MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session February 23, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Thursday, February 23, 1995, Chairman Giunchigliani presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack D. Close, Chairman Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Lieutenant Governor Lonnie Hammargren Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District No. 39 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner/Citizen Ms. Janine Hansen/State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Ms. Juanita Cox/People to Protect America, Citizen Mr. Francis Gillings/American Families for Return to Free Society, Sparks NV Mr. M. K. (Ike) Yochum/Independent American Party Ms. Stephanie Licht/Lobbyist for Elko County, Nevada Ms. Sherri Lakin/Citizen Ms. Peggy John/Citizen John H. DeTar, M.D./Large Families of America Gregory W. Hamilton/Minister, Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Nevada Mr. Edmund Morgan/United We Stand America Mr. Richard Brophy/Citizen Mr. Don Fotheringham/Writer, "The New American" Mr. Richard Popovich/Citizen/Businessman Ms. Lynn Chapman/American Legion and Auxiliary, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Auxiliary Mr. Scott Dickinson/Nevada Concerned Citizens Mr. Jim Mikkelsen/Citizen Mr. David Horton/Committee to Restore the Constitution Tahnya E. Ballard/Attorney at Law, Citizen Mr. Michael McGriff/American Pistol and Rifle Association Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion to adopt minutes of January 31 and February 2, 1995 Elections and Procedures Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED COMMITTEE APPROVE ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 31 AND FEBRUARY 2, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that Governor and Lieutenant Governor be affiliated with same political party and be elected jointly. Assemblyman Dini, District No. 38, sponsor of A.J.R. 14, began the hearing on A.J.R. 14 by stating the legislation was passed in 1989 but was not renewed by the Legislature in 1991 to be put on the ballot. He then addressed the committee reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). Mr. Dini explained A.J.R. 14 would bring strength to the Lieutenant Governor's position, and the Governor and Lieutenant Governor could work as a team. He urged committee to consider A.J.R. 14. Chairman Giunchigliani conveyed if A.J.R. 14 passed committee, the legislation would then go through both houses and to a full vote of the people. Former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner, citizen, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 14. Mrs. Wagner pointed out to the Committee if A.J.R. 14 passed, voters would have no choice in selecting the Lieutenant Governor because the gubernatorial candidate would select his/her running mate. She stated for the record, "and I think the current Governor would also agree, that there certainly never was competition with the Governor in my role as Lieutenant Governor. In fact, in looking back over history, I think one could suggest that some people who served in the same party as Lieutenant Governor and Governor had more problems than people who have been a Republican and Democrat or a Democrat and a Republican; that being of the same party does not automatically mean things will work well and there will be no competition." A case could be made that A.J.R. 14 would make the Lieutenant Governor's position weaker, she continued, since the Lieutenant Governor could be chosen for reasons other than qualifications. Her feeling was the people of Nevada would prefer to make their own choice for Lieutenant Governor. She reiterated her feeling that party label had no bearing on working relationships of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. She stated for the record she did appreciate Mr. Dini's comments and that the legislation did not proceed last session, and she added, "I know this is something that he has been very interested in and concerned about for some time, and I do appreciate that." Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 14. As an example of how people of Nevada elected a person and not a party, Ms. Hansen offered a history of elections in Nevada since 1864 in which she conveyed nine times the Lieutenant Governor was of a different party than the party of the Governor. See (Exhibit D). Ms. Hansen discussed "The Committee for the Constitutional System", a group which advocated a parliamentary form of government, and explained one of the major changes the Committee for the Constitutional System advocated in the present system was electing people as slates of a particular party instead of as individuals. Instead of increasing the opportunity of individuals and keeping the opportunity of a free republic to choose the people to represent it, A.J.R. 14 would diminish that opportunity, she declared. She concluded her remarks by asking committee to oppose A.J.R. 14. Ms. Juanita Cox, representing herself, her family and the People to Protect America, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 14 which, she contended, limited the citizen's right to elect their representatives. She revealed she voted for the best person regardless of party, and she believed people had the right to choose. Stating A.J.R. 14 limited that right, Ms. Cox concluded her testimony. Mr. Francis Gillings, representing American Families for Return to Free Society/Free Government, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 14 which, he stated, would give government more control over the people. He expressed agreement with Ms. Janine Hansen's testimony. Mr. M. K. (Ike) Yochum, Independent American Party, expressed opposition to A.J.R. 14, stating the constitution was sacred and did not need to be "played with." Ms. Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, representing Elko County, read from a position paper submitted by the Board of County Commissioners of Elko, Nevada, which expressed Elko County's opposition to A.J.R. 14. See (Exhibit E). Ms. Sherri Lakin, Citizen, asserted opposition to A.J.R. 14 and expressed agreement with previous testimony in opposition to the legislation. Ms. Peggy John, Citizen, declared her opposition to A.J.R. 14 and her agreement with others who previously spoke against A.J.R. 14. John H. DeTar, M.D., representing his family and the organization Large Families of America, spoke in opposition to A.J.R. 14 which he said was an amendment to the Constitution. He urged committee to vote against A.J.R. 14. The present system was an impediment to the development of an inordinately powerful political machine, he asserted, citing a scenario wherein a United States Senator died, the Governor appointed himself as Senator, and the Lieutenant Governor from a different political party would become Governor. Lieutenant Governor Lonnie Hammargren testified for the record against A.J.R. 14. He stressed present legislation did not affect him personally as the present Governor was of a different political party and could not run again. Lieutenant Governor Hammargren communicated he liked the present system which he found stimulating, interesting and with broader perspectives. ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Assemblyman David E. Humke, District No. 26, sponsor of A.B. 99, told committee A. B. 99 allowed for Nevada's participation in a vehicle known as the Conference of the States. He became interested through his participation in the Conference of State Governments where he was currently the Chair of the Western Legislative Conference which dealt with 13 western states and four Pacific island governments which participated in the Council of State Governments. From A.B. 99, the Council of State Governments had become the fiscal agent and the staff of a possible Conference of the States. An exhibit was provided to the committee which described the Conference of the States (Exhibit F). Another Exhibit was provided to the committee, (Exhibit G), which was a box score of states which had either passed a Conference of the States resolution or had legislation introduced and still pending. Assemblyman Humke explained the Conference of the States was a bipartisan effort founded by Governor Mike Leavitt of Utah and Governor Ben Nelson of Nebraska, two conservative Governors, one Republican, one Democrat, who felt a better balance was needed in federal government and state relations. Governor Leavitt and Governor Nelson thought the Conference of the States was better than complaining, hoping and waiting for the federal government to make changes. As an aside, Assemblyman Humke told committee the Conference of the States idea was born before November 8, 1994, when there were massive changes in the Congress of the United States. "As you know, I am a Republican. I believe that a now-Republican Congress needs to be prodded just as much as a Democratically controlled Congress needed to be prodded into making some changes to provide for the rights of states in our Federalist system," he further stated. Assemblyman Humke told committee Exhibit F gave a good overview of a state's petition and suggested the possibility of some process amendments. However, he said, Exhibit F stressed the Conference of the States would not lead to a Constitutional Convention. It was not structured as such, and would not be allowed to turn into a Constitutional Convention. Continuing, Assemblyman Humke described the fundamental points on which the Conference of the States' concept was based which were that the Conference should be scrupulously non-partisan, and must seek fundamental long-term structural change in federal government-state relations as opposed to attempting to resolve the specific issues of the day. It must avoid single issue causes and proponents, and must be proactive and concentrate state power, and seek to focus national attention on federalism seeking to find a balance. Mr. Humke apologized for the incorrect reference on Page 5 of Exhibit F to the make-up of the Nevada delegation and to each state's delegation to the Conference of the States which called for five delegates. A.B. 99 was correct (Page 2, line 25) where seven delegates were listed: the Governor of each state, or his/her designee, and six legislators. Mr. Humke closed his presentation by listing organizations which backed the Conference of the States: National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the National Governors' Association. The Chair recognized Assemblywoman Lambert who related she had received calls from constituents who were opposed to A.B. 99 because they saw the Conference of the States as a Constitutional Convention. She requested Assemblyman Humke outline protections and possible additions to A.B. 99 which would prevent the Conference from becoming a Constitutional Convention. Responding to Assemblywoman Lambert's request, Assemblyman Humke discussed the product of the Conference of the States would be a state's petition. An initial meeting would be held in one central location with delegations from states which would send