Nevada

State website: www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Districts/Reapp/2011
2010-cycle districts: Congress, State Senate, State Assembly  « NEW 
2000-cycle districts: Congress, State legislature
Primary governing law: Nev. Const. art. IV, § 5

The Latest

On May 10, 2011, the legislature passed SB 497, which was vetoed on May 14; on May 25, the legislature passed AB 566, which was vetoed on May 31. With the legislature out of session until 2013, the process fell to the courts; on August 3, a state court appointed three special masters to draw the lines.

After hearings on October 10-11, the special masters issued a report and accompanying district plans for congressional and state legislative districts. The masters found, inter alia, that bloc voting was not sufficient to usually defeat the minority candidates' preferred candidate. The trial court promulgated slightly modified districts on October 27.

  • Institution

    Redistricting political control:

    Governor State Senate State Assembly
    Congressional lines R 11 D, 10 R 26 D, 16 R
    State legislative lines R 11 D, 10 R 26 D, 16 R
    2000 cong. lines R 9 D, 12 R 27 D, 15 R
    2000 state lines R 9 D, 12 R 27 D, 15 R

    Nevada's congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The members of the state Assembly committee responsible for redistricting are listed here; the members of the state Senate committee responsible for redistricting are listed here.


  • Timing

    Census data were delivered to Nevada on February 24, 2011.

    Nevada law does not currently provide a particular deadline to draw congressional lines, though candidates must file for congressional primary elections by March 16, 2012. [Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.177(1)(b)]

    State legislative lines must be redrawn in the legislature's first session after the Census; that session began on February 7, 2011, and ends June 6, 2011. [Nev. Const. art. IV, § 5] Candidates must file for state legislative primary elections by March 16, 2012. [Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.177(1)(b)]

    Nevada ties the drawing of state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade; there is no similar provision pertaining to congressional lines. [Nev. Const. art. IV, § 5]


  • Public input

    The legislature has made computer workstations in Carson City and Las Vegas available for public use for redisricting, with training available from the legislative counsel bureau. The legislative committees responsible for redistricting have also conducted several hearings in various parts of the state.


  • Criteria

    Like all states, Nevada must comply with constitutional equal population requirements and with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

    Nevada does not currently create any additional requirements beyond those imposed by federal law.


  • 2010 cycle cases

    Guy v. Miller, No. 11-OC-00042-1B (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
         - Complaint (Feb. 24, 2011).
         - Republican Party intervention (Mar. 31).
         - Appointment of special masters (Aug. 3).
         - Designation of criteria and schedule (Sept. 21).
         - Report of the special masters (Oct. 14).
              - Congressional plan: statewide, detail.
              - State Senate plan: statewide, detail maps 1 and 2.
              - State Assembly plan: statewide, detail maps 1 and 2.
         - Final order approving districts (Oct. 27).
    The latest: After hearings on October 10-11, the special masters issued a report and accompanying district plans for congressional and state legislative districts, on October 14. The masters found, inter alia, that bloc voting was not sufficient to usually defeat the minority communities' preferred candidates. The trial court modified those plans slightly, and then approved final maps on October 27.

    Miller v. First Judicial Court, No. 59322 (Nev. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state supreme court filed by the state's Secretary of State to the state trial court's alleged refusal to decide questions of law (particularly questions under the Voting Rights Act) in the Guy v. Miller case, above, in timely fashion.
         - Petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 3, 2011).
         - League of Women Voters' motion to compel (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 6).
         - Motions for stay by SOS (Oct. 6), real parties in interest (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 7).
         - Briefs by SOS (Oct. 14), League of Women Voters (one (Oct. 19) and two (Oct. 24)).
              - Responses by Garza (Oct. 24), Guy et al. (Oct. 24), King et al. (Oct. 24).
              - Reply (Nov. 3).
         - Motion to dismiss (Nov. 4).
         - Order denying petition for writ of mandamus (Nov. 4).
    The latest: On October 7, the court denied a motion to stay district court proceedings, with the Guy v. Miller litigation and this case proceeding in parallel. After the Guy v. Miller court approved final maps on October 27, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding a direct appeal from that Guy v. Miller ruling to be the proper forum to adjudicate whether the court should have drawn lines, or whether the legislature has power to establish districts despite the governor's veto.

    Teijeiro v. Schneider, No. 3:11-cv-00330 (D. Nev.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
         - Complaint (May 9, 2011).
         - Motion to dismiss (Sept. 26).
         - Voluntary dismissal (Dec. 2).
    The latest: On December 2, at plaintiffs' request, the case was dismissed.


  • 2000 cycle

    In the 2000 redistricting cycle, the Nevada legislature passed congressional and state legislative plans that were signed on June 15, 2001.

    It does not appear that either plan was challenged in court.

Congress State legislature   Maps & Data   States      
     Current status      Current status            Alabama      Indiana      Nebraska      South Carolina
     Timing      Timing            Alaska      Iowa      Nevada      South Dakota
     Authority      Authority   Litigation        Arizona      Kansas      New Hampshire      Tennessee
          Institution           Institution            Arkansas      Kentucky      New Jersey      Texas
          Party control           Party control            California      Louisiana      New Mexico      Utah
     Criteria      Criteria   Reform        Colorado      Maine      New York      Vermont
               Connecticut      Maryland      North Carolina      Virginia
               Delaware      Massachusetts      North Dakota      Washington
               Florida      Michigan      Ohio      West Virginia
         Georgia      Minnesota      Oklahoma      Wisconsin
Overview of redistricting     Further resources        Hawaii      Mississippi      Oregon      Wyoming
Why it matters Redistricting criteria        My work        Idaho      Missouri      Pennsylvania  
Public engagement Preclearance        Tools        Illinois      Montana      Rhode Island