Democrats Are Gambling on Vegas
The "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" Sign outside of the Las Vegas city limits in Clark County, Nevada. Photo courtesy of Kin Taal.
What happens in Vegas no longer stays in Vegas—it might determine control of Congress. The 2020 redistricting cycle saw massive changes to House districts across the country: some states gained districts, others lost districts, some enacted egregious partisan and racial gerrymanders, and other states undid previous gerrymanders and implemented a fairer map. However, one of the most politically consequential products of this cycle seemingly flew under the radar: Nevada’s new map. Since their introduction by the state legislature in 2021, Nevada’s legislative maps have been consistently characterized by the media as Democrats giving up their “safe” blue seat to improve the prospects of Nevada’s other two House Democrats. While true, this simple analysis misses the more important purpose of these maps. In addition to bolstering their swing seat incumbents, Nevada’s House maps are designed to incentivize Las Vegas voters to vote in off-year elections, which will provide valuable turnout for Democrats in extremely close statewide races. These maps have the potential to determine control of both the Senate and the House in future midterms, which would likewise decide the fate of legislation in either chamber or a political or judicial appointee in the Senate.
Nevada has been a swing state for much of recent history, which is clearly reflected in its old House map. After the 2010 redistricting cycle, Nevada gained a fourth House seat. NV-01, which contained populated parts of Las Vegas, stood as a solid blue district, rated eleven points more Democratic than the average of the country by the Cook Political Report, an independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections, campaigns, and political trends. NV-02, which consisted of northern Nevada, stood as a solid red district, rated eight points more Republican than the average of the country. NV-03 and NV-04, however, were swing districts that had been represented by both Democrats and Republicans in the last 10 years. NV-03 contained the southern part of Clark County and NV-04 was centered in the middle of the state. NV-03 had a partisan lean of R+2, while the partisan lean of NV-04 was D+1.
Following the 2020 census, Nevada kept all four of its districts. Democrats controlled the entire redistricting process as they had control over Nevada’s legislative and executive branches. The newly-drawn maps retained the one solid red district but broke up the solid blue district in order for the swing seats to become more blue. NV-01 now includes more conservative counties, bringing its partisan lean down from D+11 in 2021 to D+3 in 2022, according to the Cook Political Report. Under the new maps, both swing seats became more Democratic-leaning: NV-03 is now given a partisan lean of D+1, and NV-04 is now D+3. Up north, NV-02 is essentially unchanged, and maintains its R+8 partisan lean.
This was a big gamble by Nevada Democrats, and its consequences could reverberate across the nation. The new maps represented Democrats taking a risk and sacrificing their safe seat to shore up their more vulnerable incumbents, while making themselves vulnerable to a Republican sweep of the state in a red wave year. In 2010, when Republicans flipped 63 House seats, NV-01 stayed blue because it was a safe Democratic seat. Today, should a 2010-esque year occur with the new maps, Republicans could win all four of Nevada’s House seats. In the lead-up to the 2022 and 2024 elections, the new maps were generally analyzed one-dimensionally: Democrats gave themselves an easier path to winning three seats, but Republicans now have a chance at winning all four—and the analysis ended there.
However, as demonstrated by FiveThirtyEight.com, a website that uses data and statistical models to analyze U.S. politics and elections, Nevada Democrats could have easily gerrymandered Nevada’s map to safely protect their 3-1 majority. This would have been much less risky than the current map, since each Democratic incumbent would have secured over an 80% chance at winning reelection. If Democrats had only wanted to protect their incumbents, this map would have been ideal, and their races would be noncompetitive. Nevada Democrats intentionally enacted a riskier map—and that decision could have major consequences for the federal government. Assuming the American political landscape continues to be as narrowly divided as it has been for the last decade, these maps could easily determine future control of the House and carry major implications for control of the Senate. In fact, these maps were designed to not just help Nevada’s House Democrats, but also both Democratic Senators, which could prove crucial for securing votes on key legislation, political appointments, or judicial nominations.
Megan Messerly, a Politico reporter who previously covered politics for the Nevada Independent and the Las Vegas Sun, has explained that “the longtime strategy for Democrats in Nevada was to run up the score as high as possible in Clark, tie in Washoe [County], and lose by as little as possible in the rural counties.” These three tenets continue to hold true, and they are evident in recent elections.
First, the results from the 2022 midterm election demonstrate the importance of Democrats winning around 30% of the vote in rural Nevada, minimizing rural loses. An analysis of the Senate and gubernatorial races reveals a significant difference in how the two incumbent Democrats performed in Nevada’s fifteen rural counties. Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto won 29.3% of the vote from these counties, while Governor Steve Sisolak only won 27.6% of those same voters. The vote share in Clark was similar to where it was in 2018, and both candidates won Washoe County, but while Senator Cortez Masto narrowly won reelection, Governor Sisolak narrowly lost.
