(Senate Republican Caucus) – The following is some detailed background information concerning the Nevada Republican redistricting proposal:
Guidelines
There are a number of things to consider in the redistricting process. Most important of these, however, are two critical legal requirements. The first is that districts must be as equal in population as practicable. The numerical equality of districts is measured by the deviation of a population from its ideal population. The second is that the voting strength of minority groups must be preserved. All plans must satisfy these fundamental requirements before they can be considered valid.
Once those requirements have been met, other considerations may include compactness, incumbent protection, existing boundary lines such as counties and political subdivisions, contiguity, and other geographic and natural features.
The Republican redistricting plans fully comply with all legal requirements, and make good-faith efforts to respect existing county boundaries, protect incumbents, and preserve communities of interest wherever possible.
Fair and Equal Representation
One Person, One Vote
In order to be as fair as possible, all plans comply with Constitutional requirements that district populations be as equal as practicable. We believe that with the technology available today, there is no reason that any district in any plan should deviate from the ideal populations by more than the following:
• In the Congressional plan, districts do not deviate from the ideal population at all, except in one necessary instance due to Nevada’s total population being an odd, and not even, figure. (The total population in Nevada is 2,700,551 and the official target population for Congressional districts is 675,138.) Absolute equality in Congressional plans is also mandated by Article 1, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution.
• In the Nevada Senate plan, no district deviates from the official ideal population (129,598) by more than one tenth of one percent (0.1%).
• In the Nevada Assembly plan, no district deviates from the official ideal population (64,299) by more than half of one percent (0.5%).
The Voting Rights Act And Its Purpose
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to ensure that states did not use the redistricting process as a means to dilute the voting strength of minority communities.
Section 2 of the VRA establishes requirements that are not optional, avoidable, or merely aspirational. Therefore, each and every proposed plan, no matter the drafter or the forum at which it is introduced must comply with the specific demands of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act governs every state, county, and municipality in the United States. A violation of Section 2 occurs if:
[B]ased on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political process leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivisions are not equally open to participation by members of . . .[a racial, color, or language minority class] . . . in that its members have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
42 U.S.C. § 1973 (b) (2006).
How Are Minority Votes Diluted?
The VRA generally works to protect against two types of redistricting-related harms:
• Fracturing
“Fracturing” occurs when a group of minority voters is broken off from a concentration of minority voters and added to a large majority white district.
This results in the subversion of minority voters in the majority white district: “[F]ragmenting the minority voters among several districts where a bloc-voting majority can routinely outvote them” dilutes the minority vote. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1007 (1994).
“In the context of single-member districts, the usual device for diluting minority voting power is the manipulation of district lines. A politically cohesive minority group that is large enough to constitute the majority in a single-member district has a good chance of electing its candidate of choice, if the group is placed in a district where it constitutes a majority. Dividing the minority group among various districts so that it is a majority in none may prevent the group from electing its candidate of choice: If the majority in each district votes as a bloc against the minority candidate, the fragmented minority group will be unable to muster sufficient votes in any district to carry its candidate to victory.”
Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153 (1993).
• Packing
“Packing” occurs when a minority group is concentrated into one or more districts so that the group constitutes an overwhelming majority in those districts, thus minimizing the number of districts in which the minority could elect candidates of its choice.
“How such concentration or “packing” may dilute minority voting strength is not difficult to conceptualize. A minority group, for example, might have sufficient numbers to constitute a majority in three districts. So apportioned, the group inevitably will elect three candidates of its choice, assuming the group is sufficiently cohesive. But if the group is packed into two districts in which it constitutes a super-majority, it will be assured only two candidates. As a result, we have recognized that “[d]ilution of racial minority group voting strength may be caused” either “by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority.”
Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153-54 (1993).
How The Voting Rights Act Protects Against Vote Dilution
• Prohibiting Fracturing
By Mandating the Creation of Majority-Minority Districts
To facilitate the requirements of Section 2 of the VRA, the law most likely compels the creation of majority-minority districts if the conditions below are met. Failure to draw the required majority-minority districts is a violation of the law.
