MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session May 2, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, Vice Chairman Perkins 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. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, District No. 22 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State Ms. Leola Armstrong/Executive Director, Common Cause Nevada Ms. Kathyrn McClain/Clark County Manager's office Mr. Eric Cooper/Washoe County Sheriff's Department and Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association ASSEMBLY BILL 517 - Revises provisions governing forms for reporting campaign contributions and expenses. Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, District No. 22, prime sponsor of A.B. 517, called attention to the number of legislators who had sponsored the legislation. She noted the complaints regarding forms for contributions and expenditures. She described the changes which she felt should be made. The dates did not correspond in one form which requested amount taken in from one date and amount spent from a different date. This was on the first form legislators filled out. She described the changes which would be made to the particular situation. She felt "Miscellaneous" covered too many expenditures and other categories were added for clarification. She described the categories added which were office expenses, expenses related to campaign staff or volunteers and travel expenses. Assemblywoman Segerblom preferred a column for incoming contributions and another column for expenditures. At this time, Mr. Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, assumed the testimonial table along with Assemblywoman Segerblom and stated Lines 44 through 48 on page 2 and lines 31 and 32 on page 3 explained what A.B. 517 would do. As written, the candidate would not report cumulative contributions which exceeded $500 in Reports 1 and 2, and that would allow contributions to be bundled. Checks would be in $500 amounts and the name of the donor would not be revealed until the third report. The Secretary of State's office was opposed to the language as it appears in A.B. 517, Mr. Erquiaga reported. Mr. Erquiaga suggested alleviating all the rows of columns that have historically appeared on the forms and confused everyone by separating into Reports #1, 2 and 3 and have a section for contributions which exceeded $500 with the name and address disclosed. He described the suggestion as a logistical layout design the Secretary of State would rather implement than have the law because if the law was changed in this way, legislators are sending a message that cumulative monies do not have to be reported until the end and by then the candidate has either won or lost. It is the Secretary of State's position that would be bad public policy, he informed. Assemblyman Close explained his concern with the forms were with the totals and different reporting times. The word "total" had different interpretations. Sometimes a total could indicate within that period or from the beginning. Assemblyman Close preferred to see a subcategory total similar to a checkbook. He was not sure if either proposal would solve the problem. The last two years a summary sheet was added, Mr. Erquiaga said, where totals were listed and from that page is where the Secretary of State will prepare the compilation required by law. Mr. Erquiaga admitted more work was needed for the sub totals and totals because that portion generated more calls than anything else to his office. The report is for just one period and that was all legislators were required to report by law. The press wants legislators to carry forward a cumulative total of how much legislators raised, and that cumulative total over the whole period was needed to prepare the compilation at the very end, he said. Assemblyman Close declared he would prefer the cumulative total. Assemblyman Close expressed the thought it would still be to candidates' best interest to have the form available. Assemblywoman Segerblom told Mr. Close she would work with Secretary of State Heller and Mr. Erquiaga to redo the forms so the forms could be read and understood. Assemblyman Price thought every report form should be approved by the Legislative Commission. He discussed a new item on this year's report which was "where did you spend your money" and "where did you spend over $500", and that was not in law to Mr. Price's knowledge. This year incumbents were reporting money actually spent in the prior election because of debts which needed to be paid from the prior election. A sum of the reportable money was spent in the prior election, but because of the way the dates were set up, Assemblyman Price had collected money after the last election to pay off prior campaign debts, he said, although they were actually reported in this election. Elections and Procedures had made some changes in the dates. Assemblywoman Lambert asked Assemblywoman Segerblom if she was changing some of the dates on the Contribution Expenditures forms to only go up to the day of the election. Assemblywoman Segerblom replied the dates did not correspond and they were going to make the dates correspond so contributions and expenditures could be done at the same time. Assemblywoman Lambert asked if it was her intent to have all of the expenses, for instance, for the 1994 campaign be reported on 1994 forms and then separate the 1996 campaign. Assemblywoman Segerblom assured the intent was for the dates to be the same. Mr. Erquiaga agreed the dates needed to be the same so the period is the same from beginning to end. He referred to Senator Coffin's bill, S.B. 169, which set the time period when contributions could be accepted. We will have to be sure we are all using the same dates, he specified. Mr. Erquiaga