Second, Washoe County is Nevada’s second biggest county and home to roughly 15% of Nevada’s population. Winning Washoe is undoubtedly critical for Democrats: since 1996, no Democratic presidential candidate has won Nevada and lost Washoe. Since 2000, only once has the Democrat running for Senate lost Washoe but won the election, and the last time a Democrat running for Governor lost Washoe and still won the election was 1982.
Most importantly, Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, is Nevada’s most populous county and home to ¾ of Nevada’s population. Clark is also the most important county in terms of statewide elections. Of Nevada’s seventeen counties, past elections show that fifteen of them are reliably Republican, while Democrats only consistently win Clark, while Washoe is more of a tossup. As such, voter turnout in Clark plays a big factor in determining the winner of Nevada’s statewide elections. However, data from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office finds that the turnout rate in Clark often lags behind the turnout rate across the state, and that is exaggerated in midterm elections. While lower turnout in midterms compared to presidential elections is normal, this trend is especially amplified in Clark County. The difference between registered voters and votes from Clark relative to Nevada between presidential election years and midterm years is staggering: in a presidential election year, that difference is only 0.91%, but during a midterm year, that difference is much larger: 4.53%. If national Democrats have any hope of winning back legislative control after the mandate given to Republicans last November, their Nevada contingents must address this issue.
Low turnout in the Las Vegas area in midterm elections can be attributed to Democrats not feeling a need to vote, in no small part because their House seat is “safe.” By not turning out at all, the safe Las Vegas district winds up harming Democrats who are pursuing statewide office, since they get less votes from Clark County. To combat this issue, the new maps were designed to not just make Nevada’s swing seat more blue, but also to incentivize turnout for the top races in midterm elections—turnout which could determine control of not just Nevada’s House seats, but also Nevada’s Senate seats, and therefore end up determining control of both chambers of Congress and thus the fate of the president’s agenda, other bills, and any nominees that need Senate confirmation.
For those reasons, Democrats need to find ways to increase voter turnout in Clark County during midterms to close the significant gap between turnout in presidential and midterm elections, and these maps aim to fill that gap by making NV-01 more competitive. From 2012––the first election in which Nevada had four congressional districts––to 2022, almost 500,000 more people registered to vote in Clark, but 8,575 more votes were cast in 2012 than 2022. Even in comparing just the last two midterms, there were more than 236,000 more voters in Clark in 2022 than 2018, but less than 30,000 more votes were cast. In making NV-01 more competitive, Democrats are hoping to push more of those registered voters in Clark County to the polls.
From 2012 to 2022, nearly 70% of voters in Nevada were registered in Clark County. In presidential elections across that period, on average, almost 68.5% of votes in the whole state were from Clark, an average which decreased to 65.23% during midterms, a difference of more than 18,000 votes. This difference may seem small, but in a state where Senator Cortez Masto won by less than 8,000 votes in 2022, and former Governor Sisolak lost on the same ballot by just over 15,000 votes, any increase in Clark County’s turnout could be very impactful. If Nevada Democrats can consistently achieve higher turnout rates in Clark, their chances at winning statewide elections—including retaining both Senate seats—drastically increase.
While this might suggest forthcoming good news for Democrats, the flip side of the coin may be cause for Republican optimism: a red wave could result in Republicans control of all four House seats for the first time ever. The CPVI and FiveThirtyEight margins for the new map both show that a year with results similar to 2010 would lead to a Republican sweep. (In 2010, Democrats still won the Las Vegas seat by 26.5 points.) Democrats will have to spend lots of time, money, and resources to keep NV-01 blue––Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV-01) even went on record saying that she “totally got f***** by the Legislature on my district.” Titus’ frustration is a clear reflection of how her formerly-safe district just became much more competitive.
Clearly, Nevada Democrats have evaluated the situation and decided that risking a safe House seat to bolster their chances statewide is a worthwhile endeavor. When 2026 turnout data is compared to that of 2022, we will be able to gauge the success of Nevada’s maps in this regard. If successful, we might see more states adopt this type of approach to redistricting, meaning that Nevada’s maps could have even more consequences for voters across the country. Moreover, in a Congress such as the 118th Congress, where House Republicans only had a 4 seat majority, every seat counts. Given the extremely slim majorities in the federal government, the decision to unpack NV-01 is a big gamble by Nevada Democrats and could have national consequences:If the new maps do not work as intended, Republicans could flip another House seat and obtain a stronger majority. However, if these maps pay off, Nevada’s Senate seats are more likely to stay blue in midterms, which could provide critical votes on any bill, political appointee, or judicial appointee. So, Nevada Democrats rolled the dice. It’s a Vegas thing.
Sajan Shah (CC ’28) is a staff writer at CPR from Washington, DC studying political science and economics.