Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment

Withdrawn

Nevada · November 2026 general election · Constitutional amendment · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Government structure, Redistricting

In plain language

This proposed constitutional amendment would have moved responsibility for drawing Nevada's legislative and congressional districts from the Legislature to a seven-member independent commission. Four legislative leaders would each have named one commissioner, and those four would have chosen three more who are unaffiliated with either major party. The amendment set mapping criteria including compactness, equal population, and protection for racial and language minorities. After a lawsuit argued the petition created an unfunded mandate, the sponsoring committee withdrew it on September 30, 2025, so it will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

Fiscal impact

No official fiscal note has been issued for this measure yet.

When the state publishes a fiscal analysis, it will appear here and be listed in the sources below.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • Filer Sondra Cosgrove and Vote Nevada PAC say an independent commission would remove partisan self-interest from map drawing, and have advanced similar proposals in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
  • Cosgrove argues the commission would create no meaningful new cost because it would take over redistricting work already funded through the Legislature's existing budget.

Attributed to Vote Nevada PAC.

What opponents say

  • Lawyers from the Elias Law Group and Bravo Schrager, acting for Nevada voter Juan Medina, argued in court that the petition created an unfunded mandate because it would require state spending without identifying a funding source; a Carson City judge had accepted that theory against a nearly identical 2024 petition.

Attributed to the sources cited below.

Official ballot language

The certified ballot text is not yet available for this measure. Once the state certifies it, the verbatim wording will appear here.

Sources

Everything on this page traces to these sources. Follow them to read the original documents.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.