addressed Mr. Price regarding the bill referencing a legislative counsel, a staff person, reviewing the Secretary of State's forms. He informed Mr. Price the Secretary of State was vehemently opposed to that action. The Secretary of State is the Chief Elections Officer of the state, and he has an attorney who is also an elected officer of the state, and "We would much rather have Mrs. Segerblom look at our forms than have another lawyer look at our forms," he declared. Mr. Erquiaga responded to Mr. Price's mention of the expenses that were now required to be reported, and he informed that was done by regulation, adopted by the previous Secretary of State which was approved by the Commission. It was not done through the power of prescribing a form; it was done via the adoption of a regulation, he pointed out. It was in the law. Assemblyman Price asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the regulation and the date and also the notice for the open meeting law that was provided for the meeting where the regulations were adopted. Mr. Erquiaga replied it was. Assemblyman Close clarified with Mr. Erquiaga that he was opposed to a certain component of Mrs. Segerblom's bill and asked if Mr. Erquiaga was opposed to the other aspects of A.B. 517 as far as the dates. Mr. Erquiaga stated they wanted the dates made standard and cautioned about cumulative reporting. Cumulative reporting should occur in each of the periods, not at the end as it appears in the bill, he said, and the office was opposed to having another branch of government review its forms. We proscribe hundreds of forms for elections, he pointed out. Assemblyman Close verified Mr. Erquiaga concurred with all the aspects of A.B. 517 except for the two items mentioned. Mr. Close clarified the intent of Assemblywoman Segerblom to go forth with this bill. Ms. Leola Armstrong, Executive Director, Common Cause Nevada, provided the committee with written testimony in favor of A.B. 517 with one exception. See (Exhibit C). Her main objection to A.B. 517 was the requirement that the Legislative Counsel approve the reporting forms, she declared. She was also in favor of reducing the reporting threshold from $500 to $100. Assemblyman Dini asked Ms. Armstrong if she would support full disclosure by caucuses and by political parties of the funds they received. Responding to Assemblyman Dini's question, Ms. Armstrong said, "Absolutely." She stated the amounts were tallied and came to nearly a million dollars of money passed to candidates, and no citizen of the state would ever know where it came from. Common Cause supported the people's right to know. Another good thing on the report, she said, was the number of contributions $500 and under and which numbered almost 36,000. Assemblyman Close asked if Assemblywoman Segerblom and Mr. Erquiaga could return to the testimonial table. Assemblyman Close specified a concern over violations of candidates completing reporting forms. The statute reads any candidate who willfully violates any of the provisions of the section which deals with elections would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. He felt there needed to be enforcement to encourage those who ran for office to follow the law. Assemblywoman Segerblom felt those who had not filled the form out before had not understood the form. Assemblyman Close reiterated his concern to do something regarding those who violated the provisions of the Election Law. Mr. Erquiaga explained the process followed by the Secretary of State's office when a form was not filed on time. Mr. Erquiaga said a measure in the Senate would change some of the violations from the criminal to the civil, and they would be prosecuted for civil fine. Each day that one failed to file, the fine would go up. Senator O'Connell, knowing violations were not prosecuted as a criminal offense, was trying to change the law to a civil offense and increase the fine. Assemblywoman Monaghan suggested omitting the words, "willful" and "gross misdemeanor" and putting in a large fine. There being no other testimony on A.B. 517, Vice Chairman Perkins closed the hearing on A.B. 517. Vice Chairman Perkins opened the hearing on A.B. 529 ASSEMBLY BILL 529 - Requires transmittal of additional information on convicted felons to county clerks and registrars of voters. Ms. Kathyrn McClain, Clark County Manager's office, represented Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters. She spoke from written testimony. See (Exhibit D). She testified in favor of A.B. 529. There were no questions from the committee. Mr. Eric Cooper, representing Washoe County Sheriff's Department and the Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association, testified in favor of A.B. 529. Mr. Cooper told committee there would be no difficulty with the performance of A.B. 529 by the Washoe County Sheriff's Department and the Las Vegas Police Department. Chairman Giunchigliani at this time assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. Chairman Giunchigliani referenced page 2, line 9 and questioned the word "accused" rather than "convicted". Mr. Cooper explained the law enforcement agency could provide any other law enforcement agency upon written request by the head of the requesting agency, with record and fingerprints of people who had come to the attention of the agency. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the intent of the bill was to have on a monthly basis names of felons cross-matched to the voter registration list. The Clark County Registrar of Voters had a lot of problems with the list since felons were the only ones who could be removed from voter registration. Chairman Giunchigliani wanted to clean this up so this occurrence would not continue. Mr. Cooper said A.B. 529 addressed persons who were required to register pursuant to the ex-felon registration act. Mr. Cooper interpreted that to be if a person registers at their local law enforcement agency as an ex-felon, that would be self reporting and the information would be transmitted to the Registrar of Voters. Checking further, Chairman Giunchigliani cited line 12, page 1, "NRS 207.120 dealt with statements and fingerprints provided for...". She believed this caused the problems because a lot of people who never were felons or convicted of a felony received a notice in the mail. She felt the language could be changed to narrow the field. Mr. Cooper said the roster of registered ex-felons was self reporting. The information on judgement of conviction from the Court Clerk's office would also be fairly error free. Assemblyman Price disagreed because, he said, sometimes the right to vote was restored to a felon. Mr. Cooper said a lot of people had their right to possess a firearm restored either through the state or through the federal government. The state pardons board very often would restore a right, and no one in local law enforcement would be notified. If the right was restored by the Pardons Board, he believed the information must be transmitted in a timely manner. Chairman Giunchigliani said language might be added that if the Pardons Board, Parole Board, or the Governor restored rights, the information could be transmitted. She asked if an appeal procedure in A.B. 529 would be proper for people who were challenged by the Elections Department. Mr. Cooper stated the agency believed names of 1200 ex-felons were transferred to the Registrar, and 200 challenges were brought forth which were solved quickly. Errors were in the data base or the State Pardons Board failed to transmit the information to the local law enforcement agency. Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, announced support of A.B. 529. He informed the issue would come before committee again in the National Voter Registration Act implementation bill. The procedure is established at the federal level for federal felonies, and that act will attempt to mirror that. Language should be taken out of that act if A.B. 529 moves. He believed a notice requirement was required if a felon was to be removed by virtue of the record. The felon would be notified first, and, if not or if rights had been restored, the felon would have an opportunity to challenge that at that point. Assemblyman Close addressed Mr. Erquiaga stating a problem also existed in certain elections with those who were deceased still being registered to vote. He asked if the problem should go into A.B. 529. Responding to Assemblyman Close's inquiry, Mr. Erquiaga stated it was a very different problem, and the document was from a different entity, the Bureau of Vital Statistics. The Registrars were allowed to use those records, and the issue is addressed in the National Voter Registration Act, he added. Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 529. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion to adopt minutes of April 11 and April 17, 1995 Elections and Procedures Committee meetings. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 11 AND APRIL 17, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Giunchigliani announced committee would go into Work Session. See (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 14 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to remove Lieutenant Governor from position of President of Senate, and to abolish additional expense allowance paid to Speaker of Assembly and President of Senate. Chairman Giunchigliani called committee's attention to the amendment to A.J.R. 14 (Exhibiti F). She stated A.J.R. 14 was amended and do pass, and she wanted to verify with committee the amendment was as requested by committee before amendment was submitted. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for committee introduction for the following Bill Draft Requests: B.D.R. 24-1750: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * B.D.R. 17-1901: Revises provisions governing reimbursement of certain expenses of legislators. Assemblyman Close explained he brought forth B.D.R. 17-1901 on behalf of Assemblywoman Steel. He discussed with Mr. Malkiewich to see whether or not the rule could be changed administratively or whether a change in statute was necessary. Mr. Malkiewich determined a statute would be necessary. The B.D.R. meant legislators would be able to rent furniture in Carson City and be reimbursed for it rather than move furniture to Carson City from their homes. There would be no additional expense. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * B.D.R. 24-767: Removes limitation on cost of printing ballots for elections. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Giunchigliani announced the Work Session would begin. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, discussed Interim Study of the Block Boundary Suggestion Project for the Year 2000 Census (Exhibit G). Mr. Erickson said the State of Nevada Session Leaders and the Governor received the letter which comes every ten years from the Census Bureau asking if Nevada wishes to participate in the Block Boundary Suggestion Project of the Bureau of the Census. If Nevada does not participate in such a program, Mr. Erickson said, the Bureau of the Census would decide what block boundaries would be used in the state of Nevada. If Nevada does participate, Nevada will have input, he advised. If Nevada chooses to participate, typically the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff coordinates the project, he continued. Ten years ago the decision was some legislators should steer the effort. L.C.B. suggested the pattern be followed this time, and the state or the legislature agree that it is a good idea for the state to get involved and have a legislative subcommittee. L.C.B. suggested a resolution be drafted authorizing an interim study effort. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion for a resolution. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION FOR AN INTERIM STUDY OF BLOCK BOUNDARY SUGGESTION PROJECT OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. Assemblywoman Lambert asked at this stage if an interim study was needed or just a subcommittee of the Legislative Commission. It had been done once and the information was in place. Mr. Erickson said the signatures of the Governor were needed and all of the legislative leaders. The majority and minority leaders in both houses would sign a joint letter saying Nevada wished to participate in the program. There was no requirement for a formal interim study. Chairman Giunchigliani agreed with Assemblywoman Lambert a committee to begin work on it could be set up when necessary rather than have a study done again. Assemblywoman Lambert discussed after the 1985 session, she participated in the Block Boundary Suggestion Program Interim Study. Nevada participated because if Nevada did not select where the boundaries would lie, (boundaries were visible features such as power lines and roads), Washington would do it and the Census Bureau would pick the boundaries. At this time, only fine tuning the lines was necessary and would not be as much work as the initial work. Assemblywoman Lambert suggested Nevada participate to allow Nevadans to choose the lines. Mr. Erickson did not believe a resolution was needed. Chairman Giunchigliani then said if Mr. Erickson did not think a resolution was needed, the motion made by Assemblyman Humke and Assemblywoman Monaghan would be held and only used if staff determined a resolution was needed. She further added Nevada would determine where its lines are and not let the federal government do it. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Humke if he would change the motion. Assemblyman Humke agreed. Assemblywoman Monaghan, who seconded the motion, also agreed to change the motion. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION THAT NEVADA WOULD BE PARTICIPATING REPRESENTATIVES IN THE BLOCK BOUNDARY SUGGESTION PROJECT OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS FOR THE YEAR 2000 CENSUS. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Giunchigliani continued with the Work Session. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 20 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for commencement of regular legislative session in March and limit length of regular legislative session. Chairman Giunchigliani reminded committee A.J.R. 20 was an Amend and Rerefer at March 16 committee meeting. She asked Assemblyman Price if he had spoken with Senator Raggio, and Assemblyman Price stated he had not, and he requested Chairman Giunchigliani to hold A.J.R. 20 until he spoke with Senator Raggio. No action was taken. ASSEMBLY BILL 279 - Limits number of requests for legislative measures which may be submitted by local governments. Assemblyman Close, prime sponsor, asked committee to refer to the third page of the Work Session Document (Exhibit E) which was a memo to Ms. Kim Morgan from Assemblyman Close regarding A.B. 279. He asked committee to review the memo. Copies had been submitted to cities and counties, and he had worked with local government entities since the March 14 hearing. Assemblyman Close had also met with Senator Raggio and Assemblyman Dini to work for changes. Assemblyman Humke referenced item 8 of Assemblyman Close's memo stating item 8 set up a ratio for committees to request bill drafts after the first 45 days. As a practical matter, that time was when bill drafts were needed. Committees often draft bills based upon a request from a city, county, Association of District Attorneys or other elected groups, he explained. He did not understand why standing committees should be limited in this way. Assemblyman Dini asserted he did not like the item 8 portion. He thought item 8 was too restrictive and should be struck. He did not think the committees were unruly as far as requesting bills. Assemblywoman Lambert said committee requests had been phenomenal. Discipline on the process was necessary, but something more liberal to begin with could be tried. Something was needed to control bills coming from the committees, a major contributor to the problem, she emphasized. Assemblyman Dini agreed, but said the committees could turn down requests. He discussed small counties versus Clark and Washoe, and the effects of item 8 on these counties. Assemblyman Close said the items were suggested by various individuals. Other aspects of the proposal had positive beneficial effects. He expressed appreciation for Assemblymen Dini and Humke's desires, and stated he would be happy to strike item 8 and move forward with other aspects of A.B. 279. Assemblyman Humke referred to item 7 of Assemblyman Close's memo. Having served on a number of interim studies, it seemed too easy to vote for bill draft requests in Carson City, and forget that interim study bills were drafted in the fall when they would conflict with Executive Branch bills and other bills being drafted. He believed interim studies should be limited to five and if there were compelling purposes, the interim study chairman could go before the Commission and seek permission to go above the number. He felt that could be a beneficial limitation for the process. Assemblyman Perkins stated much of A.B. 279 was a radical departure from previous policy and he had not studied it sufficiently. He asked if Assemblyman Close would agree to giving additional time to study A.B. 279 and weigh the consequences of each of the points suggested. Assemblyman