MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 28, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, Chairman Close 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. 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 EXCUSED: Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District No. 13 Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No. 16 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Jo Ann Malone/Elections Deputy, State of Nevada Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Concerned Citizens Ms. Jan Gilbert/League of Women Voters of Nevada In discussing the methodology for reporting attendance at committee meetings, Chairman Close said that the intent of the Republican and Democratic leadership of the Assembly was to report those in attendance at committee meetings when they arrive and not list those who were absent. However, he told committee they would be marked absent for any roll call votes. Chairman Close reminded committee that after Assembly Bill 215 was indefinitely postponed by committee, Co-Chairman Giunchigliani and himself were to write to Legislative Commission asking the Commission to provide Legislative Counsel Bureau with assistance. Chairman Close then called attention to the letter to Assemblyman Dini, Chairman of the Legislative Commission, and stated he would take a motion if the letter did not follow the intent of the committee and if anyone was opposed to the letter. There was no opposition to the letter. See (Exhibit C). Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt minutes of March 2nd and March 7th, 1995 Elections and Procedures Committee Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 2 AND MARCH 7, 1995. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Since members of the committee had approached Chairman Close in reference to the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 99, Chairman Close provided committee with a copy of the motion (Exhibit D) and asked committee to read the motion and verify the motion was the intent of the committee. He then asked if anyone disagreed with the motion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referenced the last line of the motion and believed part of the intent of some members of the committee was to make sure that attendees could not be counted in the convening of the Conference of the States. The amendment (Exhibit D) did not say that. Assemblywoman Lambert pointed out Assemblyman Price had said that. However, Assemblywoman Lambert, who made the motion, confirmed the motion said what she intended the motion to say. Chairman Close asked for additional comments. There were none. Chairman Close opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 371. ASSEMBLY BILL 371 - Authorizes candidate to file declaration that he will not serve in office if elected. Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District No. 13, prime sponsor of A.B. 371, explained he encountered a situation in running for election which he thought was peculiar. In the primary election and general election contestants had entered the race and had withdrawn at a point in time that was too late to remove their names from the general ballot or from the primary ballot. In that situation in the primary election, the contestant received approximately 26 percent of the vote without having even campaigned, and in the general election, received approximately 27 percent of the vote, again without doing any campaigning. Assemblyman Nolan stated he had researched and found that if a candidate withdrew within the first seven days after having filed, it would be recorded and was a matter of record. In the period of time between the seven days and the time in which the candidate's name could be removed from the ballot, a candidate could withdraw by writing a letter to the Elections Department or appearing in person and withdrawing. But the information that someone had withdrawn was not always available to the public. Assemblyman Nolan explained the time process of the Elections Department and the printing of ballots and stated A.B. 371 addressed the problem in the least expensive way without changing the ballots which was to post a sign in a conspicuous place at the polling places of the names of the people who had withdrawn from their candidacy. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to Section 2 and confirmed the intent was the ballots would not have to be redone for the Elections Department. She pointed out Absentee Ballot Requests and asked how people would be notified. Assemblyman Nolan said it was a concern, but not as big a concern and he thought A.B. 371 was a reasonable way to notify the majority of the electorate. Assemblyman Price recalled a case where a candidate died when his name was still on the ballot, and he was elected after he had passed away. Assemblyman Nolan at this time stated he had amended language which would account for that situation. He suggested to committee another subsection (c) on page 1 under section 2, which could read, "In the event of the death of a candidate whose name appears on the ballot, the word `deceased' will appear alongside of the name of that candidate on the prescribed sign." Assemblywoman Lambert discussed in a partisan race when there was no longer an ability for anyone to file in place of the deceased candidate, if people wanted a Democrat to be elected in that seat, the people would vote for the Democrat even though that person may be deceased, and then there was the provision for filling the vacancy after the election. Assemblyman Nolan said someone had also raised a question of what would happen if the voter wanted to just register their opposition by voting for the person who was dead or who had withdrawn. Assemblyman Fettic confirmed A.B. 371 was to alert people that the candidate had decided that he or she did not want to serve, and, in the case of death, you were just notifying the person had passed away. Assemblywoman Monaghan confirmed the sign would not stop anyone from voting for the deceased. Chairman Close added it was a matter of information. Discussion ensued between Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Nolan regarding A.B. 371 with various scenarios given. Assemblyman Nolan affirmed A.B. 371 was only for notification. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested another potential of notification, if time allowed when printing the ballots, was to put an asterisk on the ballot. Assemblyman Nolan discussed briefly the process of printing sample ballots. Chairman Close reflected and noted that it was his understanding that if a Republican or minority party candidate would win, the appointment process would be left up to that party of the victor. He thought a realistic implementation process must be assured. Ms. Jo Ann Malone, Elections Deputy for the State of Nevada, asked for clarification as to why A.B. 371 was under N.R.S. 294A instead of N.R.S. 293 because N.R.S. 294A was campaign practices. Responding, Mr. Bob Erickson agreed A.B. 371 should be under N.R.S. 293 and not N.R.S. 294A. He told committee he would take care of the change. Chairman Close announced the intent would be for Assemblyman Nolan to work with the Co-Chairmen of the committee on language and information from Legislative Counsel Bureau in reference to certain items brought forth, and committee would discuss A.B. 371 again. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 371. Chairman Close opened the hearing on A.B. 372. ASSEMBLY BILL 372 - Revises provisions governing residency requirements for candidacy for and retention of public office. Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No. 16, prime sponsor of A.B. 372, explained A.B. 372 provided further instruction to the bench of judges that may have to interpret the statute as to residency for a candidate. She described in the last election, there was a candidate who lived in District 20 and had lived there for five to seven years building a home with an owner-builder contract which meant the person did not intend to sell it. However, when she was brought to court to determine residency to see if she could actually run in the particular district, the court said she "constructively lived in District 16 because she planned to sell that home and move into the Glass Pool Inn just as soon as legislature was over for that year." Assemblywoman Steel felt a candidate should live in the district the voters who voted for the candidate lived. A.B. 372 referenced candidates who might have more than one home, declaring a primary home before they ran for office. This could effect a few legislators now serving, she said. She planned to amend A.B. 372 so that those now serving could continue to serve their communities because obviously the community was happy with the legislators if the community re-elected them. She did not think those people should be taken away if they did not have that primary declaration on the roles at present. Chairman Close referenced the legislators who might have two residences and supposed that they declare their residence in their district as their primary home. This should be investigated to clarify their declaration of residence. Assemblywoman Freeman asked for a definition of "constructively". Responding, Assemblywoman Steel stated, "Constructively means that I could live there." Assemblywoman Steel described the scenario she was involved in wherein the woman's parents owned a hotel facility in Assemblywoman Steel's district. The woman had her mail sent to the house. She was registered to vote in District 16 even though she didn't live there. She registered to be a candidate in District 16, so "constructively" she was there. She could move in there, she could sleep there and she had the right to be in that house or be in that hotel room, to live there. So constructively and with her word that she was selling her home that she was building, constructively she could have lived in District 16. And the judge said rather than disenfranchise her as a candidate, he had to err on the side most lenient which was to show her as a "constructive" resident of the district, Assemblywoman Steel said. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani wondered if length of stay could be a determining factor the courts might consider or if it should be added into A.B. 372. Assemblywoman Steel said 30 days was the present requirement to live in a residence prior to running in that district. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani discussed possible residency requirements and stated there were a lot of people who tended to run for office who did not want to live in the area they were running to represent. They might be constructing a home in another area with the intent that after they were elected, they would be moving. She thought committee might want to look at length of stay to make sure it was clarified as closely as possible. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani discussed N.R.S. 293.181 and suggested Staff recommendation on language "or intend to reside." Assemblywoman Steel advocated stripping "intent" from the bill and making it "actual." Assemblywoman Evans stated she was unclear about page 1, Section 1, subsection 4, line 18 which defined "`actual residence' means the place where the person maintains a permanent habitation. If the person maintains more than one such habitation, the place he declares to be his primary permanent habitation for this purpose shall be deemed to be his actual residence for this purpose." Assemblywoman Evans stated she had no problem with people having more than one home, but thought merely claiming they lived in one house more than the other was not a very good measurement. There were some loopholes which added to the problem, she said, and a person running for office who admitted during the course of the election when confronted on the subject of "don't you really reside in another county" said "yes". But nevertheless was elected in the county. Nobody challenged it, and so he was serving in public office at the present time, Mrs. Evans said. She expressed concern that maybe the legislator was further validation for that practice. She thought committee should take another look at the language to make sure the language was correct. Assemblywoman Steel agreed as long as the bill was tightened up. The intent of the bill was that "you live next to the neighbor you wanted to represent", she said. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani announced her support and suggested tightening rather than loosening the bill. The constituency had a right to make sure the person they cast a vote for was the person residing in that area, and recourse was available for constituencies to make sure that individual still resides there. Assemblywoman Steel stated the constituency believes when a candidate runs for office and the candidate signs a form which says, "I reside here," they are telling the truth. She believed the legislators should make sure laws were written properly and could be followed. Assemblyman Price noted there was one elected position in the United States where a candidate would not have to live in his/her district, and that was members of the House of Representatives. They only have to live in the state; they do not have to live in the district. He was not sure if A.B. 372 would somehow conflict with that. Assemblyman Price believed everyone should live in the district, but members of the House were exempted from that. They only had to live in the state. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, announced support of the concept of A.B. 372 and believed individuals should live in the district they wished to represent. Many people who run for office are not familiar with every legalistic term and might not understand what A.B. 372 was saying, she added. She, therefore, urged committee to find some way to word the legislation so that everybody could understand. People did not understand what was expected of them by way of residence, and the committee had the opportunity to correct that with this bill. Ms. Lusk urged committee to put, individuals currently serving and those expected to serve on an equal footing and not create a misunderstanding. If the declaration of residence was used, require a current person to simply file a declaration of residency. However, it did not have a great deal of meaning, she admitted. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani discussed individuals moving to Carson City for a period of time with the intent of moving back home and added language should be tightened. Ms. Lusk urged committee to make this criteria the same as the criteria for voter registration to avoid confusion. Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified in support of the intent of A.B. 372. Her main concern was line 20, the place the candidate declares to be his primary permanent habitation. Ms. Gilbert suggested a certain number of days they live in that home per year, realizing monitoring it presented a problem. She would like to see line 20 tightened up. Otherwise she thought it was an excellent bill. Assemblyman Humke pointed out a clerical error in A.B. 372 on page 1, line 20, the second word "that" should be "than". Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 372. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide procedure to resolve conflict between certain initiative petitions approved by voters. Chairman Close called committee's attention to A.J.R. 13 amendment (Exhibit E) and stated it would be taken to the Floor on March 29 if he heard no objections. There were none. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative session. Chairman Close asked committee to review the amendment to A.J.R. 21 (Exhibit F). He stated A.J.R. 21 would also be taken to the Floor on March 29 if committee had no objections. Committee discussion ensued regarding the amendment. Assemblyman Price, referring to a question during the hearing on A.J.R. 21, stated Legal had notified him that legislators would be paid for the 60 days with the new language. Chairman Close asked if legislators would meet for 120 days and be paid for 60, and Assemblyman Price replied "no" because anything done after the 60th day would be void. The language was a definite 60 days each year which was the intent of the bill. Discussion ensued among Assemblymen Fettic, Price, Humke, Assemblywomen Giunchigliani and Lambert regarding special sessions called by the Governor. After committee discussion, Mr. Bob Erickson, Research, said possibly the second sentence in Section 29A could read, "Any legislative action taken in a regular session after midnight...is void." Put a period after "void" and words about a special session would not be needed, he said. Chairman Close reiterated his reason for bringing the amendment back to committee was to make sure committee had the same intent rather than amend it on the Floor. Assemblywoman Freeman informed she voted against the amended bill in committee. She supported annual sessions. However, A.J.R. 21 put her in the position of not supporting the concept of annual sessions because of the provision for going to session the first Monday in March. Chairman Close said committee could open it up for discussion if Assemblywoman Freeman wished to reconsider that point, but since that was debated at the previous hearing, committee was only considering wording in the amendment. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought committee should recapture why it did what it did, and she asked if Assemblywoman Lambert wished to address the timing of legislative sessions. Assemblywoman Lambert stated one of the reasons the first Monday in March was good was a lot of bills would already have been drafted and would be ready for the session. With prefiling of bills, the session would be more open and more public, and more information would be available at the beginning of the session because if a session was to be done in 60 days, legislators could not wait for bills to be drafted. Starting sessions in March would allow an extra two months for drafting. Assemblywoman Freeman said legislature prefiled this session and she did not see evidence it made any difference. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani countered this was the first time for prefiling and there were some bugs that needed to be worked out on how referrals came to certain committees and a few things along those lines. The election challenges also were responsible. More work sessions prior to convening and review of the budget could be done. The Governor could still do the State of the State speech early, and the legislature would have time to react to the content. Assemblyman Price at that time referred back to the discussion on special sessions of the legislature and quoted from the Nevada Constitution. He could not find a time limit, he said. "Article V, Section 9, Special Sessions of the Legislature, The Governor may on extraordinary occasions convene the legislature by proclamation and shall state to both houses when organized, the purpose of which they have been convened. The legislature shall transact no business except that for which it was convened or such other legislative business as the Governor may call to the attention of the legislature while it is in session." Chairman Close at this time discussed legislators' schedule for April, and Mr. Price pointed out he had a conflicting date on Thursday, May 11, as Chairman of a statutory committee meeting which also was comprised of two other members of Elections and Procedures Committee. With the concurrence of Chairman Close, Mr. Bob Erickson, Research, referred to the earlier committee discussion on Assembly Bill 372, and stated if somebody died when there would be time to get another nomination, then those names would go on the ballot. But if not, N.R.S. 293.166, subsection 2, said, "If a nominee dies after that date, his name must remain on the ballot and if elected, a vacancy exists." At least in terms of filling vacancies for seats in the legislature, the law says that the vacancy is filled by a person of the same political party as the former incumbent, Mr. Erickson said. He admitted it could conceivably mean that the person who dies, who is a Democrat and wins would not matter, because the former incumbent was Republican. Mr. Erickson thought the law was a little bit gray in this area. Additional committee discussion ensued among Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assemblyman Dini, Humke and Chairman Close who confirmed agreement among committee on the amendment to A.J.R. 21. Chairman Close stated he had not heard anything different from the intent of the original motion that was cast when the hearing was held. Chairman Close then clarified the proposed amended language to the amendment to A.J.R. 21 would be under Section 29A to put a period after the word "void" and to strike the last phrase. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 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 28, 1995 Page