EDITORIAL: State doesn’t need bigger Legislature, more powerful lieutenant governor

Assembly Bill 460 might as well be called the “Make the Lieutenant Governor Relevant Act.”

AB460 would increase the size of the Nevada Legislature for the 2023 regular session. During the 2021 session, when lawmakers complete the decennial task of redrawing their district boundaries and reapportioning seats based on U.S. Census data, two seats would be added to the Assembly and one seat would be added to the Senate, increasing Assembly membership to 44 and Senate membership to 22.

The Assembly already has an even number of members, which creates the possibility of tie votes and evenly split party membership. But the large number of Assembly seats and the large number of districts in which one party has a substantial voter registration advantage over the other makes the prospect of a 21-21 or 22-22 split slim. It has happened just once in recent history, in 1994.

The Senate is another story. Including the 2015 session, five of the past six regular sessions have seen an 11-10 party split, the narrowest majority possible. Adding just one seat to the Senate, which has several fiercely competitive districts that can swing from one party to the other every four years, would make an 11-11 party split quite likely at some point.

Enter the lieutenant governor, who serves as president of the state Senate. In that role, the lieutenant governor can break tie votes in the upper chamber — a job seldom required in a body with an odd number of members. In fact, the lieutenant governor hasn’t cast the tiebreaking vote on a bill in more than 30 years.

AB460 would make the lieutenant governor’s position far, far more important. Today, the job is largely ceremonial and lacking in responsibility, beyond promoting the state and being ready to replace a governor who is unable to serve, resigns or passes away.

But AB460, which has passed the Assembly and is awaiting action in the Senate, wasn’t introduced to raise the profile of the lieutenant governor’s office. It was pitched as a response to the state’s population growth. Nevada has added about 2 million residents since the Legislature’s most recent expansion in 1981, when three members were added. The bill says creating three new seats would allow each lawmaker to “better serve his or her constituency with a legislative district of a smaller size.”

In reality, adding three seats would create a difference in district size that barely exceeds a rounding error. Adding two Assembly seats today would reduce Assembly districts by about 3,000 residents each; adding one Senate district would shrink those districts by about 6,000 residents apiece. Ten years from now, those numbers would be larger, but not so large that legislators would notice much difference in constituent communications.

And would that slight reduction in district population be worth the added costs of new lawmakers and new staff and the likelihood of tie votes in the Senate? No, it wouldn’t.

The fact that there is broad support in Carson City for tax increases doesn’t mean lawmakers have license to get greedy. The state has many needs. A larger Legislature and a more powerful lieutenant governor aren’t among them.