MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 23, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator William J. Raggio, District No. 3 Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No.16 Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, District No. 22 Assemblyman Michael A. Schneider, District No. 42 Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District No. 39 Assemblywoman Maureen Elizabeth Brower, District No. 3 Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, District No. 18 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Mr. Jim Hulse/Chairman of the Board, Common Cause Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Concerned Citizens Chairman Giunchigliani announced the first item on the agenda was a public hearing on possible amendments to Nevada's Lobbying Disclosure Act (N.R.S. 218.900 through 218.944). The intent of the Elections and Procedures Committee was not to circumvent the lobbyist law, she stressed. However, the committee felt an open public hearing was appropriate for questions concerning implementation, application, possible loopholes and problem areas. Chapter 218, Lobbying, from the N.R.S. was made available for the public. See (Exhibit C). Chairman Giunchigliani stated she had previously announced on the Floor of the Assembly if any members of the Assembly and Senate could not attend the committee meeting, the committee would accept written statements. Assemblyman Price, who sponsored the Lobbyist bill in the 1993 Session, gave committee a synopsis and history of N.R.S. 218.900 through 218.944. He called attention to (Exhibit D) and discussed the last page. He submitted (Exhibit E) as an example of newspaper reporting regarding lobbyists. Assemblyman Price discussed items given to legislators by various groups which he thought were not reportable items. He recently discovered the items had always been reportable, he told committee. However, he was not concerned about restrictions on what legislators could receive although he did feel the items should be reported. He announced he was open to ideas for improving the Lobbyist legislation. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the intent of committee was not to water down the law. Areas which needed to be strengthened and areas where problems existed on either side should be brought to the attention of the committee in order to be changed. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Price to outline changes in his Lobbying bill which were not included in the bill from last session. Responding to her inquiry, Assemblyman Price said everything asked for last session was included in the bill. At this time, Chairman Giunchigliani interrupted the discussion on Lobbying legislation to allow Senator William J. Raggio, District No. 3, sponsor, to present Senate Joint Resolution 2. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 - Urges Congress to propose constitutional amendment to limit power of courts to levy or increase taxes. Senator Bill Raggio, District No. 3, prime sponsor, explained S.J.R. 2 was a resolution urging Congress to propose and submit to the states an amendment to the Constitution which provided that federal courts did not have the power to levy or increase taxes. See (Exhibit F). He reminded committee Mr. Alec Oltman, his Intern, after considerable research, presented S.J.R. 2 to the Elections and Procedures Committee when Senator Raggio was away. Senator Raggio stated S.J.R. 2 was an effort to bring the matter forward to the Congress and had taken place in a number of states and was being considered by many other states. The resolution referred particularly to the case of Missouri v. Jenkins which was decided by a 5 to 4 decision of the United States Supreme Court and decided prior to some of the more recent appointments to the Court. Probably if Missouri v. Jenkins were heard today, Senator Raggio said, the decision would be different. The case recognized the power of a federal court to order directly an increase in state and local taxes. Most persons who wished to preserve the separation of powers in the United States and to preserve the distinction between the three branches of government, recognized immediately an unwarranted intrusion upon the doctrine of separation of powers. In this regard, several members of Congress had introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution, and these resolutions were urging Congress to adopt the proposal. Senator Raggio specifically stated this S.J.R. 2 was not requesting a Constitutional Convention. Continuing, Senator Raggio described Missouri v. Jenkins where the Court decided that a magnet school, even though the voters had not supported it because of the extent of the proposal, nonetheless would be enforced. Specifically, the Court ordered a direct tax for the schools for which every classroom would have air conditioning (nothing wrong with that, he said), an alarm system and 15 microcomputers, a 2,000 square foot planetarium, greenhouses and a 25 acre farm with an air conditioned meeting room for 104 people, a model United Nations wired for language translation, broadcast capable radio and television studios with an editing and animation lab, a temperature controlled art gallery, movie editing and screening room, an 1875 square foot elementary school, animal rooms for use in a zoo project, swimming pool, and numerous other facilities. While the situation was exceptional, Senator Raggio felt it was not the only situation which had occurred. Direct levying of a tax was the most incipient violation of the separation of powers that one could imagine. The power to tax was reserved and should be reserved to the Congress and in the case of states, to the legislature. Otherwise the process would have no check, no balance, and the courts could increase taxes ad infinitum. S.J.R. 2 