‘I question how political this is’: Henderson City Council to study redistricting again

Henderson Councilwoman Carrie Cox on Wednesday claimed that Mayor Michelle Romero’s office authorized the use of secret internal population estimates to redraw ward boundaries ahead of Cox’s re-election campaign against a challenger endorsed by Romero and others on the City Council.

The claim comes weeks after the most recent City Council meeting, where an item on redistricting was discussed and seemingly came to the surprise of the entire council. City officials on Aug. 5 will consider an ordinance that would repeal and replace the ward map approved in 2023 with one of two options provided by city demographer Andrew Powell’s office and the Henderson Planning Department.

In a press release, Cox’s re-election campaign said “strong evidence” showed that Romero had authorized the use of “internally crafted” population estimates independent of U.S. Census data to redraw the boundary of Cox’s Ward 3 — allegations that Romero and city officials rebuffed.

“The allegations made by Ms. Cox display a stunning lack of knowledge of the process for both city operations and redistricting as described in our city charter,” Romero said in a statement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Cox announced her re-election bid on May 8, with her lone challenger to this point being Annette Dawson Owens, who currently sits on the Nevada State Board of Education. Both Romero and Annette Dawson Owens have designated local public relations consultant Liz Trosper as their campaign spokeswoman. Dawson Owens’ campaign declined to comment.

If adopted, the new ordinance would mark the second time the Henderson City Council has redrawn its political boundaries since 2023. Cox’s campaign claims that, if enacted, the new map could impact up to 13,000 voters and and disenfranchise them.

“Redistricting should be about ensuring equal representation based on verifiable, trusted, census data, not backroom math that benefits incumbents or political allies,” Cox said in a statement. “This appears to be a blatant attempt to manipulate voter demographics in Ward 3 and silence specific voices in the community.”

Cox said that in either redistricting scenario, her ward was poised to lose voters.

“I question how political this is,” Cox said.

Cox in a text message Thursday questioned the city’s methodology as well as how the move would affect voters in her ward and other Henderson residents.

“As always my No.1 priority is my constituents,” Cox said. “It is well known that I have stood up for them and have not always agreed with the Mayor. The redistricting of my ward twice in a two year period is not typical and frankly unheard of.”

She continued: “The ‘estimated’ numbers do not make sense and clearly this looks political, (and) it amounts to suppression of the voters and a needless tax burden to the residents.”

Under one redistricting proposal being considered, Ward 2 would incorporate the only precinct west of Eastern Avenue, which is currently in Ward 4, and two precincts south of Horizon Ridge Parkway and east of Stephanie Street would shift to Ward 4. Ward 3 under that plan would gain four precincts in North Green Valley, while three precincts along the 215 Beltway east of Stephanie would move from Ward 3 to Ward 4.

The alternative being mulled would move one of the city’s largest precincts from Ward 3 to Ward 4, according to a plan summary posted online. That change would impact an estimated 1.4 percent of the city’s population, while the first plan would require 10 of Henderson’s 128 precincts and affect about 11 percent of the city’s voting population. The plans would reduce the maximum population difference among the wards to 4.2 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively.

What Henderson’s charter calls for

While most local governments across Nevada redistrict their political boundaries using data solely from the U.S. Census Bureau, Henderson’s city charter allows the city’s planning department and its official demographer to begin making ward map changes based on internal population figures.

Since 1973, the Henderson City Charter has called for ward borders to be redrawn whenever the number of registered voters in a given ward exceeds the number of registered voters in another by more than five percent. Boundaries cannot be changed during any year in which a general election is held and is required by law to be completed six months prior to the candidate filing date, which for the 2026 election will run from March 2 to March 15, 2026.

At the July 15 City Council meeting, Cox and others on the council said the redistricting plans had come as a surprise. But Powell, the city demographer, told city officials at the last meeting that new master-planned communities like Inspirada and Cadence have caused a surge in growth to Wards 2 and 3, and have largely fueled the need for a new political map. Powell said the plans presented minimize impact to constituents, and that he believes redistricting could be on the table again in another two years.

Romero on Wednesday pushed back on Cox’s assertion that she was the one to authorize the new boundaries for further consideration. In a follow-up statement, Romero’s campaign asserted the effort primarily impacts Ward 4.

“Ward maps are developed independently of the Mayor and Council office,” Romero said in the statement. “The newly drawn ward maps presented at the last city council meeting were made available to the Mayor, City Council and the public at the same time, a week prior to the meeting.”

‘The public deserves to know’

Cox’s campaign claimed the data set used by the city demographer is not publicly available and that other officials have not explained how they arrived at the population estimates they claim support the redistricting effort. According to documents uploaded to the Aug. 5 City Council agenda, the estimated populations of Ward 2 and Ward 3 both exceed the population of Ward 4 by more than five percent.

Included in the statement from Cox’s campaign was a commissioned analysis of the city’s proposed redistricting that was prepared by Scott Gavorsky, a Nevada historian and political consultant who said he is active in Republican circles, according to his Substack newsletter. Gavorsky, who according to his bio worked for the Census Bureau as a tribal liaison, noted that because the city’s population estimates are not publicly available that no analysis could be offered beyond comparing certain figures to those available via the census.

Public data from the census can provide an idea of how accurate other population estimates are and whether they are capable of accurately tracking change at the five percent level to justify redistricting, Gavorsky said. Population figures for Henderson determined by the U.S. Census Bureau’s one-year American Community Survey and its Population Estimates Program are both lower than the so-called consensus population estimate being used to necessitate the city’s redistricting effort, Gavorsky concluded.

Cox is calling on the public to attend the Aug. 5 City Council meeting and is demanding an independent investigation into the redistricting process, as well as a public hearing to explain why the city’s population estimate differs from census data. Cox is the only incumbent defending a seat in 2026 after defeating challenger Trish Nash by 3,522 votes in the 2022 campaign.

“The public deserves to know: who created these numbers, who signed off on them, and why we are given two options that are so drastically different in their impact on the voters,” Cox said in the statement.

In a statement provided to the Review-Journal, city of Henderson spokeswoman Madeleine Skains said the population estimate is produced using the same methodology used for the annual Southern Nevada Consensus Population Estimate, which was developed in collaboration with Clark County, the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite, with the Nevada State Demographer’s office.

Skains added the city tries to avoid moving precincts from one ward to another if it was moved during the last redistricting, but some precincts require frequent adjustments.

“The data utilized to estimate the population includes building permit data, U.S. Census Bureau persons per household data, and local utility record data” provided by NV Energy and other public utilities, Skains said, noting the Census Bureau does not estimate population at the election precinct level.

Contact Casey Harrison at charrison@reviewjournal.com. Follow @Casey_Harrison1 on X or @casey-harrison.bsky.social on Bluesky.