Court filing, Answer of Plaintiff Flora Dungan to Petition for Approval of Chapter 2 of Statues of Nevada, 1965 Special Session

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 / ?. Y IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA FLORA DUNGAN, also known as FLORA ONCKEN, and C. W. WOODBURY, M.D., Plaintiffs, vs. GRANT SAWYER, Governor of the State of Nevada, JOHN KOONTZ, Secretary of the State of Nevada, PAUL LAXALT, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Nevada, MICHAEL MIRABELLI, Treasurer of the State of Nevada, and MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ____________________ Defendants. Civil No. 695 ANSWER OF PLAINTIFF FLORA DUNGAN TO PETITION FOR ) APPROVAL OF CHAPTER 2 OF STATUTES OF NEVADA. 1965 SPECIAL SESSION I. FACTS Plaintiff admits the accuracy of the facts contained in Defendants' Exhibit B of its Petition for Approval of Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session. II. THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLAN OF APPORTIONMENT This Court has heretofore ordered the Legislature of the State of Nevada to convene in special session "for the pur?pose of adopting legislation reapportioning both Houses of the BOYD a LE A V ITT A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Legislature of the State of Nevada in a manner consistent with ' said Opinion and Judgment and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States." The question now before the Court is whether or not the apportionment plan passed by the Nevada Legislature in its special session complies with the constitutional requisites of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Plaintiff maintains that Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session, does not meet the test set down in Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed. (2d) 506, in that the population of the districts created by the act are not as equal as is practicable. The Supreme Court in setting forth the standard to be applied in apportionment stated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at page 577, * 84 S.Ct. at page 1390: "By holding that as a federal constitutional requisite both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, we mean that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement." The Court then stated that "What is marginally permis?sible in one State may be unsatisfactory in another, depending on the particular circumstances of the case." The Court does state, however, that "Whatever the means of accomplishment, the overridi objective must be substantial equality of population among the V' ?'" ?v - ??; ? ? i 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 'ITT AW ADA various districts, so that'the vote of any citizen is approximate! equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State." The Supreme Court has refused to set forth any formula as to what is a constitutionally permissible deviation from apportionment according to population. The Court stated in Roman v. Sincock. 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed. (2d) 620 (1964): "In our view the problem does not lend itself to any such uniform formula, and it is neither practicable nor desirable to establish rigid mathematical standards for evaluating the constitutional validity of a state legis?lative apportionment scheme under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, the proper judicial approach is to ascertain whether, under the particular circumstances existing in the indi?vidual State whose legislative apportionment is at issue, there has been a faithful adherence to a plan of population-based representation, with such minor deviations only as may occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination ." Although the Supreme Court has expressly stated that there is no formula for each case (Roman v. Sincock, supra), Defendants attempt to justify the apportionment act upon the grounds that the disparity of 1.47 to 1 in the Senate and 1.53 to 1 in the Assembly is below the ratio approved by other Courts that have passed on the problem. The Defendants cite Buckley v. Hoff, 243 F.Supp. 873 (1965) Vermont, League of Nebraska Munici?palities v. Marsh, 242 F.Supp. 357 (1965) Nebraska, and Petuskey v. Rampton, 243 F.Supp. 365 (1965) Utah, as authority to justify the disparity in Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special 3 I Session. In Buckley v. Hoff, supra, the Vermont House of Repre?sentatives was apportioned on town lines and representation was based on the number of registered voters, not on population. The disparity ratio in the House was only 1.3 to 1. The Senate was apportioned on county lines and representation was based on popu?lation. The disparity in the Senate was 1.6 to 1, but it is not clear from the opinion whether or not a lower ratio could have been obtained without violating county lines. The Court further points out that the disparity in each house was balanced out to some extent in the other. Because of its peculiar factual situ?ation, the case cannot be considered as precedent for the Nevada Legislature, especially since neither house of the Nevada Legis?lature under the act has a disparity ratio of less