EDITORIAL: League of Women Voters shushes Nevada women

On Wednesday, the League’s board of directors voted to withdraw recognition from its Nevada chapter. The group said it had “no choice, but to close the state League effective immediately in order to protect the brand and reputation of the League at large.”

That statement should come as a shock to anyone who’s read or heard Sondra Cosgrove, president of the now-defunct League of Women Voters of Nevada. One need not always agree with her — indeed we haven’t — to acknowledge her thoughtful approach to public policy.

Some of the Nevada chapter’s previous projects included passing Nevada’s automatic voter registration law and fighting voter ID legislation. The group’s allies were primarily Democrats and left-leaning groups. “In those instances, no one in (the national organization) commented on our coalition partnerships,” Ms. Cosgrove wrote on her blog.

But last year, the Nevada group decided to push a ballot initiative on redistricting reform. Progressives in recent years have insisted that Republicans in many states are distorting voter preferences through gerrymandering — the drawing of legislative lines to dilute the political power of their opponents. Their prescription has involved asking activist judges to intervene or removing redistricting from the legislative process and putting it in the hands of an “independent” committee. The Legislature draws new political districts every 10 years to reflect updated census data.

In Nevada, however, Democrats comfortably control both houses of the Legislature along with the governor’s office. They’ll have the power next session to create the state’s legislative and congressional districts. Thus the prospect of stripping party lawmakers of the ability to carry out that duty in favor of an unelected commission has suddenly become distasteful to many state and national Democrats — at least as it pertains to Nevada.

Funny how gerrymandering is a grave threat to the republic when the GOP is in charge but is simply an expression of democratic will when Democrats run the show.

There’s no guarantee, of course that a redistricting commission would be any less political than a group of partisan lawmakers. But Ms. Cosgrove, who is also a history professor at the College of Southern Nevada, sought to make the case that the change — which some other states have adopted — would create a more equitable system less prone to obvious abuses. She didn’t view her organization’s mission as working to advance the interests of only Democrats, but one of promoting good governance.

But because Democrats control the levers of power in this state, some Nevada Republicans, playing their own brand of politics, embraced the proposal. Ms. Cosgrove’s Nevada group fought off lawsuits brought by progressives, but the pandemic crippled their signature-gathering efforts.

While those lawsuits were ongoing, Ms. Cosgrove penned a couple of opinion pieces criticizing the Democratic Party for its obstruction. She said this was a bridge too far for officials with the parent group. They demanded that national staffers review her public statements and direct her political activities. Ms. Cosgrove refused, leading to last week’s split. She intends to start a new group named Vote Nevada.

“National basically said (Ms. Cosgrove) was being a bad girl for attacking Democrats,” said Jan Browne, a League member for more than 40 years. “National says we can’t criticize Dems, and we think that’s partisan.”

Ms. Cosgrove’s mistake was to emphasize a principled concern about gerrymandering over politics. Her experience neatly demonstrates that the League of Women Voters — established 100 years ago to promote women in public policy — has evolved into just another partisan interest group representing liberal causes. It also reveals that many progressive “good government” initiatives — on redistricting and campaign finance, for instance — are, in reality, vehicles for attaining power masquerading as virtuous reforms meant to improve the democratic process.