Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020)
| Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Redistricting measures | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative was not on the ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
The ballot measure would have transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a seven-member independent redistricting commission.[1][2]
The ballot measure would have also added certain criteria for drawing redistricting maps to the Nevada Constitution.[1]
Text of measure
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Sponsors
Fair Maps Nevada led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.[3]
Supporters
- League of Women Voters of Nevada[4]
- Brennan Center for Justice[4]
- Represent.Us[4]
Background
Methods of redistricting in U.S.
In general, states vest one of the following three entities with redistricting authority:[5]
- State legislatures: In 37 of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, state legislatures have the final authority to draft and implement congressional district maps.[6] Likewise, in 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures are primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting. In these states, legislatures typically adopt district lines by a simple majority vote in each chamber. A state's governor may usually veto the legislature's redistricting plan.[7]
- Independent commissions: The composition of independent redistricting commissions varies from state to state. However, in all cases, the direct participation of elected officials is limited. Independent redistricting commissions exist in six states (in four of these states, independent commissions draw congressional and state legislative boundaries; in two, independent commissions draw only state legislative district boundaries).
- Politician commissions: The composition of politician redistricting commissions varies from state to state. For example, in some states, specific officials (e.g., governors, secretaries of state, etc.) are de facto commission members; in others, legislative leaders appoint other legislators to serve as commissioners. In all cases, elected officials may participate directly by sitting on the commissions. In two of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, politician commissions are responsible for drawing the maps. In seven states, politician commissions are responsible for state legislative redistricting.
Procedures for congressional redistricting in U.S.
Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 33 of these states, state legislatures play the dominant role in congressional redistricting. In nine states, commissions draw congressional district lines. In two states, hybrid systems are used, in which the legislatures share redistricting authority with commissions. The remaining states comprise one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map and table below for further details.[8][9]
Procedures for state legislative redistricting in U.S.
In 34 of the 50 states, state legislatures play the dominant role in state legislative redistricting. Commissions draw state legislative district lines in 14 states. In two states, hybrid systems are used, in which state legislature share redistricting authority with commissions. See the map and table below for further details.[8][9][10]
Path to the ballot
Process in Nevada
In Nevada, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. Moreover, signature gathering must be distributed equally among each of the state's four congressional districts. The initial filing of an initiated constitutional amendment cannot be made before September 1 of the year preceding the election year. The signature petitions must be filed with county officials by the third Tuesday in June of an even-numbered year. The final submission of signatures to the secretary of state must be made at least 90 days before the next regular general election. Initiated constitutional amendments that qualify for the ballot must be approved at two consecutive general elections.
The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2020 ballot and the next even-yeared election ballot:
- Signatures: 97,616 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was June 24, 2020.
Signatures are verified by county clerks using a random sampling method if more than 500 signatures were submitted in that county. If enough signatures are submitted and verified, the initiative goes on the next general election ballot. If approved at the first election, it goes on the next general election ballot.
The signature deadline was extended for the initiative from June 24, 2020, to August 3 due to a court ruling in a lawsuit filed by Fair Maps Nevada and an agreement with the Nevada Secretary of State.
Stages of this initiative
|
|---|
| Coronavirus pandemic |
| Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more.
|
- Sonda Cosgrove, president of the League of Women Voters of Nevada, filed the ballot initiative on November 4, 2019.[2]
- Rev. Leonard Jackson filed a lawsuit challenging the petition summary.[11]
- On January 2, 2020, Judge James Russel ruled that the original version of the petition summary was invalid and provided edits that would remedy the description.[12]
- On January 7, 2020, Cosgrove filed an amended version of the initiative with the secretary of state in compliance with Russel's order.[1]
- On May 7, 2020, petitioners filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) to allow the campaign to gather signatures electronically and to extend the deadline by at least six weeks. Petitioners argued, "The Governor’s actions make it extremely difficult to collect signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot in a traditional in-person manner. ... The challenged requirements impose a severe burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights by impeding their ability to earn a place on the ballot. What’s more, they prevent Plaintiffs and other Nevada voters from voting on the Initiative in the November election."[13]
- On May 29, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du ruled in favor of the petitioners granting them more time to gather signatures. In her decision, she argued that Governor Steve Sisolak's (D) stay-at-home order made it impossible for the campaign to gather signatures and that not changing the statutory deadline was "unreasonable and unfair." In her court ruling, the new deadline was August 5, but the campaign and state officials later agreed to move it to August 3. Judge Du did not grant the petitioners' request to use electronic signatures citing concerns of fraud and legal precedent on courts changing election rules.[14]
- On June 9, 2020, the League of Women Voters Of Nevada, one of the organizations supporting the initiative, announced that the campaign and the Nevada Secretary of State agreed to move the deadline to August 3, 2020.[15]