than 1.47 to 1, In League of Nebraska Municipalities v. Marsh, supra, contrary to the statement contained in paragraph 5, page 4 of the Petition for Approval, the Court held a disparity of 1.6 to 1 was not permissible where a better plan could be devised without vio?lating county boundaries. The Court pointed out that in Nebraska plans based on fewer districts would result in disparities as low as 1.26 to 1, and that, consequently, a disparity of 1.6 to 1 was not permissible. As hereinafter demonstrated, a disparity ratio of as low as 1.17 to 1 is easily obtainable in Nevada without vio?lating county boundaries. In Petuskey v. Rampton, supra, the Court retained juris?diction, stated that further narrowing of the disparities was practicable, and made it clear that the Court expected further action from the legislature. One of the more recent cases is Paulson v. Meier. 246 F.Suop. 36 (1965) North Dakota. In that case the Court rejected the plan of the legislature and stated that a ratio of 1.39 to 1 is not constitutionally permissible. The Court stated, at page 40 - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 "Expressed differently, the voting strength of three persons residing in some districts in this State is approximately equiv?alent to the voting strength of four persons residing in other districts." In Nevada, under the present bill, the voting strength of four persons residing in some districts is approxi?mately equivalent to the voting strength of six persons residing in other districts. Since the test is not one of "mathematical exactness," the statute must be examined to determine if it is "an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable." (Reynolds v. Sims, supra.) A breakdown of Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session, as compared to population figures shows the following: SENATE Percent Percentage of Total of Total Gounty 1960 Population Popula?tion No. of Senators Represen?tation Clark 127,016 44.52 8 40.0 Washoe-Storey 85,311 29.91 6 30.0 Remaining 14 Counties 72,951 25.57 _6 30.0 Totals 285,278 100.00 20 100.0 Coun ty 1960 Population ASSEMBLY Percent of Total Popula?tion No. of Assembly-men Percentage of Total Represen?tation Clark 127,016 44.52 16 40.0 Washoe-Storey 85,311 29.91 12 30.0 Remaining 14 Counties ?7JL-95.1, 25.57 12 30.0 Totals g2=g=8.5,278 100.00 40 100.0 5 / It can be readily seen from the charts that although Clark County has 44.52 percent of the total population of the State, it only has 40 percent of the total representation in both houses of the Nevada Legislature under the provisions of Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session. It is just as obvious that the remaining 14 counties with only 25.57 percent of the total population were awarded 30 percent of the represen?tation in both houses under the bill. The additional 4.5 percent of the representation given to the smaller counties is in excess of what they are entitled to and at the expense of Clark County. This is all the more glaring when one considers that under the present population figures Clark County has more than 50 percent of the total population of the State. This fact was admitted by the Defendants in their Answering Brief filed herein on June 3, 1965, wherein they stated at page 7, line 13: "Unofficial esti?mates now place Clark County's population at 51.1% of the State's total." It is also proper for this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the population in Clark County is now, and has been since 1960, rapidly increasing. As was stated by the Court in Paulson v. Meier, 246 F.Supp. 36 (1965) North Dakota, at page 45, "We recognize that the population as disclosed by the federal census of 1960 is controlling in this matter, but judicially note that the population of the City of Bismarck, comprising a part of District 32, is now, and has been since 1960, rapidly increasing." A more equal apportionment under the plan for 20 senators and 40 assemblymen could be established by apportioning to Clark County 9 senators and 18 assemblymen, which would then give to Clark County 45 percent of the total representation to match its 44.52 percent of the population. Washoe-Storey Counties could be apportioned 6 senators and 12 assemblymen, giving it 30 percent of the total representation to match its 29.91 percent of 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 the population. The remaining 14 counties could be apportioned 5 senators and 10 assemblymen, giving them 25 percent of the total representation to match their 25.57 percent of the total population. The ratios of disparity under such a plan would be much lower than the 1.47 to 1 in the Senate and 1.53 to 1 in the Assembly as created by the present act. As another example of what the Legislature might have done to approach more nearly the ideal ratio of 1 to 1, the number of senators could have been allowed to remain at 17, the number of assemblymen could have been fixed at 34, and the following appor?tionment resulting-in a disparity ratio of 1.17 to 1 and 50.08 percent to elect could have been made: (a) Clark County--8 senators and 16 assemblymen (b) Washoe County? 