In redrawing boundaries for county council elections, two issues are salient: Voters have approved a five-district system, and districts must have similar populations. Any additional factors are political concerns that should be ignored by the commission drawing the map.
Despite the simplicity of those factors, the bipartisan commission has become encumbered by politics. If members fail in their duties, the task could fall to the Clark County Council — a group of elected officials likely to be influenced by their own self-interests.
In November, Clark County voters overwhelmingly approved increasing the council from four districts to five. More than 70 percent voted in favor of Charter Amendment No. 3, which also results in the county chair being selected by council members. Previously, the chair was elected in a countywide vote.
With results of the 2020 U.S. Census being released, the map that accompanied the charter amendment is in need of adjustment. This is not unusual; if voters had approved five districts in, say, 2018, redistricting would have taken place in 2019 and again in 2021, following population changes identified by the census. Complaints that proposed maps might not be identical to those approved by voters ignore the reality of the situation.
Auditor Greg Kimsey, Clark County’s top elections official, noted the incongruity. “For me, equal population was very important,” he said. “The other real big deal to me is alignment with the voter-approved map. There is not a judge in this state that’s going to take that voter approved, five-council map and say that was wrong. … Once the voters approve it, it’s a done deal.”
Members of the redistricting commission have narrowed the options to two proposals, known as A2 and B2. In creating a preliminary redistricting map, the charter review commission discovered that the A2 proposal would result in three current councilors residing in the same district.
While interesting, that fact is not germane to the issue. The redistricting commission is tasked with creating five districts of equal population in order to best represent the people of Clark County.
Ideally, those districts will be drawn with consideration for homogeneity and boundaries such as creeks or major roads so as not to divide neighborhoods. But the location of current councilors must be ignored. The maps will be in effect until 2031 — likely long after the current officials have left public office.
Proposals A2 and B2 each have benefits. A2 comes slightly closer to meeting the population target of 100,662 residents per district; B2 scores slightly better on geographic compactness scales. But as Kimsey pointed out, B2 better follows the will of the voters, which should be paramount.
Redistricting committee member Cemal Richards, a Republican, said: “The charter review board consists of all Democrats. Also, there were no opposing arguments in the Voters’ Pamphlet for this map. There should have been something put on the ballot asking voters if they even want a fifth district. We feel it was orchestrated to basically gerrymander.”
There are vast problems with those assertions, which appear designed to obfuscate the issue. For one, charter review board positions were nonpartisan and members were elected by the public. For another, voters were, indeed, asked if they wanted a fifth district. They overwhelmingly said yes.
Redrawing political districts can be painstaking work. But the redistricting committee should be able to focus on the will of the voters rather than politics.
