(Troy La Mana) – The City of Henderson has encouraged its residents to “look at the numbers” as justification for another round of redistricting. So, let’s do just that.
A Closer Look at Growth
According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Henderson is growing — but not at the top of the list. With a 2025 growth rate of 2.2%, Henderson ranks as the third-fastest growing city in Nevada, not the first as some might suggest. And while growth brings challenges, it’s worth noting how other Nevada cities handle the same issue.
Cities like Las Vegas and North Las Vegas rely on decennial Census data to evaluate and implement redistricting. Las Vegas redistricted in 2021, North Las Vegas followed in 2023, and both are planning to wait until after the 2030 Census before making any further changes. Why? Because they use independent, verifiable population data to drive decision-making.
Henderson, on the other hand, operates under a different standard.
A Self-Serving System?
In 2013, Henderson amended its City Charter to allow internal staff — the city’s own Demographer and Planning Department — to provide population figures for redistricting. These departments, it should be noted, report directly to the City Manager and ultimately serve at the discretion of the Mayor and City Council.
This creates an obvious and glaring conflict of interest: the same people with political and electoral stakes in the outcome are the ones controlling the data used to determine ward boundaries.
The 2023 Redistricting and a Political Backdrop
The most recent redistricting in August 2023 came shortly after a surprising political upset. The city’s preferred and heavily funded candidate lost to Carrie Cox, who handily won all but two precincts in Ward 3 during her 2022 election.
Following that upset, the city claimed Ward 3 and neighboring Ward 4 were “out of balance” due to population changes — again, based not on Census data, but internal estimates. The result? A redrawn map that happened to work favorably for Cox. But fast forward to 2025, and the stakes have shifted again.
A New Challenger, A New Map
With the 2026 election on the horizon, Cox is a well-positioned incumbent: popular, well-funded, and supported by her constituents. So how does the city respond? By recruiting a new challenger, Annette Dawson Owens, who lost her Assembly District 29 race by more than 1,400 votes — and performed poorly in nearly all of Ward 3’s precincts.
Shortly after Owens was endorsed by the Mayor and Council, another redistricting proposal quietly made its way onto the August 5th agenda — Item 32. The justification? Once again, alleged population imbalance based on staff-generated numbers.
But this time, the process appears even more suspect.
Two Redistricting Options, One Obvious Goal
The city has offered two redistricting “solutions”:
· Option 1: Impacts 9 precincts, moves 13,700+ voters, and affects 11.1% of the city. It removes key precincts won by Cox from Ward 3 — a move critics say is designed to undercut her reelection prospects.
· Option 2: Impacts just 1 precinct, moves 3,000+ voters, and affects 1.4% of the city. It maintains the overall integrity of Ward 3 and does not significantly change the political landscape.
If both are purported to solve the same imbalance, how can two options with a 10,000-voter difference claim to offer equal results?
It’s a question that residents deserve a clear, data-driven answer to – but as of this writing, the City of Henderson has not provided any detailed backup or spreadsheets to justify their estimates. Only vague references to internal population projections – not Census figures, not audited numbers — just estimates.
As some have started to call it: Voodoo Math.
The Real Cost: Voter Disenfranchisement
Redistricting, when done in good faith, ensures fair and equal representation. But when it’s weaponized for political convenience, it does the opposite: it disenfranchises voters and erodes public trust.
Removing a popular and effective elected official from her base of support not only disrupts the democratic process — it undermines the very community she was elected to serve. The people of Henderson should choose their leaders through the ballot box, not lose them through behind-the-scenes manipulation.
The Council owes the public full transparency: detailed data, nonpartisan analysis, and an honest explanation of how a single ward’s alleged imbalance justifies an 11% voter shift.
Until then, residents should watch closely as the Mayor and Council attempt to explain — live on Tuesday, August 5th — why they believe a more disruptive redistricting plan is the best path forward.
The numbers don’t lie. But sometimes, the people presenting them do.
—
If you care about fair representation in Henderson, attend the meeting, demand transparency, and make your voice heard. Democracy works best when the people are paying attention.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views.
