By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform – October 3, 2021
How will Nevada’s legislators address the expanding plurality of voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican when they meet to redraw Congressional and legislative district maps later this month or next? (See the bottom of this article for more details)
Despite being a voter roll maintenance month, September 2021 saw the combined number of voters registered to vote in Nevada as either Non-Partisan, in a minor party, or “other” extend their lead over both the Democratic and Republican Party. The only voter segment where this is not happening is among voters 55 years of age or older. Even in this group, however, both the Democratic and Republican Party are losing voter share, just not to the extent as other demographics.
State-Wide
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -27,729 | -4.26% | 34.47% | -0.31% |
| R | -21,276 | -3.74% | 30.29% | -0.11% |
| NP | -11,816 | -2.39% | 26.72% | 0.28% |
| IAP | -3,177 | -3.77% | 4.49% | -0.02% |
| LIB | -978 | -5.39% | 0.95% | -0.02% |
| Other | 1,340 | 2.46% | 3.08% | 0.18% |
| Total not D or R | 35.24% | 0.42% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
Clark County
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -23,669 | -4.74% | 37.43% | -0.25% |
| R | -17,530 | -4.97% | 26.37% | -0.24% |
| NP | -10,709 | -2.96% | 27.64% | 0.32% |
| IAP | -2,649 | -4.59% | 4.33% | -0.02% |
| LIB | -755 | -6.59% | 0.84% | -0.02% |
| Other | 1,062 | 2.52% | 3.39% | 0.22% |
| Total not D or R | 36.20% | 0.50% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
Washoe County
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -4,017 | -3.74% | 32.99% | -0.13% |
| R | -3,979 | -3.69% | 33.13% | -0.11% |
| NP | -2,307 | -2.84% | 25.26% | 0.14% |
| IAP | -562 | -3.76% | 4.59% | -0.02% |
| LIB | -230 | -5.49% | 1.26% | -0.03% |
| Other | 163 | 1.92% | 2.76% | 0.14% |
| Total not D or R | 33.88% | 0.23% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
Rural Counties
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -43 | -0.10% | 19.56% | -0.16% |
| R | 233 | 0.22% | 48.82% | -0.24% |
| NP | 1,200 | 2.37% | 23.47% | 0.38% |
| IAP | 34 | 0.29% | 5.26% | -0.02% |
| LIB | 7 | 0.28% | 1.13% | 0.00% |
| Other | 115 | 3.02% | 1.77% | 0.04% |
| Total not D or R | 31.63% | 0.40% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
18 – 34 Year Old
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -11,257 | -6.14% | 34.03% | -0.53% |
| R | -6,314 | -6.17% | 18.99% | -0.30% |
| NP | -5,786 | -3.02% | 36.79% | 0.63% |
| IAP | -1,313 | -5.44% | 4.51% | -0.04% |
| LIB | -558 | -6.77% | 1.52% | -0.03% |
| Other | 384 | 1.86% | 4.16% | 0.27% |
| Total not D or R | 46.98% | 0.83% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
55+
| Party | Change in # Voters | % Change | % Voter Share | Difference in Voter Share % |
| D | -7,215 | -2.67% | 35.92% | -0.16% |
| R | -7,617 | -2.59% | 39.08% | -0.15% |
| NP | -1,398 | -1.03% | 18.33% | 0.22% |
| IAP | -748 | -2.32% | 4.31% | 0.00% |
| LIB | -88 | -2.69% | 0.44% | 0.00% |
| Other | 414 | 3.03% | 1.92% | 0.10% |
| Total not D or R | 25.00% | 0.32% |
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, other or not specified.
By district voter share changes.
Congressional Districts
| Party | # Districts Lose Voter Share | # Districts Gain Voter Share | # Districts No Change |
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| NP | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| IAP | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| LIB | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 0 | 4 | 0 |
In all Congressional districts (100 percent of the districts) the number of voters not affiliated with either major party exceeds the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.
State Senate Districts
| Party | # Districts Lose Voter Share | # Districts Gain Voter Share | # Districts No Change |
| Democratic | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| NP | 0 | 21 | 0 |
| IAP | 16 | 2 | 3 |
| LIB | 20 | 0 | 1 |
| Other | 0 | 21 | 0 |
In all 21 districts (100%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.
State Assembly Districts
| Party | # Districts Lose Voter Share | # Districts Gain Voter Share | # Districts No Change |
| Democratic | 42 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 42 | 0 | 0 |
| NP | 0 | 42 | 0 |
| IAP | 28 | 7 | 7 |
| LIB | 37 | 1 | 4 |
| Other | 1 | 41 | 0 |
In all 42 districts (100%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.
With less than 35 percent of active registered voters being represented by the majority party in the legislature; less than 65 percent being represented by either party, how will the legislature use this data when developing district boundaries that will be in place for the next ten years? Political affiliation is not supposed to be part of the planning, but I think it would be naive to believe it does not enter into the equation.