5 senators and 10 assemblymen (c) Elko, Humboldt and Eureka Counties--l senator and 2 assemblymen (d) Ormsby, Douglas, Storey and Lyon Counties-- 1 senator and 2 assemblymen (e) Pershing, Churchill, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties--1 senator and 2 assemblymen (f) Lander, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine Counties-- 1 senator and 2 assemblymen This can be illustrated by the following chart: Popula- District 1960 Popu?lation Percent of Total Popu?lation Number of Assem?blymen tion rep?resented by each Assembly-man Number of Senators Popula?tion rep?resented by each Senator Clark 127,016 44.5 16 7,938 8 15,877 Washoe 84,743 29.7 10 8,474 5 16,949 Elko, Humboldt and Eureka 18,486 6.5 2 9,243 1 18,486 (chart continued) BOYD a LEA VITT A T T O R N E Y * A T LAW LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 7 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 lOYD ft LEA VITT A T T O R N E Y * A T LAW .AS VEGAS. NEVADA Percent 1960 of Total Popu- Popu- Dlstrict lation lation Ormsby, Douglas, Storey and Lyon 18,255 6.4 Pershing, Churchill, Mineral and Esmeralda 18,599 6.5 Lander, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine 18,179 6.4 Popula?tion rep- Number resented of by each Assem- Assembly-blymen man 9,127 Number of Senators Popula?tion rep?resented by each Senator 18,255 9,299 18,599 LARGEST RATIO AND 2 9,089 1 OF DISPARITY (BETWEEN LARGEST SMALLEST DISTRICT) ASSEMBLY 18,179 Pershing, ) Churchill,-) Mineral ) and ) Esmeralda ) Pershing, Churchill, Mineral and Esmeralda 9,299 Clark 7,938 SENATE 1.17 18,599 Clark 15,877 - 1.17 In addition to Chapter 2, there were other bills intro?duced in the 1965 Special Session of the Nevada Legislature, including Assembly Bill No. 2, Senate Bill No. 5 and Senate Bill No. 6, copies of which are attached hereto and marked Exhibits ??A," "B" and "C," respectively. All three of these bills providec for apportionments which were closer to the ideal ratio of dis?parity than the statute submitted for approval. The disparity in Assembly Bill No. 2 was 1.23 to 1 in the Senate and 1.27 to 1 in the Assembly, with percentages necessary to elect control of 50.5 and 49.2, respectively. The disparity in Senate Bill No. 5 was - 8 _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ITT AW IDA 1.43 to 1 in each house wi'th a percentage for control of 52.8. The disparity in Senate Bill No. 6 was 1.39 to 1 in each house witl a percentage for control of 50.3. The disparity in Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session, is 1.47 to 1 for the Senate and 1.53 to 1 for the Assembly with a percentage for con?trol in the Senate of 49.7 and 46.8 for the Assembly. Assembly Bill No. 2 can be illustrated as follows: Popula- I District 1960 Popu?lation Percent of Total Popu?lation Number of Assem?blymen tion rep?resented by each Assembly-man Number of Senators Popula?tion rep?resented by each Senator Clark 127,016 44.5 16 7,938 8 15,877 Washoe 84,743 29.7 11 7,704 5 16,949 Elko and Humboldt 17,719 6.2 2 8,859 1 17,719 Churchill, Lander, Mineral and Pershing 19,546 6.9 2 9,773 1 19,546 Douglas, Lyon, Ormsby and Storey 18,255 6.4 2 9,127 1 18,255 Esmeralda, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye and White Pine 17,999 6.3 2 8,999 1 17,999 LARGEST RATIO OF DISPARITY (BETWEEN LARGEST AND SMALLEST DISTRICT) ASSEMBLY Churchill, Lander, Mineral and Pershing 9,773 Washoe 7,704 SENATE Churchill, Lander, ) 1Q , Mineral and Pershing ) Clark 15,877 1.268 or 1.27 1.23 - 9 / These bills, which were introduced but not passed at the Special Session, did not violate county lines, although the statute submitted for approval creates an assembly district which includes two whole counties and a township from another county (Esmeralda County, Nye County, and Mina Township-Mineral County). The bills also did not provide for special joint districts or floterial districts as was provided for by statute submitted for approval. As shown by Exhibit "B" attached to the Petition for Approval, the greatest disparity in the Senate is between the Eureka-Humboldt-Lander-Pershing district and the Sparks-Sun Valley Roop district. The next four greatest disparities are between the Eureka-Humboldt-Lander-Pershing district and the four districts in Clark County. The greatest disparity in the assembly is bet?ween the Eureka-Lander-Pershing district and the Churchill dis?trict. The next four greatest disparities are between the Eureka- Lander-Pershing district and four districts in Clark County. In each house, the people of Clark County are the least well repre?sented with the exception of only one other district. From the foregoing facts it is apparent that Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session of the Nevada Legis?lature, does not meet the constitutional requisites and other plans calling for districts more equal in population were arbi?trarily disregarded. III. THE REMEDY The Plaintiff maintains that Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special Session, does not meet the test of being the result of good faith effort to establish districts substantially equal in population and does not comply with constitutional requi sites of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Consti?tution