Redistricting wraps up with some regrets

If GOP senators hadn’t censured longtime Senate leader Bill Raggio before the 2011 session (he endorsed Democrat Harry Reid in his re-election bid) and stripped him of his leadership post, he might not have resigned.

And had Raggio not resigned, he might have been able to strike one last grand compromise over redistricting. And a key part of that compromise might have been expanding the size of the Legislature.

And with more members in the Legislature, it would have been possible to draw smaller districts in rural and Northern Nevada, and might have provided more chances to balance Republicans and Democrats.

Instead, the political temper tantrum thrown by the more conservative members of the Senate caucus prompted the moderate Raggio to depart, depriving the Legislature of its most accomplished legislator. As a result, the battle over the budget nearly imploded, and redistricting never got done at all.

Instead, a three-member panel of special masters drew new legislative boundaries under the auspices of a Carson City judge. And on Friday, that process came to what quite probably was its end, with maps that, once again, generally favor Nevada Democrats over Republicans.

Remember what they say, Republicans: Caucus elections have consequences.

Now, there’s no guarantee even the masterful Raggio could have pulled off his longtime goal of adding more members to the Legislature. (After all, he tried and failed in 2001, and expanding government in a time of recession may have been impossible, no matter what.) But if anyone could have done it, it’s Raggio, whose knack for learning what his peers wanted from a session and then withholding it until he got his way was legendary.

As it stands, Republicans lost some of the key arguments. They insisted on Hispanic majority-minority districts in the Legislature and congressional plans, claiming the Voting Rights Act demanded it. But the special masters and Judge James Todd Russell concluded the opposite.

So when Gov. Brian Sandoval said on Friday the new maps were fair and that the special masters did a good job, he essentially endorsed a plan that rejected his central reason for vetoing a pair of Democratic redistricting maps back in May.

But even if that reason was unsound, Sandoval still had a basis to reject the Legislature’s maps, which gave Democrats solid majorities in both houses. The special masters plan — while providing a clear Democratic advantage — allows for more close, competitive elections than did the original Democratic plan.

Not everyone is as content as Sandoval, however. Poor GOP Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea — preparing to leave the lower house for the state Senate — must run in a district that extends from the Idaho border to Primm. “The (special) masters could have done a better job packing those districts,” said Goicoechea.

But sprawling rural districts are the natural consequence of dividing a growing population by a set number of seats (63, in this case). Because districts must have roughly equal population, the only way to shrink rural districts is to expand the number of lawmakers, which Goicoechea favors. “I’m sure the rurals will be paying a lot more attention the next time,” he said.

For now, lawyers with knowledge of the case say there’s little grounds for appeal to the state Supreme Court. Districts are compact, equal in population and regularly shaped. “There’s not much meat on the bones, as far as appeals are concerned,” said one.

Could Raggio have saved Republicans from those dry bones? We’ll never know, but I can’t help thinking the Iron Man of the Senate could have done it one last time.

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist, and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@ reviewjournal.com.