Posts Tagged ‘county’

Democrats Release Maps For Proposed State Assembly And Senate Districts

By Andrew Doughman | 5:03 pm April 28th, 2011

CARSON CITY — State legislative Democrats have released their proposals for state Senate and Assembly districts.

Democrats will debate the proposals together with Republicans during meetings of the Assembly and Senate tonight. Republicans released their proposals for new state Senate and Assembly districts, as well as Congressional districts, this morning.

The Legislature is required to redraw the boundaries of political districts every 10 years based on changes in population released through the U.S. Census.

Please click here for party registration numbers for each of the proposed districts — the numbers of which correspond to the current districts and those districts’ Senators and Assembly members.

The map can be viewed below or click here for the full-sized map.

 

Democrats today released this proposal for 21 Senate districts and 42 Assembly districts. In the proposal, two Assembly districts are nested within each Senate district.

The proposal has 30 Clark County Assembly seats, five seats in rural counties, six seats in Washoe County and one seat split between Washoe County and rural counties.

The Senate proposal has 15 Clark County seats, three seats in Washoe County and seat split between Washoe County and rural counties.

The Nevada News Bureau has obtained from Legislative Counsel Bureau staff large .pdf files of the Democratic proposals. They are available for download below.

 

A Clark County map with Assembly districts nested within Senate districts.

large Clark County Assembly district map with incumbent homes.

A large Clark County Senate district map with incumbent homes.

 

Washoe County map with Assembly districts nested within Senate districts.

large Washoe County Assembly district map with incumbent homes.

large Washoe County Senate district map with incumbent homes.

 

A large statewide (rural) Assembly district map with incumbent homes.

A large statewide (rural) Senate district map with incumbent homes.

 

 

 

 

 

Rory and Oscar Are BFFs

By Elizabeth Crum | 9:16 am April 28th, 2010

Teaming up to curb firefighter overtime (and other) costs to both city and county are a rather unlikely pair:  Clark County Commission chair Rory Reid and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman.

Other suggested cuts filed under the tab “shared services” are animal control, business licensing, information technology, parks, television production and purchasing.

According the LV Sun (which covered yesterday’s joint press conference at City Hall), Rory got real specific-like:

“It would be a disservice to those who made sacrifices not to point out those who have not,” Reid said…

“I’m talking about firefighters.”

Bam!

Wonder how many hate-grams and I-hope-your-house-doesn’t-catch-on-fire emails Rory got yesterday?  And did he forward them to Steve Sisolak so they could commiserate about the joys of public office?

Rory and Oscar want county and city staff to offer suggestions for service join-ups by June.

Commissioner Sisolak told the Sun he thought the changes would save each government entity in the ballpark of $1.1 million.  If so, that’s a lotta bank, and good for them (both).

Also of interest, Sisolak said he thinks the county ought to push for “zero-based” budgeting on collective bargaining agreements.  In a nutshell, this means Talks would start at “0″ rather than status-quo (which includes all kinds of perks, bonuses and benefits).

Doubt that’ll happen, but a guy (or gal) can dream.

Bonus Materials:

As reported by an insider with close ties to both municipal chiefs, here are a few texts exchanged between new pals Rory and Oscar while that City Hall press conference was going on:

Oscar:  U gonna name names and call out firefighters like u promised?

Rory:  Having second thoughts. U do it.

Oscar:  No way! City employees already mad for layoffs threat. This one all u.

Rory:  I’m scared. Plus everyone hates u already, what’s BFD?

Oscar:  Look if u wanna be BMOC, u gotta do this stuff!!

Rory:  But I want everyone to like me.

Oscar:  WTF?! You are such a wimp!! Do it!!!!!!!!!

Rory:  Calm down! Jeez!! Did you skip martini this morning?

Oscar:  Spilled on drive here, forgot flask at home. Don’t change subject.  Say it!!

Rory:  All right! Will do. Sorry. Still BFFs?

Oscar:  4ever. Or at least ’til budget BS over.

Rory:  ok

Ninth Circuit Puts the Kibosh on Brothel Ads in Some Nevada Counties

By Elizabeth Crum | 2:18 pm March 13th, 2010

This story from (and involving) CityLife is extremely interesting and meets the “only in Nevada” standard I have come to love about our state.

The sum-up:  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld a ban on brothel advertising in Nevada counties where prostitution is illegal (appeal expected).  The case was originally filed in 2006, after the Shady Lady Ranch brothel in Nye County tried to advertise in CityLife and other newspapers but ran into a snag in state law.

Brothels are permitted to advertise in the 11 Nevada counties where prostitution is legal, but they can’t do so in counties where prostitution is not allowed — including Clark County. CityLife and others, represented by the ACLU of Nevada, sued, alleging the ban was a First Amendment violation.

In July 2007, the U.S. District Court struck down the anti-advertising statutes, calling them “overly broad.” But in a 34-page ruling issued this week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the state’s laws are constitutional, in part because they support Nevada’s interest in the prevention of the commodification of sexual activity. From the ruling:

Banning commodification of sex entirely is a substantial policy goal that all states but Nevada have chosen to adopt. Uniquely among the states, Nevada has not structured its laws to pursue this substantial state interest to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it has adopted a nuanced approach to the sale of sexual services, grounded in part in concern about the negative health and safety impacts of unregulated, illegal prostitution. By permitting some legal prostitution, Nevada has been able to subject a portion of the market for paid sex to extensive regulation, while continuing severely to limit the diffusion of sexual commodification through its banning of prostitution where by far most Nevadans live (and where most outsiders visit), Clark County.

And:

Increased advertising of commercial sex throughout the state of Nevada would increase the extent to which sex is presented to the public as a commodity for sale. The advertising restrictions advance the interest in limiting this commodification in two closely related ways. First, they eliminate the public’s exposure — in some areas entirely, and in others in large part — to advertisements that are in themselves an aspect of the commodification of sex. As the harm protected against occurs in part from the proposal of the transaction, banning or restricting the advertising directly reduces the harm.

Second, the advertising restrictions directly and materially advance Nevada’s interests in limiting commodification by reducing the market demand for, and thus the incidence of, the exchange of sex acts for money, which, by definition, is the commodifying of sex. Nevada might be able to reduce the buying and selling of sex acts to a greater degree by instituting a complete ban on prostitution…. But it has chosen to take an approach to reducing demand that will not short-circuit the health and safety gains that come with partial legalization.” (emphasis in original)

AG Catherine Cortez Masto praised the ruling, but Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel of the ACLU of Nevada, disagrees.

From the CityLife piece:

[Lichtenstein] said the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly ruled if a product or service is legal, then advertising about that product or service is First Amendment-protected commercial speech. “Does somebody’s objection to the commodification of sex trump the First Amendment? We believe it does not,” he said. “The social harm of alcohol, cigarettes and gambling is well-documented; no documented social harm of legal brothels exists.”

Lichtenstein added: “The empirical evidence of making into law somebody’s moral judgment is unfortunate.” He said the case will be appealed, either to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes.  It’s possible the state’s legal position has problems.  As Sebelius pointed out in his post, “the legalization of prostitution is by definition the commodification of sex” so Nevada has already made a policy decision t0 define sex as something that can be bought and sold.  Can the state reasonably (and legally) argue that the harm that results from the commodification of sex is acceptable, but the harm caused by the advertisement of that commodification is not?  And, in any case, that the state’s interest trumps the protections of the First Amendment?

We’ll see.

Clark County Comissioner + Lobbyist + SNWA Board Member = Need to Abstain

By Elizabeth Crum | 8:42 pm February 26th, 2010

Steve Sebelius has an interesting piece up on Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins activities here in Carson City this week.  Seems he’s not only an elected official but also a lobbyist.  And on the board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.  No ethics issues, necessarily, as long as Collins abstains from certain votes. Go read more.