and is therefore a nullity. The Court must now decide 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 'ITT A W ADA what remedy to prescribe. ^ The Plaintiff suggests two possible alternatives to allow more equal population districts: 1. That this Court apportion membership of the Nevada Legislature as follows: (a) Clark County--8 senators and 16 assemblymen (b) Washoe County--5 senators and 10 assemblymen (c) Elko, Humboldt and Eureka Counties--l senator and 2 assemblymen (d) Ormsby, Douglas, Storey and Lyon Counties-- 1 senator and 2 assemblymen (e) Pershing, Churchill, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties--l senator and 2 assemblymen (f) Lander, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine Counties-- 1 senator and 2 assemblymen ; and that all candidates be required to run at large in such districts. 2. That if the Court maintains the same number of senators and assemblymen as provided in the submitted bill, that this Court apportion membership of the Legislature of the State of Nevada to districts as follows: (a) Clark County? 9 senators and 18 assemblymen (b) Washoe County--6 senators and 12 assemblymen (c) The remaining 15 counties--5 senators and 10 assemblymen; and that all candidates be required to run at large in such districts. In the alternative, if the above relief is not granted, the Plaintiff requests: 1. That if this Court allows the election of members of the Legislature of the State of Nevada at the general election in 1966 pursuant to Chapter 2 of Statutes of Nevada, 1965 Special I 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 /ITT -AW fADA Session, that the Court clearly state that such election is for one session only, and order that the Legislature at the 1967 session enact a valid plan of reapportionment; that this Court retain jurisdiction in order that it may make and enter such orders as it may deem appropriate, including a valid reapportion?ment plan for each house of the Legislature, or directing that each house be elected at large pending a valid reapportionment by the Legislature itself; 2. That this Court enjoin the Governor of the State of Nevada from calling a special session of the Legislature of the State of Nevada prior to the day next after the election of members of the Legislature of the State of Nevada in 1966, unless there is first held a special election pursuant to whatever plan of apportionment is ordered by this Court; 3. That this Court should take the action that the Court did in Petuskey v. Rampton, supra, wherein the Court stated at page 374: "Should the legislature between now and January 1, 1967 attempt to reapportion unconsti?tutionally or attempt to ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to apportion one or both houses of the Legislature on factors other than population, it will be this Court's duty to give further consideration to the necessity of giving plain?tiffs injunctive and affirmative relief by judicial decree, and for such purpose we again retain jurisdiction." 4. That this Court should further retain jurisdiction in this case in all other aspects including possible injunctive and affirmative relief to Plaintiff should it become necessary. 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 j 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 Respectfully submitted, BOYD and LEAVITT ^Attorneys ror Plaind-i-T" /FLORA DUNGAN 8LI-Sdhara Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada - 13 - BOYD a LEAVITT a t t o r n e y ? a t l a w LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 1234 5 678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. B. 2 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2?MESSRS. BUNKER AND CLOSE October 25,1965 --------0--- Referred to a committee of the whole SUMMARY?Apportions both houses of legislature according to population. (BDR 17-11) E x p l a n a t io n ? Matter in italics is new ; matter in brackets [ ] is material to be omitted. AN ACT to amend NRS section 218.050, relating to the number and apportion?ment of legislators, by declaring policy, reducing the number of assembly-men and creating legislative districts; to amend NRS sections 218.020 and 218.030, relating to the election of legislators, by providing for cer?tificates of election in multicounty districts and for allotting long and short initial terms of senators; to amend NRS sections 293.185, 293.393 and 293.395, relating to candidacy filings and certificates of election, by providing for multicounty legislative districts; to repeal NRS sections 218.060 and 218.080, relating to assembly districts; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. The People of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. NRS 218.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: 218.050 1. [The senate shall consist of 17 members, and the assembly shall consist of 37 members. 