had passed the Nevada Senate 20 to 1 (Senator Neal opposing), Senator Raggio informed. Senator Raggio referred committee to a law review article (Exhibit G). Assemblyman Close asked if timetable was involved to introduce and send back to Congress or did a number of states have to pass the legislation before an effect would occur. While no timing situation existed, Senator Raggio felt on matters of this nature, the legislature should act promptly and join the other states who were urging Congress to consider the amendment. By acting promptly, a clear message would be sent that the situation should be corrected. Chairman Giunchigliani questioned if there were other cases, and Senator Raggio said there were other cases. Assemblyman Allard asked Chairman Giunchigliani if she would take a motion, and the Chairman stated she would not at that time. Assemblyman Price expressed agreement with the legislation. There being no further questions, Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.J.R. 2. Chairman Giunchigliani re-opened the hearing on possible amendments to Nevada's Lobbying Disclosure Act (N.R.S. 218.900 through 218.944). Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, spoke in favor of strengthening the Lobbyist law. She outlined complaints about the law from legislators who said they were not getting information because they were not going to social functions at which important information was imparted to them. She felt information should be given to legislators in a committee where everyone could hear, and where those who might oppose an issue would be able to answer. Ms. Engleman disagreed with legislators' complaints that figuring for the Lobbyist bill was too difficult and said the detail showed people what was actually spent on legislators. She continued her testimony saying before the law was passed, lobbyists were spending money on lobbyists and reporting it on the Legislative Report thereby justifying the money spent to their bosses. Not nearly the amount of money reported was being spent on legislators, she advised. Lobbyist reporting since the law was passed proved her statement. The press was in favor of disclosing money spent for accountability reasons and not for the reason of setting limits, Ms. Engleman declared. The press felt if a lobbyist had taken a legislator out for a meal, the bill or legislation they were discussing should be disclosed. Ms. Engleman explained when lobbyists signed up at the legislature, they wrote the issues they would be lobbying on. During the course of the year, lobbyists were supposed to supplement information as additional issues arose, and she suggested lobbyists should add the bills to the information. Even though lobbying goes on in Nevada year round, she stated, a lobbyist termination report was done when the session ended. She discussed work of lobbyists at the N.C.S.L. annual meeting which was held shortly after session. She suggested those people who continued to lobby should file another report shortly after December 31st regarding the type of lobbying done during the six months following session. Additionally, she discussed groups who hired lobbyists and provided legislators with free services and did not necessarily report those services. She gave an example such as free parking for legislators at the airport. She did not believe the Washoe County Airport Authority lobbyist was disclosing the free service. She said the definition of a lobbyist should be changed to include state agency heads or their representatives who frequently lobbied and did not fall under lobbyists' disclosure laws. Public bodies who must file a lobbying expense report with the Department of Taxation should file a duplicate of that report with the legislature, she stressed. Under 218.920 of the Lobbying law in the N.R.S. (Exhibit C), disclosure of a business relationship had caused discussion and confusion, Ms. Engleman said. The final interpretation was only if you were in a business partnership making money or owned a business with a legislator did that need to be disclosed. Her organization felt an attorney/client relationship and any kind of business relationship should be disclosed. Chairman Giunchigliani and Ms. Engleman discussed various areas of business relationships. Chairman Giunchigliani affirmed whatever report was provided by the lobbyist to their local government entity should also be provided to legislature. Assemblyman Price discussed prohibition in a number of states of a person being a campaign director or being involved in the campaign of a legislator and then becoming a lobbyist. He asked Ms. Engleman for her feelings. The Press Association had not believed so much in restrictions as in disclosure, she answered, which was now covered in the report. Added in the report was, "had you worked on a campaign," which would have to be disclosed on the lobbyists' registration. Mr. Jim Hulse, Chair of the Board of Common Cause, testified in support of the present Lobbying Law which was passed in the 67th Session. He provided the committee with prepared testimony (Exhibit H) which stated Common Cause believed the present law should be given a chance to work for at least one entire session before any changes were made. To tamper with new provisions would arouse public distrust of legislative operations which led to the enactment of the 1993 law. See (Exhibit H). Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No.16, addressed the committee regarding lobbying laws from a freshman's viewpoint. She commented every social function where every legislator was invited to meet and greet people was tagged onto the legislator's name as a gift or contribution from a lobbyist. She stopped going to the functions. She stated the Lobbyist bill was more for the rich legislator because the rich legislator could pay his own way to the functions. She could not go to every function and pay her own way and felt handicapped not knowing what the other legislators knew by going to the functions. She, therefore, felt her district was not being represented correctly. Assemblywoman Steel did not think it was fair that legislators were allowed to go to every government function where no lobby assessment against the legislator was done. At these functions, legislators were only getting the government's side of the story and not getting the public's viewpoint. She discussed small gift items left by lobbyists in her office which she had to take time to return so she would not be charged in the records for receiving a gift. She mentioned a lobbyist who had put in his records an amount of money spent on her which she was unaware of and she had been unable to reach the lobbyist. Concluding her testimony to the committee, she declared her confusion about the law and how to report. Finally, she mentioned a legislator had said he could go to every function and at the end of the session, pay $1,000 and get all the donations off of his name. Admitting she was unable financially to do that, she felt something should be done. Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, District No. 22, testified functions, tours and receptions allowed legislators to meet people throughout the state. She particularly mentioned a visit to a hospital in rural Boulder City where she needed to know what was happening. She felt legislators needed to meet people throughout the state. People would come to the legislature for one day to meet a legislator, and the legislator was not attending the function. She felt legislators should go to the informational receptions, and Assemblywoman Segerblom announced she planned to continue to attend the functions. Assemblyman Michael A. Schneider, District No. 42, testified he had made an effort to go to every function because he felt they were important. He specifically mentioned the 4-H organization who came to legislature for lunch and to meet legislators. He felt more than four legislators should meet with the 4-H club to teach them about government. When people with disabilities and in wheelchairs, come from all over the state, and legislators do not meet with them, something is wrong with the system. He pointed out inconsistencies in the law and specifically mentioned a dinner at the University of Nevada Reno where an invitation came from the University, but corporations made a donation of $750 to the University to buy a table. U.N.R. then invited faculty, staff, spouses and legislators. The other lobbyists did not report the dinner because they did not invite the legislators. Assemblyman Schneider felt this type of situation should be corrected. Assemblyman Schneider was unsure the receptions which were open to everyone should be reported. He discussed small gifts such as informational booklets which the press and staff received free yet legislators were charged for the booklets. He thought the law needed to be brought back into reality. Assemblywoman Monaghan asked Assemblyman Schneider for his explanation of zeroing out. He explained if he received a list from L.C.B. of lobbyists' entertaining, and he sent every lobbyist a check who put him on their list, then he should no longer be on the list. Assemblyman Humke asked Assemblyman Schneider what his thoughts were on public entities or employees of public entities registering as lobbyists. Responding, Assemblyman Schneider noted he had not thought of the idea although it seemed to him there would be a conflict. When people with disabilities or the 4-H Girls had to register and put legislators down, but the Governor and the Attorney General were not required to do so, it seemed to be conflicting. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, discussed her perceptions of the Lobbyist law from the point of view of an unpaid lobbyist. The good point was the law had put the public citizens on a more equal footing with big corporations who could afford to pay a lobbyist a lot of money. The difficult thing, she felt, were items which created a reporting problem and a little bit of hurt feelings. She told of some ladies who had come up from Las Vegas with home made cookies for a few legislators who they wanted to thank for doing a good job, and the ladies were a bit hurt the cookies were refused by some people. The bad thing about the law was it did not apply to government and gave government even more unequal access. The perception was that generally government agencies had incredible access, Ms. Lusk stated. Very expensive private dinners offends people, she said. People perceive those as buying access that the average citizen does not have. She thought committee might consider a reasonable amount to allow for those small things which no one could rationally assume would influence or buy your vote. Legislators needed information from wherever they could get it, and they needed to have the good sense to assess it for its value. Ms. Lusk volunteered to assist with education of the citizenry so that it was understood there were some functions of great value to legislators. Assemblyman Fettic thought the problem was when things were reported, they were reported in the aggregate. The items were lumped together and reported as a total. Assemblyman Allard expressed the original intent of the Lobby law was to restore public confidence in government which was sadly lacking. He believed the law went a long way toward that end, and he believed if legislators tried to dilute the law, the intent, which was to restore the public's confidence, would be reversed. Once confidence was restored, perhaps the law could be looked at, but presently, Assemblyman Allard did not want to change it. Assemblyman Humke stated many legislators, including himself, did not know the rules. He was disappointed in the affect of the law. The citizen was the most important person who ever came to the legislature, and was the person who should be listened to, but the citizens were being shut out. He discussed an invitation he received from a constituent for a group, and Assemblyman Humke did not attend largely because of the new reporting requirements. Therefore, the people were kept from seeing their legislator. Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, District No. 18, testified as a freshman legislator with five committees and not a lot of time to interact with people to educate himself on the issues. When he first arrived at the legislature, he said A.A.R.P. had an educational forum and about five or six legislators attended to listen and interact to hear the issues. He paid $7.88 to obtain a packet of information. He writes checks to everybody who has sent him information or receptions he had attended because he wanted to end the session with a zero, he declared. Chairman Giunchigliani told him by zeroing out, the public did not know he was there, and that was the point of the disclosure act. Being and gathering information as a legislator was a responsibility, and, at some point, zeroing out would lend itself to explaining to the public what legislators did and that legislators did have to go to functions and gather information because it was their job and responsibility to gather input from people. At some point, legislators had to be just as responsible for not overreacting to being fearful of having their names appear on a list. Assemblyman Manendo said he had received a few phone calls and had explained to the people. The people felt comfortable with his explanations but he still had been writing checks. Chairman Giunchigliani said nothing was done in isolation in the legislature. Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, assumed the speaker's table at the request of Chairman Giunchigliani who asked him to address the issue of public governmental entities not being part of the law and could a legislator go out for dinner on their own without a lobbyist and at some point bill the lobbyist so that it would never show up on the report. Mr. Malkiewich stated on the issue of state agencies, the thing to keep in mind with the Lobbyist Registration Act was if you are a lobbyist, you are required to report everything. If you are not required to register as a lobbyist, you report nothing. A definition of lobbyist is "a person who appears in the legislative building, communicates with a member of the legislative branch to influence legislation on behalf of someone other than himself." There were then several exceptions which he outlined as communicating with one's own legislator, only appearing before a committee and people who would come in and testify. If that's all a person does, the person does not need to register, he said. He continued, one of the exemptions was for elected local government officials. Another was for state agencies and employees of state agencies. Those people did not need to register, he said, as they were excluded from the definition of lobbyist. Someone who was not registered as a lobbyist could spend six million dollars. Nothing was reported. For someone who does register as a lobbyist, the statutes require they report all expenditures made on behalf of a legislator or a caucus. Mr. Malkiewich mentioned people who spent money influencing the legislative process who did not need to be registered as lobbyists and were not having anything reported, whereas others who had to register because, although they almost make an exception, they do talk in the halls occasionally with legislators, they register, then they need to report the 11 cent button they provided. As far as state agencies asking for information, another exception would apply. If the exemption for state agencies was eliminated, and all they did was provide information at our request, the person would not meet the definition of a lobbyist. They would not be appearing in the building, communicating with you on behalf of someone else to influence legislation. They would just be providing information at our request. However, for those representatives of state agencies who were in the building, doing roughly the same things as legislators, the same rules would apply. Their monthly statements would need to indicate all expenditures made on behalf of legislators or caucuses, he informed the committee. Regarding a legislator paying for his own dinner when later it was reimbursed to him, one of the points mentioned earlier was the lobbyist registration act does apply only during legislative session. He thought the technically correct way to report something like that would be the month in which the expenditure was made, it should be reported. If it was made after the session was over, certainly for the purposes of avoiding the requirement, I think if it was agreed to be made at the time of the dinner, it should be reported. Mr. Malkiewich then discussed one of the provisions of Mr. Price's bill which was added at the end of the session. A conference committee amendment was adopted which required the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to adopt guidelines for compliance. The thought was since the law was being made more complicated, and, since legislators were requiring reportings, no one was going to know how to report. For instance, if there were seven people at a table, and the bill was split, and there was one legislator, what would be reported, he questioned. The concerns led to the inclusion of a provision requiring guidelines which legislators had received. Mr. Malkiewich issued two sets of guidelines answering eight questions, one January 23rd and one February 23rd. He stated he was considering issuing another one on the issue of information. He thought the issue could be