Close was not sure the term "radical" applied. Assemblyman Close agreed to defer until another time if that was the wish of the committee. Assemblyman Dini thought ten studies was a good number and five would be wasting a lot of people's time on the Study Committee. Chairman Giunchigliani stated every single thing everybody had an idea about went into a bill draft, and, more often than not, most of the people who served on the study committee either chose not to return or were not reelected, and the B.D.R.'s were delivered to communities who had questions about them. She announced support of some restrictions for lowering because it had gotten out of hand. Assemblyman Price gave statistics of B.D.R.'s for the present session through April 28. Chairman Giunchigliani added on the other side, public access is through legislation and legislation is through bill drafts. She announced committee would take action on May 4 on A.B. 279. ASSEMBLY BILL 274 - Provides method for determining leadership in either assembly or senate in event of evenly divided membership between two political parties. A.B. 274 was Assemblywoman Steel's legislation, and Chairman Giunchigliani would like to discuss further on May 4. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 24 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for election of chief justice by justices of supreme court. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED DO PASS ON A.J.R. 24. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. She provided committee with a synopsis of the bill which was sometimes the justice gets chosen who does not want to be Chief Justice, and the justice cannot refuse if chosen. Assemblyman Dini said the Chief Justice had to serve as Chief Justice four years which was a long time. Chairman Giunchigliani explained the legislation provided for a four year term of office instead of two years. Assemblywoman Evans questioned the difference between A.J.R. 24 and the one defeated on the ballot measure. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson to respond. Mr. Erickson thought it was identical. He did have a question whether the other legislation said two years or four years, but otherwise Mr. Erickson believed they were identical. Assemblyman Dini thought four years was the key, and he was uncertain whether four years was the best public policy. Assemblyman Price commented the third from the last B.D.R. this far in session said "authorizes the Supreme Court to supervise inferior courts." Chairman Giunchigliani said she would like to discuss with Assemblyman Batten before making a change. Assemblyman Close then withdrew his motion to allow time for discussion with Assemblyman Batten. Chairman Giunchigliani responded the withdrawal of his motion would be acceptable. Chairman Giunchigliani announced to committee the motion was withdrawn in order to obtain more information from Assemblyman Batten. ASSEMBLY BILL 365 - Makes various changes relating to elections. Chairman Giunchigliani recapped the requested amendments to A.B. 365. See Page 5 of Work Session Document (Exhibit E). She reminded committee there was no longer a need for Section 5, page 3, in the bill since the feet around the polling area would remain at 30 feet. Regarding Section 7, information was presented in testimony that not everybody had a telephone. Therefore the words "if available" should be included. Regarding Section 7, line 42, language would be added to the notice that accompanies the challenge to the individual, "Even though you have been challenged, you are still registered and eligible to vote. Please immediately contact this office for information concerning how you may respond to the challenge." Continuing, Chairman Giunchigliani said Section 9 dealt with "fails to file" and "fails to submit"which dealt with the petition section of A.B. 365 which Ms. Thelma Clark spoke to. Section 10 was deleted because that reference was no longer needed. Chairman Giunchigliani concluded by stating the amendments were acceptable to Assemblyman Spitler, prime sponsor of A.B. 365. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 365. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 457 - Prohibits former legislator from serving as lobbyist for one regular session after termination of service in legislature. Chairman Giunchigliani conveyed there seemed to be a misunderstanding about Assemblywoman de Braga's intent. The intent was no longer than the 18 months from time your term actually ends and the next session. Some people thought it meant four years legislators would have to be out so Chairman Giunchigliani had asked Assemblywoman de Braga to work on language to bring back to committee for consideration. She acknowledged the press had determined the bill would mean the legislator would have to stay out two full sessions. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 27 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for initial selection of judges by appointment with annual reviews of performance and subsequent retention by election. Assemblyman Close said Assembly concerns dealt with constituency of the Commission and whether or not there should be a trailer bill which would follow A.J.R. 27 to identify intent of how the Commission would be appointed if it passed two legislative sessions and a vote of the people. Assemblyman Close stated Kim Morgan felt it would be better served for Assemblyman Close as sponsor of the bill to read into the record the intent which Assemblyman Close foresees, and that would include lawyers, non-lawyers, minorities, males, females, legislators, non- legislators on the Commission because Assemblyman Close thought people wanted to make sure it was not "the good old boys" (the term used by Common Cause) appointing the