- On July 24, 2020, Doug Goodman, founder and executive director of Nevadans for Election Reform; Sondra Cosgrove, chair of Fair Maps Nevada; and Vivian Leal, a member of Indivisible Northern Nevada Fair Democracy Team, wrote an op-ed in The Nevada Independent announcing that "Because of the legal challenges, launched intentionally to prevent the voters of Nevada from exercising state constitutional power expressly given to them to amend the state Constitution and because the state’s governor has apparently failed to act to protect it, Fair Maps Nevada will not be able to collect the necessary signatures by the court-set, and county election official agreed to deadline of August 3."[16]
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot summary is misleading and inaccurate; whether the commission can be classified as independent | |
| Court: First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada | |
| Ruling: Ruled that the original petition summary was misleading and that any signatures collected using it are invalid but that the revised petition summary as amended by proponents satisfies requirements | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rev. Leonard Jackson | Defendant(s): Fair Maps Nevada PAC and Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is misleading because the commission cannot be classified as independent because of its composition and funding. | Defendant argument: The commission is made up of citizens not lawmakers; therefore, it is not a political body. |
Source: Nevada Independent and Rev. Leonard Jackson v. Fair Maps Nevada Pac and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
On November 26, 2019, Reverand Leonard Jackson filed a lawsuit against Fair Maps Nevada PAC, the sponsors of the initiative, and Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, claiming that the ballot summary submitted by the initiative sponsors and approved by the secretary of state was misleading and incorrect. The plaintiff argued that the summary should not classify the commission as independent because members of the commission are appointed by the party leadership in the legislature and may run for or be appointed to office after serving on the commission. The plaintiff also argued that the commission is not independent because the commission does not have an independent funding source.[11]
The sponsors of the initiative offered amendments to the ballot summary, which included referencing the commission as a redistricting commission instead of an Independent Redistricting Commission, removing the phrase fair and competitive, and stating the need for state expenditures for the proposed redistricting in 2023.[11]
On January 2, 2020, Judge James Russel ruled that the original petition summary was misleading and that any signatures collected using it are invalid. Russel also ruled, however, that the revised petition summary as amended by proponents satisfies requirements. Russel also stated in his order that NRS 295.061 (3) states that if a petition summary is successfully challenged and is then revised according to an order of the court, no legal challenge can be brought against the revised summary.[12]
On January 7, 2020, proponents filed an amended version of the initiative according to Judge Russel's order. Changes included edits to the summary to remove or alter language objected to by Jackson's lawsuit.[1][12]
Attorney Kevin Benson, representing Rev. Jackson, filed multiple appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court following Russel's order arguing both that the ballot language was invalid and that Russel did not have the authority to rewrite the ballot language.[17][18]
In response to the appeals filed by Benson, Fair Maps Nevada filed a motion for dismissal with the Nevada Supreme Court. The motion argued that Jackson was using frivolous appeals to stall their petition effort and was misusing the legal system.[17]
On July 24, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Jackson's appeal against the new ballot language drafted by Fair Maps Nevada. The court wrote, "Reverand Leonard Jackson contends that the district court lacked 'jurisdiction' to 'rewrite' Fair Maps Nevada PAC's description of effect. We are not persuaded by Jackson's argument, as he has presented no authority that actually supports his position."[19]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Nevada Secretary of State, "C-02-2019 (Amendmed)," January 7, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Nevada Secretary of State, "C-02-2019," November 4, 2019
- ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Committee Registration Form," November 6, 2019
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 The Nevada Independent, "Ballot question filed to create independent redistricting commission, place limits on gerrymandering," November 4, 2019
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Seven states contain only one congressional district each, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary.
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 All About Redistricting, "National Summary," accessed July 29, 2024
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 The American Redistricting Project, "State," accessed July 29, 2024
- ↑ NCSL, "Redistricting Commissions: State Legislative Plans," December 10, 2021
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 US News, "Backers Offer Amendments to Nevada Redistricting Measure," December 22, 2019
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Rev. Leonard Jackson v. Fair Maps Nevada Pac and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, January 2, 2019
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Group backing independent redistricting commission files lawsuit seeking e-signatures, extended deadline," May 7, 2020
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Ballot petition for redistricting commission gets more signature-gathering time," May 29, 2020
- ↑ League of Women Voters Of Nevada, "Fair Maps Nevada Press Release: Agreement Reached & Executive Order Needed," June 9, 2020
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Governor ignores voters' state constitutional right of initiative," July 24, 2020
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 The Nevada Independent, "Redistricting ballot question heads to Supreme court over ‘frivolous’ appeals," February 20, 2020
- ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Nevada group to seek signatures for redistricting initiative," January 7, 2019
- ↑ League of Women Voters Nevada, "Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Fair Maps Nevada's Amendment," July 24, 2020
 |
State of Nevada Carson City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | 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 |