a delegation, and the state's petition would be drafted based on input from the Governors and Legislators who were present in consultation with their constituencies. The petitions would be voted upon and returned to the states, (to the Legislators and to the Governors) for any action they would care to take on the state's petitions. It could or could not involve proposed Constitutional Amendments. The document, the state's petition, could consist of a number of recommendations to the Congress. He stressed there would be recommendations. Assemblywoman Lambert asked Assemblyman Humke if the recommendations would be Constitutional Amendments and not an entire Constitutional Convention. Assemblyman Humke assured it would not be a Constitutional Convention. At this time, Chairman Giunchigliani, referenced (Exhibit F), Page 3, "When a significant majority of states have passed Resolutions of Participation, a legal entity called the Conference of the States, Inc., will be formed by the delegates from each state, acting as incorporators," and asked Mr. Humke the duties of the "incorporators." He answered the question by apologizing and explaining (Exhibit F) was an older edition of Governor Leavitt's and Governor Nelson's paper, and since the Exhibit F compilation date of December 20, an agreement had been reached by the Council of State Governments to function as that corporation; a tax- exempt, non-profit corporation. A discussion ensued between Assemblyman Humke and Chairman Giunchigliani with numerous questions raised as to the extent of A.B. 99 and how the Conference of the States would differ from a Constitutional Convention. Assemblyman Humke stressed his intent in proposing A.B. 99 was not necessarily for a Constitutional Amendment. The Governors wanted to have the process of the states getting together to consider pointing out changes to Congress. He felt a Constitutional Convention was extremely dangerous and should not be done. Assemblyman Price reflected the balance of power towards the federal government had been growing, and he would like to see it brought back to the states. However, he was concerned that a Conference of the States would make it easy to move toward the Constitutional Convention. Assemblyman Close believed a majority of the people wanted decreased federal intervention in their personal lives and in their states. But, he said, the forefathers made it difficult for the people to attack and change the Constitution. The Constitution was a sacred object, he proclaimed. While he agreed with the intent of A.B. 99, his concern was when charted on paper, the requirements necessary to create a Constitutional Convention matched those identified for the Conference of the States. In other words, requirements to create a Constitutional Convention were the same being asked for the Conference of the States, he declared. Assemblyman Humke responded he was convinced the National Steering Committee was made up of rational people who were sufficiently conservative and would not engage in a Constitutional Convention. Any group of people from a large majority of the states could get together and declare they were going to be a Constitutional Convention since they had delegates from all states. Mr. Humke added he had testified for a document known as a states petition, but he was opposed to a Constitutional Convention. The Chair recognized Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District No. 39, who testified in support of A.B. 99. Language on page 2, lines 38 through 42, would allay some of the fears, and in particular the line which reads "... and returned to the delegation's state for consideration by the entire legislature." Assemblyman Hettrick said what came out of the conference would be a group of suggestions put together by a group of states who had concerns about what the federal government was or was not doing; and what they would like to see changed. But before the document would go to the federal government, it must go back to each individual state and be ratified. At that point, if doubts existed, Nevada could choose not to participate. Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out the fiscal note was $23,448 which he thought was small. Assemblyman Dini referred to the February edition of "State Government", quoting, "These delegates will debate what types of long-term structural changes are needed in the federal-state relationship short of a Constitutional Convention. State delegations will vote on a state's petition which will then be taken back for approval by each state legislature. The petition could include legislative and legal strategies and even draft amendments to the Constitution." In response, Assemblyman Hettrick gave his interpretation of the quote from "State Government". The Constitution could be amended with three-fourths of the states. The intent might have been to say something should be done to strengthen the balance, but it would not go to them as an already-passed amendment where they did not have an opportunity to have input. Hettrick stated his feeling would be if the petition came back from the conference and said the Constitution should be amended, he would vote against it. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if the petition brought from the Conference of the States could be changed by the legislature or would the petition have to stay exactly the same as brought forth. In response, Assemblyman Hettrick believed the intent of each of the items included in the petition would have to remain unchanged or the petition would not be ratified. He did not believe if it were changed significantly, the petition would count as being ratified. A discussion ensued between Chairman Giunchigliani, Assemblyman Humke and Assemblyman Hettrick regarding bylaws of the Conference of the States and safeguards. Chairman Giunchigliani stated she was concerned the bylaws could be changed with additions. She felt existing language pointed out by Mr. Humke on page 3, line 7 of A.B. 99 did not ensure protection. Mr. Hettrick felt language could be inserted stating Nevada would not participate in a Constitutional Convention, and if there were any changes in the bylaws of the Conference of the States which went in that direction, Committee should put language in A.B. 99 stating any participation at that point would be null and void. Chairman Giunchigliani declared at least three-fourths of the states would have to include the same provision. She communicated she had not decided on her vote. She asked if it was reasonable, depending on the passage of A.B. 99, rather than to get all the states together, for each state to look at its particular needs being effected by the federal government and to pass legislation or work with their own congressional delegation to advocate their position rather than having to get together as 50 states. As an aside, she noted, in fiscal note information in Section 2, subsection 2 of A.B. 99, allowance and travel expenses were covered but not noted under administrative cost. Assemblyman Hettrick concluded by telling committee he felt Nevada should be a participant in the Conference of the States. He suggested putting safeguards in the bill. He advised he was not proposing the Constitution of the United States be changed. He did not think it should be changed and did not believe the bill proposed to change the Constitution. Since the petition must come back to Nevada before it could be ratified and sent to the federal government, he assured committee would have an opportunity to be sure that would not happen. Chairman Giunchigliani stated she and Chairman Close received phone calls in opposition to A.B. 99 and asked the names be placed in the minutes in opposition to A.B. 99. The phone calls were from: Ms. Janice Ray, 720 Chabot Drive, Las Vegas, and Mr. Bill Ballinger, Reno. Ms. Juanita Cox, representing herself, her family and the People to Protect America, submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit H) which requested committee to indefinitely postpone A.B. 99. Mr. Gregory W. Hamilton, representing the Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Nevada, testified in opposition to A.B. 99 (Exhibit I). He referenced (Exhibit F) page 8, last paragraph, "A better strategy would be to focus on `process amendments,' the results of which would be much more predictable and that would naturally bring about a better balance in the system over a number of years. A number of individuals and task forces have recommended, for example, adding a clause to Article V that would put states on equal footing with the Congress in proposing constitutional amendments." Mr. Hamilton interpreted the sentence as a key to reversing the order in the Constitution. The intent seemed to suggest going back to the Articles of Confederation and preservation of state rights, he said. Mr. Hamilton then began his presentation reading from prepared text (Exhibit I). At the conclusion of his testimony, Assemblyman Price asked Mr. Hamilton if he had concerns if other states were represented at the Conference of the States and Nevada was not. Mr. Hamilton did not believe Nevada should attend just because other states attended. John H. DeTar, M.D., spoke for his family and the organization Large Families of America, in opposition to A.B. 99. He referenced the book, "How Tyranny Came to America." He referenced points in the book which he felt were relevant to A.B. 99. He questioned whether the leaders who wanted the Conference of States adhered to the idea the Constitution of the United States was a living document or if they adhered to the principle there were some unchanging principles. He then discussed the legislation noting three could come from one party and three from another party, or if there were more parties at least no more than three from one party and the Governor. They would come from both houses. He questioned if this would give ultimate authority to the Governor when there was a tie between the two parties. He would break the ties. The position at this convention would then be in the hands of the Governor. Dr. DeTar wondered how liberal the Governor would be in his interpretation of the Constitution if he had the balance of power in one of the convention-like affairs. He closed by referencing the book, "Terrible 1313 Revisited," a study which discussed various conferences which leaned toward liberalism. Mr. Edmund Morgan, representing United We Stand America, testified in favor of A.B. 99. He discussed the relationship between the federal government and the states. People had indicated they wanted change, and people were concerned about the huge national debt and that government in Washington ignored their wishes. People wanted to recognize their rights as outlined in the Tenth Amendment. He noted 87 percent of Nevada was administered by the federal government, and the people of Nevada were deeply concerned. Mr. Morgan felt legislature should take a position of responsibility to become engaged with the other states in meeting to examine the question and alternatives to address the problems. Mr. Morgan felt Nevada should participate in the Conference of States to make sure Nevada's rights were heard, and he believed the federal government would pay more attention to a coalition of states than if Nevada tried to attack the problem alone. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, testified on behalf of Nevada Eagle Forum in opposition to A.B. 99. See (Exhibit J). She discussed ways of amending the Constitution. There had been a move in the past 15 years to call for a Constitutional Convention, but every attempt had been stopped because people did not want a Constitutional Convention. She outlined organizations within Nevada who opposed a Constitutional Convention. Organizations included the Nevada State Education Association, A.C.L.U., V.F.W., John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, D.A.R., and Common Cause. Only five organizations out of 115 organizations in Nevada were in favor of a Constitutional Convention. Ms. Hansen referenced (Exhibit F) and discussed S.J.R. 5 in the Nevada legislature which was a resolution to the U. S. Congress asking for Article V of the U. S. Constitution to be changed to allow states to initiate a Constitutional Convention. She expressed concern because Article V had protected people from undue changes in the Constitution and because if the Conference on the States could so quietly move through the states, so could a Constitutional Convention without notice. She called committee's attention to page 2 of (Exhibit J) which gave names of states which had passed the Conference of the States. Ten states had passed, ten states had passed in one house, and approximately 18 states had introduced. She continued and referenced page 3 which elaborated on the states which had passed with no hearings. She stressed many organizations and groups had not studied the issue of the Conference of the States because seven of the states which passed the legislation did not hold hearings. The people, therefore, were not aware of the movement. She pointed out the state of Washington was withdrawing its resolution, and the resolution was not being considered in Washington. Ms. Hansen continued her presentation (Exhibit J) and concluded by urging committee to move with caution and to oppose A.B. 99. Mr. Richard Brophy, Stagecoach, Nevada, stated he was a member of United We Stand America and was on the Public Land Commission of Lyon County, but was not representing these organizations. He testified in support of A.B. 99, and began by discussing the definition of "Constitution", stating it was still a guideline. He conveyed A.B. 99 was a proposal for a conference of the Governors. He felt the biggest problem was people were not communicating with each other. People were not being educated anymore. He told committee he was a retired physicist. He asked committee to consider Nevada had been pushed around by a group of people who had not told Nevada the truth. If Nevada went to the Conference, Nevada would have a chance to define ideas and be able to say exactly what had happened to Nevada as opposed to other states. Counties were in the same position that Nevada was in with respect to the federal government, he related. Mr. Francis Gillings, representing American Families for Return to Free Society, testified in opposition to A.B. 99. He began his presentation by asserting education was needed throughout America. He spoke to committee from (Exhibit K). He discussed the 10th Amendment Resolution which, he said, was a clear, concise and powerful message that the states were declaring sovereignty over the federal government and which sent a notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist immediately. He recommended the book, "America's, God and Country," by William J. Federer. He expressed his admiration for the Constitution, and concluded his testimony asking committee to oppose A.B. 99. Mr. M. K. (Ike) Yochum, representing the Independent American Party and himself, testified in opposition to A.B. 99. Mr. Yochum began his presentation by referencing (Exhibit F) which he said opened the door for a Constitutional Convention. Mr. Yochum then read to the committee a letter which he recently wrote to the editor of the Nevada Appeal referencing an article by Peter A. Brown, of the Nevada Appeal, February 10, 1995. See (Exhibit L). An exhibit was provided to the committee (Exhibit M) by Mr. Yochum who quoted highlighted parts of letters from law schools throughout the United States and from retired Chief Justice Burger, Supreme Court of the United States, regarding a Constitutional Convention. He concluded his remarks by expressing the power to save the United States from the onslaught of the usurpers was the awesome responsibility of the legislature. Mr. Don Fotheringham, Writer for "The New American", testified in opposition to A.B. 99 (Exhibit N). He began his testimony by commending legislators for expunging legislation (A.R. 20) from a previous legislative session. He discussed sovereign powers and sovereign power of the people of the state of Nevada. Those sovereign powers when consolidated through a resolution would become the sovereign powers/the sovereign voice of the people of the state of Nevada. Once A.B. 99 was signed, regardless of how well-meaning, the delegates would go back to Philadelphia and sit in the seats of Madison, Hamilton and Washington and exercise the same sovereign powers that were exercised by those great men when they gave our country this wonderful government and this Constitution, he expounded. The Conference