Nevada’s population grew by 15 percent since the last census in 2010. At the same time, the number of active registered voters increased by 36 percent. *
- Active Democratic registration decreased by 18 percent
- Active Republican registration decreased by 17 percent
- Active Non-Partisan registration increased by 69 percent
- Active minor party and “other” registration increased by 50 percent
- Active combined Non-Partisan, minor party, and “other” registration increased by 64 percent
*End December 2010 compared to end September 2021
When creating district boundaries, the goal is to have approximately the same number of people in each district, the “ideal population”. The tables below show the difference between the ideal population and the 2020 census. The most accepted method of reaching the ideal is to readjust the current boundaries to either add or subtract population. Another method would be to increase the number of districts, decreasing the ideal population. The Nevada Constitution allows the legislature to do this. The legislature could increase the total number of legislative districts to 75.
Congressional – Ideal population 776,154
| District | 2020 Census | Diff from ideal | % diff | % Dem | %Rep | %NP | % Not D or R |
| 1 | 702,822 | -73,332 | -9.45% | 42.93% | 19.22% | 29.32% | 37.85% |
| 2 | 758,820 | -17,334 | -2.23% | 28.28% | 38.64% | 24.66% | 33.08% |
| 3 | 855,528 | 79,374 | 10.23% | 32.80% | 30.89% | 27.50% | 36.31% |
| 4 | 787,444 | 11,290 | 1.45% | 36.76% | 28.92% | 26.04% | 34.32% |
State Senate – Ideal population 147,839
| District | 2020 Census | Diff from ideal | % diff | % Dem | %Rep | %NP | % Not D or R |
| 1 | 165,542 | 17,703 | 11.97% | 42.68% | 22.19% | 26.76% | 35.13% |
| 2 | 128,419 | -19,420 | -13.14% | 48.87% | 11.71% | 31.29% | 39.42% |
| 3 | 132,412 | -15,427 | -10.44% | 42.68% | 20.01% | 28.73% | 37.31% |
| 4 | 141,147 | -6,692 | -4.53% | 51.20% | 13.42% | 27.56% | 35.38% |
| 5 | 134,488 | -13,351 | -9.03% | 34.80% | 29.64% | 26.87% | 35.56% |
| 6 | 134,456 | -13,383 | -9.05% | 36.96% | 29.61% | 25.23% | 33.44% |
| 7 | 143,026 | -4,813 | -3.26% | 40.48% | 21.92% | 28.81% | 37.60% |
| 8 | 135,709 | -12,130 | -8.20% | 33.91% | 31.09% | 26.45% | 35.00% |
| 9 | 204,521 | 56,682 | 38.34% | 34.22% | 27.18% | 29.50% | 38.60% |
| 10 | 137,808 | -10,031 | -6.79% | 42.67% | 17.59% | 30.79% | 39.73% |
| 11 | 145,009 | -2,830 | -1.91% | 38.49% | 22.43% | 30.24% | 39.08% |
| 12 | 159,061 | 11,222 | 7.59% | 27.76% | 38.34% | 25.61% | 33.89% |
| 13 | 143,585 | -4,254 | -2.88% | 38.85% | 23.56% | 28.59% | 37.59% |
| 14 | 144,479 | -3,360 | -2.27% | 26.16% | 41.58% | 23.93% | 32.26% |
| 15 | 144,172 | -3,667 | -2.48% | 34.17% | 32.89% | 24.47% | 32.94% |
| 16 | 150,730 | 2,891 | 1.96% | 28.51% | 39.18% | 23.98% | 32.31% |
| 17 | 138,343 | -9,496 | -6.42% | 18.85% | 49.86% | 23.10% | 31.29% |
| 18 | 154,030 | 6,191 | 4.19% | 31.50% | 34.80% | 25.11% | 33.70% |
| 19 | 158,787 | 10,948 | 7.41% | 19.47% | 47.67% | 24.32% | 32.86% |
| 20 | 161,487 | 13,648 | 9.23% | 32.36% | 31.27% | 27.40% | 36.37% |
| 21 | 147,403 | -436 | -0.29% | 41.33% | 22.79% | 27.86% | 35.88% |
State Assembly – Ideal population 73,919
| District | 2020 Census | Diff from ideal | % diff | % Dem | %Rep | %NP | % Not D or R |
