.
Anti-gun sentiment unorganized Gun control advocates may have missed a rare chance to organize in Nevada. As reported in our cover story this week, the flurry of gun bills in the Nevada Legislature generated a lot of anti-gun activism in Washoe and Clark counties. But there seems to be little evidence that it will survive as an enduring movement or organization in the state. A relatively new Nevada group, Nevadans for Background Checks, failed to exploit unhappiness over the guns-on-campus issue to establish an infrastructure for the future. “All they have is a website, no phone number or address,” said one Las Vegan who tried to contact the group. It had no lobbyist at the Nevada Legislature. That was all the more surprising because the organization had legislation pending before the lawmakers. Last year, Nevadans for Background Checks collected 166,779 signatures to place a measure on the ballot to require background checks for all gun purchases, including online and gun shows. In Nevada, such petitions go first to the legislature, which can approve them, thus eliminating the need for a public vote. The background check measure was introduced as Initiative Petition 2. It was killed in a parliamentary maneuver on March 11 and so will appear on the 2016 ballot. The death of guns-on-campus measures in the legislature spared the Nevada Board of Regents a decision on whether to disallow guns on campus in spite of a new state law. Court case law has held that administering state campuses is within the authority of the regents, not the legislature (“Empty chambers?” RN&R, April 9).
How to count 101
Rubio: Dump waste in Nevada Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio seems to have sided with South Carolina over Nevada on the issue of nuclear waste storage—at a time when there's increasing press attention on his need to win in Nevada. South Carolina and Nevada are the second in line in the 2016 presidential nominating contests. South Carolina has the second primary election, after New Hampshire, and Nevada is the second caucus state, after Iowa. Both are likely to get heavy candidate and press attention. South Carolina has been pushing for years for the opening of a nuclear waste dump at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain in Nye County, to give the Southern state a place to ditch 4,000 metric tons of radioactive waste from the state’s four commercial nuclear power plants and Savannah River Site. Rubio, whose state of Florida has nuclear power plant wastes at three sites, has been a supporter of building a Yucca Mountain dump. Since his announcement of candidacy, he has made no effort to walk back that stance. “Many Republican strategists see Rubio, a youthful Cuban-American who is among his party’s best communicators, as the candidate best positioned to reverse the tide in states like Nevada, where Democrats are looking to tighten their grip,” reported the Washington Post on May 28. Rubio lived in Nevada as a child and his parents worked in tourism facilities. But he reportedly wants to derail Jeb Bush in South Carolina, a state carried by both of the George Bushes. That makes the Palmetto State more important to him than the Silver State. However, the plot thickened this week when U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham entered the race against Bush and Rubio. Graham’s home state is South Carolina. That may require Rubio to rethink his strategy, since Graham would have a home field advantage. Graham has a long history of supporting a dump in Nevada. He said in 2004, “Outside experts and Congress have looked at this problem for years and we know Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is the appropriate location.” But in more recent years, he has shifted his attention more to pushing for refunding the money the federal government has collected from nuclear power plant corporations to pay for the dump. “Every utility involved in the process has put in billions of dollars into Yucca, so we should either use it or give the money back to the ratepayers,” Graham said in 2014.
—Dennis Myers
8 | RN&R |
JUNE 4, 2015
Court case could alter redistricting practices The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case that could have impact on Nevada— though many are uncertain what that by impact will be. Dennis Myers The case, Evenwel vs. Abbott, raises the question of whether voting districts should be apportioned according to their population or according to one portion of their population—eligible voters. Evenwel deals with local governing boards, but its outcome would likely eventually affect apportionment decisions for legislatures and Congress.
“The Constitution directly requires that the Census count include all ‘persons’.” Richard Pildes Election law expert
To read the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling being appealed to the Supreme court, visit www.tlc. state.tx.us/redist/ evenwelperry.pdf
The case was brought by the Project on Fair Representation, a conservative D.C.-based organization that has won court victories that have reduced minority voting strength and challenged affirmative action. Nevada’s founders required in the Nevada Constitution that both houses of the legislature be apportioned by population. In 1915, state lawmakers broke this law and created a system patterned after Congress that gave every county one senator (a “little federal” plan), thus malapportioning the Senate dramatically. In 1950,
voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that made this illegal arrangement legal. As Nevada constitutional scholar Eleanore Bushnell put it, “the legislature had explicitly defied the constitutional provision” for 35 years of state history. In 1960, the last census in which the little federal plan was used for legislative apportionment, the 84,743 residents of Washoe County were represented by one senator. The 568 residents of Storey County also got one senator. Malapportionment gave the 26 percent of Nevada’s residents who lived in 15 of the 17 counties 88 percent of the Senate (15). The 211,759 residents of Washoe and Clark counties had 12 percent of the senators (2). Since then, the small counties have steadily shrunk as a percentage of state population. If the same system were in place today, that 88 percent of the Senate would represent just 5.8 percent of the state population. It has become difficult to create small county districts, though the size of the Assembly and Senate have been enlarged to about the size their halls can accommodate. In its 1962 Baker vs. Carr and 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a remedy for this system that gave enormous power to regions with few residents. Baker found that legislative malapportionment was a proper subject for federal court review. Reynolds disallowed state senates patterned on the federal
plan and said that districts must contain as close to the same number of people as possible. However, in devising formulas for districting, the court did not spell out which people were to be counted. Virtually all subsequent lower court rulings have used the general population, a practice that seemed to be sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court until the court accepted the Evenwel case. “When the earlier court cases came to them, they may have thought of them as offbeat,” Nevada political analyst Fred Lokken said. “When they kept coming back, maybe they sensed there’s a trend here that they need to address. It’s no guarantee that they are going to rule for using eligible voters.” If the court decides to use eligible voters as the base number in calculating apportionment, its meaning is anyone’s guess. Lokken said it would have an “intense discriminatory” effect. “We count every man woman and child in formulating these matters,” he said. “Even if you’re not eligible to vote, that is your government.” He said basing districts on the adult population would be a form of voter suppression. Cases like this have come to the Supreme Court before, but it has passed them over. Lokken said its acceptance of this one does not necessarily mean it intends to rule against using the general population.
Elections vs. campaigns There is also speculation that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of using the adult population, more or less, as the basis for apportioning districts could shift influence from rural to urban areas—particularly in sunbelt states like Nevada. The New York Times quoted New York University constitutional law professor Richard Pildes that it “would be most significant in border states, like California, Texas, Arizona and Nevada, that have the largest proportions of noncitizens.” Scholars believe illegal immigrants tend to live in urban areas, though there have been reports from immigration officials of numerous illegal residents working on Western ranches. In an email exchange with the RN&R, Prof. Pildes said all humans are counted for the purpose of the census, numbers that are then used for congressional redistricting. Thus, non-voters nevertheless have an election impact because their numbers are reflected in districts—at least under the current practices. That could change if the court ruled against those practices.