A plaintiff would have a claim under the VRA if he or she could prove all of the following:
o The minority group must be politically cohesive (vote for the same candidates).
o The minority group must vote for a candidate that is different from the candidate that the white majority votes for, so that the white majority could always defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate. (This is what we mean by racially polarized voting).
o The minority group must be large enough and compact enough that it would constitute a 50% + 1 majority of the voting age population in a single member district.
See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986); see also Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).
• Prohibiting Packing
The Voting Rights Act outlaws packing because it can prevent the creation of additional majority-minority districts by concentrating minorities within as few districts as possible.
o The courts have not established a clear threshold for packing.
o The VRA clearly mandates the creation of majority-minority districts when possible, so certainly a 51% majority could not be characterized as packing.
o However, as minority communities begin to approach 60% and 70% in any district, the issue of packing is something that ought to be considered.
o If a super-majority-minority-district is drawn, have you denied that minority group an additional majority-minority district?
Race As The Predominant Factor
Democrats have said that Republicans used race as the predominant factor when creating plans and that doing so violates the VRA. They are wrong on both counts.
First, the VRA does not outlaw the consideration of race when drawing lines — it mandates it.
The “race-as-a-predominant-factor” prohibition does not come from the VRA but from the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. White voters brought challenges to redistricting plans that they felt favored minority groups too much. They claimed that their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment had been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 640 (1993).
The districts in those plans were very bizarrely shaped. It was obvious that they were drawn solely to give minorities more voting power than other groups (who did not have districts drawn in such a way).
The Republican plan has geographically compact districts. Even the majority-minority districts are compact and standard. Thus, there can be no claim that we racially gerrymandered the map.
Second, even if they could somehow prove that we engaged in racial gerrymandering, complying with the VRA is a compelling state interest.
Therefore, creating the mandatory majority-minority districts would likely trump any claim for racial gerrymandering. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 909-910 (1996)
Minority Districts In The Republican Plans
According to the 2010 Census, Hispanics represent more than 26% of Nevada’s population. The Republican Congressional plan ensures that members of the Hispanic community will have opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice to Nevada’s Congressional delegation.
Additionally, the legislative plans create opportunities for the Hispanic community to increase its representation in the Nevada Legislature.
As mandated by the Voting Rights Act, districts in all three Republican plans have been drawn to protect the voting strength of minority communities wherever they clearly exist, are geographically compact, and constitute a majority of the population in the area. At the same time, the Republican plan preserves historic African-American districts and prevents “packing” by keeping the total Hispanic population under 60% in all of the majority-minority districts.
• The Republican Congressional plan creates one majority-Hispanic district in which the Hispanic community comprises 50.7% of the total population, and 44.3% of the voting age population.
• The Republican Senate plan creates four majority-Hispanic districts (in which Hispanics comprise over 50% of the population). In three of those, Hispanics are also a majority of the voting age population. It also preserves an historic African-American district (where African-Americans comprise 38% of the voting age population).
o In Clark County, Hispanics in majority-minority districts comprise the following percentages of total population and voting age population:
District 3 – Total Population: 58%; HVAP: 51%
District 2 – Total Population: 57%; HVAP: 51%
District 10 – Total Population: 51%; HVAP 44%
District 20 – Total Population: 57%; HVAP: 51%
• The Republican Assembly plan creates eight majority-Hispanic districts (in which Hispanics comprise over 50% of the population). In seven of those, Hispanic are also a majority of the voting age population. It also preserves an historic African-American district (where African-Americans comprise 37.8% of the voting age population).
o In Clark County, Hispanics in majority-minority districts comprise the following percentages of total population and voting age population:
District 3 – Total Population: 58%; HVAP: 52%
District 7 – Total Population: 57%; HVAP: 50.4%
District 11 – Total Population: 58%; HVAP: 50%
District 12 – Total Population 59%; HVAP: 52%
District 14 – Total Population: 56%; HVAP: 50.2%
District 15 – Total Population 56%; HVAP: 50.2%
District 28 – Total Population: 56%; HVAP: 50.1%
o In Washoe County, Hispanics in majority-minority districts comprise the following percentages of total population and voting age population:
District 31 – Total Population 51%; HVAP 43%
Minority Districts In The Democrat Plans
• The Democrat Senate plan creates only two majority-Hispanic districts.
o In Clark County, Hispanics comprise the following percentages of total population and voting age population:
District 2 – Total Population: 63%; HVAP: 57%
District 10 – Total Population: 58%; HVAP: 51%
• The Democrat Assembly plan creates only three majority-Hispanic districts.
o In Clark County, Hispanics comprise the following percentages of total population and voting age population:
District 11 – Total Population: 71%; HVAP: 66%
District 19 – Total Population: 53%; HVAP: 47%
District 28 — Total Population: 73%; HVAP: 67%
Contrast: Congress
• As the Democrats have not yet produced a Congressional plan so we do not know what it will look like.