of the States was not just a meeting, he declared. The Conference would be a consolidated force, and it was a consolidated force which would create and un-create governments. The name was not important; the process by which sovereignty was consolidated made the difference, and, Mr. Fotheringham emphasized, the process was precisely what the Conference of the States did. Mr. Fotheringham corrected a previous speaker, and told committee Colorado had not passed the legislation. Mr. Fotheringham attended hearings before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee February 16, 1995, and the committee did not vote on the legislation. The newspaper, "Colorado Statesman," polled members of the committee, and reported on February 22, 1995, that not one of the 13 members of the Colorado Judiciary Committee intended to vote to send delegates to the Conference of the States. Mr. Fotheringham further advised the Oklahoma Senate and the Indiana House had tabled the Conference of the States' legislation. Colorado did add to their legislation, S.J.R. 9, a clause saying, "this resolution is not to be construed as a call for Constitutional Convention pursuant to Article V," but, Mr. Fotheringham declared, "These words are meaningless." The Conference of the States intended to affect constitutional change without following the procedures of Article V, he added. But they were following the same procedures that our founding fathers followed. They wanted 26 states; our founding fathers met in 1787 on May 25th with seven states which was a simple majority. Each delegation had one vote; the same as the Conference of the States. Each delegation had the authority of a resolution from his state. And that was the key by which sovereignty was consolidated and released. Mr. Fotheringham declared to the committee if A.B. 99 passed, they had relinquished the most precious thing the people had which was the protection and preservation of the system people had been born and brought up under. At this point in Mr. Fotheringham's testimony, Assemblywoman Lambert interjected and asked how Nevada could get the federal government to read Nevada's resolutions and listen to the resolutions. Mr. Fotheringham answered her question by explaining Nevada would have to obey Article X. Article X leaned heavily in favor of the states because all residual powers were state powers. They were innumerable, and he added that was why it was written that way. He continued, the federal government had no business imposing upon the states anything to do with health, education, welfare and environment. The Conference of the States could be done with a telephone call without jeopardizing the sovereignty of the United States. If Nevada wanted the programs in the state, the state had all residual powers. Legislature could institute the programs in Nevada and run the programs the state's own way. It had been suggested, he said, "If we are not there to protect the store, somebody is going to steal it." New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would not vote as Nevada would vote. Even if Nevada went to the Conference of the States, Nevada would lose its vote. He asked committee to stand tall and not pass A.B. 99, and to join in the other states which were just beginning to understand the legislation. He urged committee before they voted to read an article he had written which would be published in the March 6 issue of "The New American". (Exhibit N). Chairman Giunchigliani assured Mr. Fotheringham committee would not vote on the legislation at the present meeting or without a full committee. Assemblyman Price thanked Mr. Fotheringham for his testimony. Referring to Mr. Yochum's testimony, Mr. Price said in the Constitution no place existed for Governors with regard to amending the Constitution, and he asked if it seemed the Governors were becoming involved in a roundabout way as was mentioned. Responding to Mr. Price's inquiry, Mr. Fotheringham explained the executive branch had no jurisdiction over resolutions. And that was what they were for. They circumvented in case a state had a bad guy there. He could not veto it. Mr. Price said it appeared there was an avenue in a Conference of the States where the Governors would have say-so in the type of resolution which came back, proposing either to change laws, or as they indicated, make changes in the Constitution where normally a governor would not be involved. Mr. Fotheringham replied it was inordinate. They could see they were not following protocol or any procedure. Mr. Richard Popovich, Citizen/Businessman, spoke in opposition to A.B. 99. He addressed the committee from prepared testimony (Exhibit O), after which Chairman Giunchigliani thanked him for the time spent in preparing his address. Ms. Lynn Chapman, representing the American Legion and Auxiliary and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Auxiliary, testified against A.B. 99, and informed committee she was four times past President of the American Legion Auxiliary, and the veterans she had spoke with regarding the Conference of the States were alarmed because the Conference of the States had the look and sound of a Convention. Ms. Chapman addressed the committee reading resolutions from the 69th Annual National Convention of the American Legion and the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (Exhibit P) in opposition to the legislation. Ms. Sherri Lakin, citizen, assumed the testimonial table and expressed her opposition to A.B. 99. Ms. Lakin felt the intent of the bill was to strengthen