judges. Assemblyman Close stated he would not adjust the bill as it stood but would request a vote of the bill on May 4 and would read into the record a statement of intent at that time. Assemblyman Price referenced page 4, lines 20, 21 and 22 where the Commission may adopt regulations for containing the confidentiality of its proceedings and records and suggested they should be open meetings like other commissions and boards in the spirit of accountability. Chairman Giunchigliani informed Assemblyman Price this would reverse what Assemblyman Price had said at the end of the meeting the day after Justice Rose spoke to it, pointing out a great deal of what was done in that selection period dealt with personnel type matters. Assemblyman Close noted that Chairman Giunchigliani brought forth in the hearing, "no hammer" in reference to paragraph 6 on page 4, line 28 which states if the Governor had not made the appointment by a certain date, the legislature would then make it, or similar language. Assemblyman Close agreed to an amendment. Chairman Giunchigliani explained committee might wish to require the Commission or someone to appoint from the list which had been submitted. Assemblyman Price, referring to Chairman Giunchigliani's prior statement quoting Mr. Price from Judge Rose's appearance before committee, believed his comment to Judge Rose was, "historically I had been opposed to the appointment and selection of judges but with the discussion, I was leaning towards it, but I felt the Commission should still have to operate under the spirit of the open meeting law. Referring to A.J.R. 27, Assemblyman Price said committee was discussing a Constitutional Amendment which would put into the Constitution that they could have closed meetings. Even if we were forced to closed meetings, I would rather have language statutory in nature so legislators could review or change at some time in the future, but once you have put into the Constitution which I believe there is no precedent for, that the meetings can be closed, I think that closes some doors. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the performance was where the confidentiality issue was raised first and where Justice Rose spoke to. Addressing Mr. Price, she continued,"Probably initially you would want to do it confidentially and afterwards, they would be amicable to having a check list." Referring to subsection 4, she said Mr. Price raised the question there about whether or not meetings would be closed. Chairman Giunchigliani said Assemblyman Price raised the question originally on #4 but when conversation resumed, Justice Rose spoke to subsection 3 first. And the discussion in committee was "it made sense because they are doing a review, that's an evaluation basically, and the discussions and how that has gone should be confidential. Afterwards, there could be a release of a score card or a report card or whatever you wish to look at. But there are deliberations in that case." Discussion ensued between Chairman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Price concerning adoption of regulations behind closed doors. Assemblyman Price agreed to check with Legislative Counsel Bureau Chairman Giunchigliani referred to page 4, lines 19-21 which set the regulations for the confidentiality of the proceedings in part 3, lines 13-18. Chairman Giunchigliani felt clarification was needed for the steps which would go into place. Assemblyman Price agreed to double check. SENATE BILL 169 - Makes various changes to provisions governing governmental contracts with legislators and contributions made to certain public officers. Chairman Giunchigliani stated currently campaign reports are filed, there is a cut off date, and reports have to be filed by the 17th of the month or close to the 17th. S.B. 169 would then extend the date. Mr. Erickson explained it was changed to 40 days. Chairman Giunchigliani confirmed it was currently 30 days. S.B. 169 would change it to 40 days which was ten days longer. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson to get dates for committee for May 4 meeting. Assemblyman Close commenting on page 2, subsection 8, lines 45 and 46, pointed out there was a question relating to "in opposition thereto," and testimony was heard concerning the wording, "support on behalf of". Chairman Giunchigliani said striking "lobby" on line 46 would leave it open ended which might be cleaner. Assemblyman Close gave an example of someone lobbying or doing something for someone that would occur after the session ends, and asked how that would be substantiated and prohibited. Assemblywoman Lambert said if legislators put a state job in the budget, legislators could not take that state job when they were out of office. Private employment probably would not be covered under the Constitution, she added. Chairman Giunchigliani suggested including a number 10 under Section 2 which would read, "Legislators shall not instigate the introduction of any legislation for the purpose of obtaining employment." Assemblywoman Monaghan stated she had in her notes there was no fiscal impact. She asked how a lobbyist was defined after the election. Chairman Giunchigliani said the question was raised by Mrs. Lusk on Mrs. de Braga's bill that legislators should qualify it as a paid lobbyist if legislators were going to deal with moving the legislation. Mr. Bob Erickson, referring to previous discussion A.J.R. 27, said it was S.J.R. 11 of the 65th Legislative Session which proposed to amend the Constitution to provide for the election of the Chief Justice by the justices of the Supreme Court. That bill is identical in all respects, including the four years, with the only difference being the effective date of the legislation. 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 May 2, 1995 Page