Redistricting in Nevada
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 23 min
 in Nevada |
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Nevada's four United States Representatives and 63 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]
Nevada was apportioned 4 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census.
Governor Steve Sisolak (D) signed the congressional map into law on November 16, 2021.[5] This map takes effect for Nevada's 2022 congressional elections. On November 14, 2021, the Nevada State Senate voted 12-9 to approve the Democratic congressional and legislative map proposals. In a press release, Democratic lawmakers said they planned to issue an amendment to the draft maps in the Nevada State Assembly that would aim to address requests from tribal communities in the state and the allocation of incarcerated individuals.[6] On November 16, the Nevada State Assembly voted 25-17 to approve the amended maps.[7] Governor Steve Sisolak (D) signed new legislative maps into law on November 16, 2021.[5] These maps take effect for Nevada's 2022 legislative elections. On November 14, 2021, the Nevada State Senate voted 12-9 to approve the Democratic congressional and legislative map proposals.[6] On November 16, the Nevada State Assembly voted 25-17 to approve the maps.[7] Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
- State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Nevada
- District maps: Information about the current district maps in Nevada
- Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Nevada's redistricting after recent censuses
- State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
- Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting
Background[edit]
This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.
Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]
According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[8][9]
| “ | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[10] | ” |
| —United States Constitution | ||
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[11][12][13]
The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[13]
Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]
The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[13]
State-based requirements[edit]
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[13][14]
- Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[13][14]
- A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[13][14]
- A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[13][14]
Methods[edit]
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[15]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering[edit]
- See also: Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][16]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[17]
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[18][19]Recent court decisions[edit]
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]
- See also: Gill v. Whitford
In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[20]
Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]
- See also: Cooper v. Harris
In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[21][22][23]
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]
- See also: Evenwel v. Abbott
Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[24][25][26][27]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[28][29][30]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[31][32][33][34]Race and ethnicity[edit]
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
| “ | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[10] | ” |
| —Voting Rights Act of 1965[35] | ||
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Nevada was home to two congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]
State process[edit]
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
In Nevada, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. The lines are subject to veto by the governor.[36]
Under a state law enacted in 2019, state prison inmates are counted as residents of their home addresses for redistricting purposes.[37]
How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting[edit]
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Nevada, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Policies for counting out-of-state residents, inmates with unknown previous residences, and federal inmates are not addressed.
District maps[edit]
Congressional districts[edit]
Nevada comprises four congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Nevada's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Nevada's current House representatives.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. House Nevada District 1 | Dina Titus | Democratic | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2023 |
| U.S. House Nevada District 2 | Mark Amodei | Republican | January 3, 2011 | January 3, 2023 |
| U.S. House Nevada District 3 | Susie Lee | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2023 |
| U.S. House Nevada District 4 | Steven Horsford | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2023 |
State legislative maps[edit]
- See also: Nevada State Senate and Nevada State Assembly
Nevada comprises 21 state Senate districts and 42 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.[38]
Redistricting by cycle[edit]
Redistricting after the 2020 census[edit]
Nevada was apportioned four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[39]
Enacted congressional district maps[edit]
Governor Steve Sisolak (D) signed the congressional map into law on November 16, 2021.[5] This map takes effect for Nevada's 2022 congressional elections. On November 14, 2021, the Nevada State Senate voted 12-9 to approve the Democratic congressional and legislative map proposals. In a press release, Democratic lawmakers said they planned to issue an amendment to the draft maps in the Nevada State Assembly that would aim to address requests from tribal communities in the state and the allocation of incarcerated individuals.[6] On November 16, the Nevada State Assembly voted 25-17 to approve the amended maps.[7]
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Nevada Congressional Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Nevada Congressional Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]
Governor Steve Sisolak (D) signed new legislative maps into law on November 16, 2021.[5] These maps take effect for Nevada's 2022 legislative elections. On November 14, 2021, the Nevada State Senate voted 12-9 to approve the Democratic congressional and legislative map proposals.[6] On November 16, the Nevada State Assembly voted 25-17 to approve the maps.[7]
State Senate map[edit]
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Nevada State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Nevada State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map[edit]
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Nevada State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Nevada State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions[edit]
Rep. Brittney Miller (D) spoke before the final vote on the maps, saying: "These maps are fair and legal and accurately reflect the diversity of our state." After signing the maps, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) said: "After a thoughtful, efficient and productive session, I am proud to sign these bills into law today. These maps reflect Nevada’s diversity and reflect public feedback gathered throughout the legislative process."[40]
Rep. Melissa Hardy (R) criticized the maps, saying: "A process that affects every person living in the state [...] deserves to be thoroughly vetted and questioned by this body as a whole. Instead, there are a lack of answers to questions posed, an inability to ask questions of those who have the answers, and an overall lack of transparency throughout." Rep. Jill Dickman (R) said: "This bill is universally disliked, but the reason has nothing to do with compromise because there was none."[40]
Redistricting after the 2010 census[edit]
Congressional redistricting, 2010[edit]
Following the 2010 United States Census, Nevada gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature; a Republican held the governorship. On May 10, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, but this proposal was vetoed by the governor. The legislature passed another congressional district map on May 25, 2011, which was also vetoed by the governor.[36][41]
Due to the stalemate between the governor and the state legislature, it fell to the courts to the draw the district boundaries. On August 3, 2011, the Nevada First Judicial District Court appointed a three-member panel to draft a new congressional district map. This panel comprised a county elections administrator, a former state legislative research director, and an attorney. On October 14, 2011, the panel issued its redistricting plan, which was approved by the court on October 27, 2011.[36][41]
State legislative redistricting, 2010[edit]
At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature; a Republican held the governorship. On May 10, 2011, the legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, but this proposal was vetoed by the governor. The legislature passed another set of legislative district maps on May 25, 2011, which were also vetoed by the governor. Due to the stalemate between the governor and the state legislature, it fell to the courts to draw the district boundaries. On August 3, 2011, the Nevada First Judicial District Court appointed a three-member panel to draft a new state legislative district maps. This panel comprised a county elections administrator, a former state legislative research director, and an attorney. On October 14, 2011, the panel issued its redistricting plan, which was approved by the court on October 27, 2011.[36][41]
State legislation and ballot measures[edit]
Redistricting legislation[edit]
The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Nevada state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.
Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.
Redistricting ballot measures[edit]
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Nevada.
Political impacts of redistricting[edit]
Competitiveness[edit]
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[42]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[43]
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[44]
In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[45]
State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle[edit]
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.
In Nevada, there were five competitive races for the Nevada State Assembly in 2012, compared to three in 2010. There were four mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to two in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of four competitive elections.
Recent news[edit]
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Nevada. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also[edit]
- United States census, 2020
- Redistricting in Nevada after the 2010 census
- Redistricting
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
External links[edit]
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Nevada Office of the Governor, "Governor Sisolak signs redistricting bills, thanks Nevada Legislature for efficient, productive session," November 16, 2021
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 The Nevada Independent, "Senate advances redistricting bill; Democrats promise minor tweaks in amendment," November 14, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Nevada State Legislature, "SB1," accessed November 17, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 All About Redistricting, "Nevada," accessed May 5, 2015
- ↑ Prison Policy Initiative, "Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signs law ending prison gerrymandering," May 31, 2019
- ↑ Nevada Legislature, "2012/2013* Legislative District Maps," accessed May 5, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 The Nevada Independent, "Nevada redistricting bill signed by Sisolak after split Assembly vote," November 16, 2021
- ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Nevada Carson City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF