Redistricting still up in the air

Nevada's 2012 primary elections are less than 11 months away. Congressional and legislative candidates must file the paperwork to seek office in just eight months. And no one has any idea what district they'll run for or who they might represent come 2013.

The decennial redrawing of congressional and legislative district boundaries was one of the core tasks of the 2011 Legislature. The session adjourned a month ago without legislators making any serious effort to complete the process. The Legislature's majority Democrats, in particular, were guilty of nonfeasance.

New maps that carve out four congressional districts, 21 state Senate districts and 42 Assembly districts might not be completed for months, and they almost certainly will be drawn by the courts instead of the Legislature.

The matter is before Carson City District Judge James Todd Russell because legislative Democrats were never interested in forging a redistricting compromise. Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, both D-Las Vegas, knew whatever plan they proposed would have to win the support of Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, and they knew Democrats lacked the votes to override his veto. Yet there was no olive branch.

Yes, the major parties were expected to seek as many advantages as possible in proposing new boundaries that balance district populations, giving favored incumbents safe seats with lopsided voter-registration margins.

But Democrats took the matter to court all the way back in February, at the start of the legislative session, expecting that no deal would be reached and some aggrieved interest would sue to change some boundaries anyway. They asked a judge to redraw the districts.

It was the strategic equivalent of punting of first down -- the kind of move that would get a football coach fired, if one ever tried it.

Republican redistricting proposals never received meaningful consideration. Democrats twice passed plans that Gov. Sandoval vetoed. Redistricting was ignored in the final days of the session, as though it were some foul piece of special-interest legislation.

Judge Russell is scheduled to meet with Democratic and Republican lawyers Tuesday, at which time he'll schedule a formal hearing on how redistricting should be handled.

The final solution should meet two obvious goals.

First: one man, one vote. No single congressional or legislative district should have disproportionately smaller districts that concentrate their power; no district should be so large that voters' voices are diluted. District populations must be balanced to be constitutional.

Second: Districts should be as contiguous and coherently connected as possible, not gerrymandered to link disparate populations. That will inevitably create some heavily Democratic districts and some that strongly favor Republicans. Most districts, however, should result in competitive elections.

How that solution is reached is another matter. We'd prefer to see Judge Russell order lawmakers to strike a deal that can be passed in a single-day special session.

Redistricting is their job, not his.