Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2003 | 8:48 a.m.
Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack, who represents Ward 6 in the city's northwest, is claiming that he is disproportionately affected by growth and is calling for a new round of redistricting.
Redistricting would entail changing the boundaries of the city's six wards to reflect population changes. It's required after every U.S. Census, to ensure that each ward has a population within 5 percent of the others. This is done so that members of the City Council each represent approximately the same amount of people. The city just last year finished redistricting based on the 2000 census. It was a long, painful and politically charged process.
Although redistricting is required only once a decade (after each census), council members can request the process any year if they believe their ward's population is becoming lopsided. City staff is looking askance at any immediate redistricting because three of the city's lesser-populated wards would be ineligible by law to participate, since they had elections this year. We too are opposed to any action this year, as any redistricting should be city-wide in order to ensure a fair redistribution of the population. Certainly, the least populated wards should not be left out, as they should be the ones to grow.
We suggest any talk of redistricting be put off for a few more years. The city just went through the process and does not need to repeat it again so soon. Redistricting is apt to disenfranchise voters, who may suddenly find themselves in a ward whose election is two years away, when if they had remained where they were they could have voted in the next election. The process inevitably pits one City Council member against the other -- already two are on record as opposing Mack's request. And Mayor Oscar Goodman said Monday the process is just too divisive to undertake again so soon after the last one. He's right.
archive