cleared up through the guidelines. If someone comes to the legislature and passes out a ten page written document which represented compiled information that the person wanted to present to the committee, Mr. Malkiewich did not think that was a gift. He further defined "gift" as anything of value. If it was sold, it was something of value. If informational material was not sold and was simply provided to legislators, that was not a gift. Mr. Malkiewich stated he would clarify "gift" in the next guideline he issued. Assemblyman Humke questioned Mr. Malkiewich regarding group functions such as a reception. He received an invitation in letter form, the last sentence of which said , "...and remember, we count everyone there and divide by that number, and that's the value of your meal which will be reported." Some groups had taken the approach that if 250 people would go to a reception, the value of the goods and services would be divided by 63 assuming all attended, and that was what everyone was reported with, or they would divide by two if two legislators attended. Mr. Malkiewich responded the statement at the end of the invitation was a correct one. If a lobbyist expends more than $50 in a month, then it must be itemized by category: entertainment, parties or similar events, gifts, loans and other. Most would fall under parties and similar events, and people should report what the event was, the total number of people who attended, the total expenditure, the total number guaranteed or attending. If you have to pay on a guarantee for 200 people, and only 130 attend, the price would still be based on 200 people. Divide the total by the number on which the cost was based and that would give a cost per person; then list the legislators and attribute that amount to them. Expenditures on persons other than legislators were not required to be reported, he said. Assemblyman Close stated some of the individuals' names might be different from the organization. He asked if the activity could be identified to make sure legislators could account for the item in their records. Mr. Malkiewich responded in the back of the report was a detailed breakdown of how the per person amount was calculated for each party or similar event. Assemblyman Close further stated his problem was there was an individual lobbyist who accredited Assemblyman Close for taking Mr. Close to lunch when in fact he did not, Assemblyman Close stated. Mr. Malkiewich responded the "parties or similar events" was broken out, but there was no specific itemization on the others. It was the aggregate. It was also aggregate for lobbyist. If a lobbyist took you out to lunch three times, all the report would show is entertainment $45.00. It might have been three $15.00 meals, but it would show as $45.00 for the legislator. Mr. Malkiewich said the date could be required. Assemblyman Close noted the date could be helpful as opposed to the activity to check calendars. Assemblyman Close also questioned dinner at an expensive restaurant as opposed to a 4-H luncheon. He asked if it would be possible to break down entertainment in different categories under those which were over 15 individuals or group activities. Mr. Malkiewich said 15 or more persons, generally would fall under party or similar event. Receptions generally would fall under that category. Entertainment was defined as taking a legislator or two legislators to dinner or something similar. Assemblyman Close requested Mr. Malkiewich include that in his memo. Chairman Giunchigliani suggested further delineating educational or informational forum. Assemblyman Price read from N.R.S. 218.908, Section 2, where "gift" was defined. Reading, Mr. Price said, "`Gift' does not include a political contribution of money or services related to a political campaign, a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business, cost of entertainment, including the cost of food or beverages, or anything of value received from a member of the recipient's immediate family or from a relative of the recipient or his spouse within the third degree of consanguinity or from the spouse of any such relative." Assemblyman Price said if he was reading it correctly, food and entertainment was not required to be disclosed under the Lobbyist law. Mr. Malkiewich believed that was not modified by "or anything of value". He thought the interpretation was correct. "Gift" did not include cost of entertainment. "Gift" was only used if expenditures were more than $50 in a month. If $50 a month was exceeded, 218.926, section 2, required entertainment, expenditures in connection with a part or similar event, gifts and loans must then be itemized. There was a prohibition against gifts exceeding $100 in a year. This was to clarify that entertainment was the category where food and beverages would go. It was not considered a gift. It was considered entertainment of a legislator. They were still required to be reported, but not as gifts. Chairman Giunchigliani said some very good points were made. Committee would make recommendations in writing that everyone could see and would bring them up in another work session. At this time, Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, District No. 18, assumed the speaker's table to clarify his reasons for reimbursement for events he attended. He did not pay in advance because sometimes he was unable to attend, he said. Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on the Lobbyist Reporting Act. She then opened the Work Session. ASSEMBLY BILL 99: - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for committee discussion. Assemblyman Humke called committee's attention to (Exhibit I) which were proposed amendments to A.B. 99. He believed the amendments would satisfy the concerns of most members. Assemblyman Allard mentioned to Assemblyman Humke he had additional concerns and questioned Mr. Humke if he had a problem with a combination of the amendments. He then asked Mr. Humke to read the amendments to the committee. Assemblyman Humke, referring to the proposed amendments (Exhibit I), stated Mr. Allard changed the "or" between the two amendments to "nor", and read "nor, may the attendees be permitted to be counted and participate in a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the United States Constitution." Assemblyman Allard stated that wording which would combine the two would take away his concerns. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Humke to restate the entire amendment. Assemblyman Humke then read the amendment which was: "Adoption of this Resolution does not constitute an application by the Legislature of the State of Nevada for the calling of a federal Constitutional Convention within the meaning of Article V of the United States Constitution, nor does it authorize participation in a Constitutional Convention by representatives of the State of Nevada." That is one alternate, Assemblyman Humke said. Assemblyman Humke at this time read the second amendment: "The Conference of the States may not be convened as a federal Constitutional Convention under Article V of the United States Constitution." Assemblyman Allard then asked Assemblyman Humke to read the third amendment which was the combination. Assemblyman Humke read the third amendment which was the last phrase of the first amendment: "...nor does it authorize participation in a Constitutional Convention by representatives of the State of Nevada nor may the attendees be permitted to be counted and participate in a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the United States Constitution." Chairman Giunchigliani summarized by saying there were some members of the committee who had asked Assemblyman Humke to submit language. Assemblyman Humke had given two suggestions. Mr. Allard had asked to combine the two suggestions with the additional sentence added which would clarify attendance if Nevada sent a group there. Nevada's attendance could not be used to count in the 26 or in the necessary amount to even call a Constitutional Convention, which was Mr. Allard's concern. Concluding, Chairman Giunchigliani stated there were three basic amendments. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 99. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani then read the amendment which was: "The Adoption of this Resolution does not constitute an application by the Legislature of the State of Nevada for the calling of a federal Constitutional Convention within the meaning of Article V of the United States Constitution, nor does it authorize participation in a Constitutional Convention by representatives of the State of Nevada nor may the attendees be permitted to be counted and participate in a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the United States Constitution." Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AND ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE VOTED NO. Assemblyman Allard stated his reason for support of A.B. 99 which was the requirement for 26 states, would be convened before Nevada had the chance to participate, and once the 26 states were there, he believed Nevada needed representation. Since the amendment was included at the end of the bill, he did not see any way that Nevada would be participating in a Constitutional Convention. Assemblyman Price said he was not absolutely sure of the combined language. Chairman Giunchigliani said committee added the language that Nevada would not be permitted to be counted. Nevada's attendance would not be permitted to be counted towards a Constitutional Convention if they were to convene. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 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 brought forth the bill passed in 1989 which was different from A.J.R. 14. He explained the 1989 bill would have removed the Lieutenant Governor from the office of President of the Senate, and he found a lot of support for that version in the Senate to be included in A.J.R. 14. A.J.R. 5 would have required that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor ticket be formed by party affiliation after the primary election which was not in A.J.R. 14. He stated the previous bill had strong support, but the Lieutenant Governor at that time decided not to process it a second time and put it to a vote. Assemblyman Dini thought it should be amended to the final version of A.J.R. 5 in the 1989 session which was the intent of A.J.R. 14. Assemblyman Close stated perhaps things had changed because he had received a lot of communication from his constituents that they did not want this to occur, and in the committee hearing, most people were against A.J.R. 14. Assemblyman Close then suggested fully identifying the legislation. Chairman Giunchigliani suggested that committee amend and rerefer in order to properly review the new language. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER A.J.R. 14. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Dini to work with Mr. Erickson on the amendments and bring back to the committee. Assemblyman Price stated his intention was to compile information on the concerns of the Constitutional Convention for members of the committee. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide procedure to resolve conflict between certain initiative petitions approved by voters. Assemblyman Price submitted proposed new text for A.J.R. 13. See (Exhibit J). ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.J.R. 13. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND FREEMAN WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE). There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 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 March 23, 1995 Page