states rights, however, she believed all actions taken by the Conference would not come back to the states. She quoted Governor Mike Leavitt, who, she said, supported a Constitutional Convention, "Our government is outdated, old-fashioned, not suited to the fast-paced, high tech global marketplace we are entering. There is a much better way." Ms. Lakin expressed fear of Governor Leavitt and others who were leading the people to the Conference of the States. She believed the Conference would endanger the Constitution, and she stated the bill and the Conference were complex. The Tenth Amendment was simple. She asked committee to continue to strengthen Tenth Amendment rights and oppose A.B. 99. She submitted (Exhibit Q). Ms. Peggy John, citizen, announced her opposition to A.B. 99, stating she agreed with comments previously made in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Scott Dickinson, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to A.B. 99. Even if committee decided wisely to oppose the Conference of the States and let A.B. 99 bill and the Senate version of it and S.J.R. 5 die, Nevada would specifically have the right to attend the Conference should it happen. He referenced page 5, 2nd paragraph of (Exhibit F) which stated, "If a state legislature does not pass the Resolution of Participation, a delegation from the state may still attend the Conference." So, he informed committee, there would be no fear of Nevada being left out just by showing opposition to the Conference of the States. Article V of the Constitutional Convention provided only for the state legislature to apply for a Convention. Congress received petitions from two-thirds of the states for a Constitutional Convention and then the Congress, not the Governors, would have to call one. At the state level, no other route existed to initiate changes to the Federal Constitution. Put simply, he added, the Governors had no Constitutional authority to call a Constitutional Convention or to submit amendments to the states for a ratification. For instance, he said, Governor Miller had no way to vote on or veto the balanced budget amendment. The way was set up, he declared. In most states appointments would be three Democrats, three Republicans and the Governor and then those would be melded into one vote. On Page 3, line 9 of A.B. 99, "...each state delegation shall have one vote..." and that vote was the Governor's plus three on each side. There was no Constitutional basis for the Governors to be involved in amending the Constitution. Mr. Jim Mikkelsen, representing himself, voiced his opposition to A. B. 99. He acknowledged prior testimony had covered most of the salient points. He did not wish to see A.B. 99 become a vehicle which would lead to a Constitutional Convention. He then specifically asked Assemblyman Humke to vote against A.B. 99. He quoted from Aristotle, "Government by itself is tyranny. Every government is a tyrannical vehicle if allowed to move in that direction." He summarized a book on taxation, which covered 8,000 years, "For Good and Evil" by Charles Adams, Tax Attorney, printed in 1993 which said most civilizations had met their demise through bad and excessive taxation. He concluded his testimony by contending the same thing could occur within our government if the people allowed it. Mr. David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, testified in opposition to A.B. 99. His reservations regarding the legislation were due to its not being specific enough as to exactly what the Conference of States would do. He discussed the Conference of the States and referred to the Nevada plan for public land. Ms. Tahnya E. Ballard, citizen, testified she was an attorney and was opposed to A.B. 99. She told committee she believed in states rights, and the Constitution had all of the ways to establish states rights. Litigation was one of the ways used by California and Florida. The two states were suing the federal government for imposing federal mandates on their states without providing the money. She told committee the courts were available, and Article V was also available. Section I, part 2, of A.B. 99 was the only part defining what could happen, she testified. The "whereas's" were superfluous. She quoted from Section 1, part 2 "...will propose, debate and vote on elements of an action plan to restore checks and balances between states and the national government." The people already had the means to do that, she reiterated. Ways were in place to change, and one way was the right to vote. Much on the federal level had been changed, and would be changed. The other problem, she felt, was with the federal judiciary that had expanded through the courts the federal usurpation of states rights. She concluded her testimony by stating all channels were available to assert states rights, and we needed to use those channels instead of a Conference of the States. Chairman Giunchigliani thanked audience for their participation and patience, and she explained some of the committee members had meeting conflicts, and were not able to stay throughout the meeting. Mr. Michael McGriff testified on behalf of the American Pistol and Rifle Association in opposition to A.B. 99. He began his presentation reading from prepared text (Exhibit R). He reiterated he did not want a Conference on the States to usurp authority over our elected state representatives. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Jack D. Close, Chairman Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures February 23, 1995 Page