| 1 | 78,671 | 4,752 | 6.43% | 40.88% | 25.29% | 25.60% | 33.83% |
| 2 | 69,552 | -4,367 | -5.91% | 31.90% | 33.81% | 25.91% | 34.29% |
| 3 | 67,382 | -6,537 | -8.84% | 43.68% | 19.89% | 28.22% | 36.43% |
| 4 | 82,747 | 8,828 | 11.94% | 33.22% | 32.70% | 25.43% | 34.09% |
| 5 | 66,157 | -7,762 | -10.50% | 36.66% | 28.42% | 26.58% | 34.92% |
| 6 | 69,404 | -4,515 | -6.11% | 54.93% | 9.39% | 27.91% | 35.68% |
| 7 | 71,743 | -2,176 | -2.94% | 48.98% | 16.85% | 26.52% | 34.18% |
| 8 | 80,629 | 6,710 | 9.08% | 37.64% | 23.61% | 30.07% | 38.76% |
| 9 | 99,766 | 25,847 | 34.97% | 35.23% | 26.88% | 29.04% | 37.89% |
| 10 | 65,030 | -8,889 | -12.03% | 42.39% | 20.43% | 28.51% | 37.18% |
| 11 | 60,829 | -13,090 | -17.71% | 49.69% | 11.32% | 30.95% | 38.99% |
| 12 | 81,845 | 7,926 | 10.72% | 38.45% | 27.31% | 26.43% | 34.24% |
| 13 | 71,283 | -2,636 | -3.57% | 29.80% | 37.82% | 24.19% | 32.38% |
| 14 | 65,558 | -8,361 | -11.31% | 46.68% | 16.17% | 29.26% | 37.15% |
| 15 | 69,581 | -4,338 | -5.87% | 44.89% | 18.21% | 28.67% | 36.90% |
| 16 | 68,227 | -5,692 | -7.70% | 41.06% | 17.47% | 32.11% | 41.47% |
| 17 | 86,871 | 12,952 | 17.52% | 45.08% | 19.53% | 27.23% | 35.39% |
| 18 | 75,561 | 1,642 | 2.22% | 41.45% | 20.77% | 29.18% | 37.77% |
| 19 | 77,399 | 3,480 | 4.71% | 28.90% | 36.63% | 26.41% | 34.47% |
| 20 | 67,465 | -6,454 | -8.73% | 40.09% | 23.48% | 27.75% | 36.43% |
| 21 | 60,849 | -13,070 | -17.68% | 35.58% | 29.25% | 26.58% | 35.17% |
| 22 | 76,512 | 2,593 | 3.51% | 30.52% | 35.58% | 25.42% | 33.90% |
| 23 | 81,662 | 7,743 | 10.47% | 27.10% | 40.27% | 24.39% | 32.63% |
| 24 | 69,813 | -4,106 | -5.55% | 41.80% | 19.94% | 29.46% | 38.26% |
| 25 | 74,233 | 314 | 0.42% | 32.05% | 37.42% | 22.49% | 30.53% |
| 26 | 79,930 | 6,011 | 8.13% | 29.53% | 38.20% | 23.97% | 32.27% |
| 27 | 69,939 | -3,980 | -5.38% | 36.94% | 27.51% | 26.75% | 35.54% |
| 28 | 67,590 | -6,329 | -8.56% | 49.10% | 12.33% | 30.63% | 38.57% |
| 29 | 73,639 | -280 | -0.38% | 34.57% | 30.31% | 26.68% | 35.12% |
| 30 | 73,772 | -147 | -0.20% | 36.50% | 27.23% | 27.36% | 36.27% |
| 31 | 76,222 | 2,303 | 3.12% | 31.28% | 35.27% | 24.65% | 33.45% |
| 32 | 68,257 | -5,662 | -7.66% | 20.47% | 49.27% | 22.64% | 30.26% |
| 33 | 67,861 | -6,058 | -8.20% | 14.27% | 54.90% | 23.20% | 30.84% |
| 34 | 67,878 | -6,041 | -8.17% | 39.34% | 25.72% | 26.56% | 34.93% |
| 35 | 104,755 | 30,836 | 41.72% | 33.81% | 27.94% | 29.43% | 38.25% |
| 36 | 90,926 | 17,007 | 23.01% | 23.20% | 43.33% | 24.45% | 33.47% |
| 37 | 66,578 | -7,341 | -9.93% | 35.20% | 33.43% | 23.63% | 31.37% |
| 38 | 69,274 | -4,645 | -6.28% | 16.73% | 49.33% | 25.23% | 33.94% |
| 39 | 69,069 | -4,850 | -6.56% | 20.84% | 50.69% | 20.76% | 28.47% |
| 40 | 70,800 | -3,119 | -4.22% | 27.53% | 40.75% | 23.39% | 31.72% |
| 41 | 84,975 | 11,056 | 14.96% | 34.65% | 27.58% | 28.68% | 37.77% |
| 42 | 64,380 | -9,539 | -12.90% | 40.54% | 21.35% | 29.57% | 38.10% |
There is no doubt the attitude of voters as expressed by their party affiliation, or lack of, continues to change. The question is will the state legislature adjust for that. Will they develop fair maps without regard to political affiliation or will they take the position that those who have left the Democratic or Republican Party have given up their right to be represented for the next ten years?