2. The apportionment of senators and assemblymen in the several counties of this state shall be as follows: Churchill County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Clark County: 1 senator and 12 assemblymen. Douglas County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Elko County: 1 senator and 2 assemblymen. Esmeralda County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Eureka County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Humboldt County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Lander County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Lincoln County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Lyon County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Mineral County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Nye County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Ormsby County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Pershing County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. Storey County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. ExJul/T V " S. B.5 SENATE BILL NO. 5? SENATORS BROWN AND LAMB October 27,1965 Referred to Committee of the Whole SUMMARY?Apportions both houses of legislature according to population. (BDR 17-27) E x p l a n a t io n ? Matter in italics is new ; matter in brackets 1 ] is material to be omitted. AN ACT to amend NRS section 218.050, relating to the number and apportion?ment of legislators, by declaring policy, increasing the number of senators to 18, and creating seven legislative districts; to amend NRS sections 218.020 and 218.030, relating to the election of legislators, by providing for certificates of election in multicounty districts and for allotting long and short initial terms of senators; to amend NRS sections 293.185, 293.393 and 293.395, relating to candidacy filings and certificates of election, by providing for multicounty legislative districts; to repeal NRS sections 218.060 and 218.080, relating to assembly districts; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. The People of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. NRS 218.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 218.050 1. ?The senate shall consist of 17 members, and the assem- 3 bly shall consist of 37 members. 4 2. The apportionment of senators and assemblymen in the several 5 counties of this state shall be as follows: 6 Churchill County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 7 Clark County: 1 senator and 12 assemblymen. 8 Douglas County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 9 Elko County: 1 senator and 2 assemblymen. 10 Esmeralda County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 11 Eureka County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 12 Humboldt County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 13 Lander County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 14 Lincoln County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 15 Lyon County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 16 Mineral County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 17 Nye County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 18 Ormsby County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 19 Pershing County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. A X ? / i / T "b S. B. 6 SENATE BILL NO. 6? SENATORS HUMPHREY AND BISSETT O ctober 27,1965 Referred to Committee of the Whole SUMMARY?Apportions both houses of legislature according to population. (BDR 17-14) E x p l a n a t io n ?Matter in italics is new ; matter in brackets I J is material to be omitted. AN ACT to amend NRS section 218.050, relating to the number and apportion?ment of legislators, by declaring policy, increasing the number of senators and assemblymen, and creating legislative districts; to amend NRS sec?tions 218.020 and 218.030, relating to the election of legislators, by provid?ing for certificates of election in multicounty districts and for allotting long and short initial terms of senators; to amend NRS sections 293.185, 293.393 and 293.395, relating to candidacy filings and certificates of elec?tion, by providing for multicounty legislative districts; to repeal NRS sections 218.000 and 218.0S0, relating to assembly districts; and providing other matters projjerly relating thereto. The People of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. NRS 218.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 218.050 1. [The senate shall consist of 17 members, and the assem- 3 bly shall consist of 37 members. 4 2. The apportionment of senators and assemblymen in the several 5 counties of this state shall be as follows: 6 Churchill County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 7 Clark County: 1 senator and 12 assemblymen. 8 Douglas County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 9 Elko County: 1 senator and 2 assemblymen. - " , 10 Esmeralda County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 11 Eureka County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 12 Humboldt County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 13 Lander County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 14 Lincoln County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 15 Lyon County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 16 Mineral County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 17 Nye County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. 18 Ormsby County: 1 senator and 1 assemblyman. EXHIBIT'"C.?