• According to the official Census figures, in Clark County, most of the Hispanic community is concentrated in a geographically compact area – you can clearly draw a line around it.
• Inside that area, Hispanics are a majority – barely a majority at 50.7 percent.
• Any plan that does not begin with a majority-Hispanic district in Clark County, as the Republican plan does, is discriminatory and probably illegal.
• According to the Census, 1 out of every 4 Nevadans is Hispanic. That’s a fact. Even if we ignore the law, as the Democrats seem to want to do, it just makes sense that 1 of our 4 Congressional districts has a chance to elect a Hispanic from our community to represent us in Washington, DC.
Contrast: Nevada Legislature
• The legislative plan that Democrats have drawn drives wedges into the Hispanic community and ensures that Hispanics will always be in the minority in future elections.
• By breaking a cohesive community into pieces, Democrats are putting smaller groups of Hispanics into districts where the majority of the electorate is white.
• Democrats are making it more difficult for Hispanics to elect Hispanic candidates to represent their community.
• We should not be putting partisan politics ahead of what is morally right for the Hispanic community and legally mandated by the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Hispanic Representation
• It has been noted that Hispanics accounted for 46% of the total population growth in Nevada over the last ten years. The Republican plan reflects that and gives Hispanics the opportunity to double their representation in Carson City.
o There are currently 9 Hispanics in the Nevada Legislature – 7 in the Assembly and 2 in the Senate.
o The Republican plan creates a total of 12 majority-Hispanic legislative districts, while the Democrat plan creates only 5.
o 7 of those districts in the Republican plan are currently not represented by Hispanics, giving them 7 new opportunities to elect Hispanic candidates.
o 7 new Hispanic legislators would mean a total of 19 Hispanics in Nevada’s legislature, or roughly 30% of the entire body.
• Under the Democrat legislative plans, there would be NO opportunities for Hispanics to increase their representation in the Nevada Legislature.
o There are currently 9 Hispanics in the Nevada Legislature.
o The Democrat plan creates 8 majority-Hispanic districts.
o All 8 of those majority-Hispanic districts are currently held by Hispanic incumbents.
o Given the dramatic growth of the Hispanic community over the last ten years, preserving the status quo in terms of Hispanic representation in the legislature is unfair and inappropriate.
Political Composition
• In the most recent general election, Nevada voters elected two Republicans and one Democrat to represent them in Congress.
• Governor Sandoval received more votes than any other candidate on the ballot
• The 2010 election resulted in more votes cast for Republican candidates than Democrat candidates :
o In the Gubernatorial race, GOP candidate received +12% more votes
o Across Congressional races, GOP candidates received +6% more votes
o Across Senate races, GOP candidates received +15% more votes
o Across Assembly races, GOP candidates received +10% more votes
The Republican Congressional plan creates:
• 2 districts that are likely to elect Democrat candidates
• 2 district that are likely to elect Republican candidates
The Republican Senate plan creates:
• 9 districts likely to elect Democrat candidates
• 4 districts likely to elect Republican candidates
• 8 competitive districts
The Republican Assembly plan creates:
• 20 districts likely to elect Democratic candidates
• 8 districts likely to elect Republican candidates
• 14 competitive districts
The Democrat Congressional plan creates:
• 3 districts likely to elect Democrat candidates
• 1 district likely to elect a Republican candidate
The Democrat Senate plan creates:
• 13 districts likely to elect Democrat candidates
• 5 districts likely to elect Republican candidates
• 3 competitive districts
The Democrat Assembly plan creates:
• 26 districts likely to elect Democratic candidates
• 8 districts likely to elect Republican candidates
• 8 competitive districts
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
RSS