MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session June 1, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Thursday, June 1, 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. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Steven Miller, Citizen Ms. Ande Engleman, former director of Nevada Press Association Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt floor minutes of May 19, 1995 Elections and Procedures Committee meeting. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE FLOOR MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 19, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN hUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 635 - Revises provisions governing opening of legislative session and contests of election of legislators. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9 and prime sponsor of A.B. 635, explained the legislation contained rules and provisions to prevent legislature from being caught in a quandary when a challenge occurred. The intent was to make sure anyone had a right to challenge and to clarify language which did not exist within the statute. Next, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani recapped each section of the bill. See (Exhibit C). Chairman Close noted portions of A.B. 635 were similar to Assemblywoman Buckley's legislation, and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed to strike the duplicated provisions from A.B. 635. Assemblywoman Lambert thought the amount of the bond was too high. She questioned the cost to the local government which Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had heard was $1200 and believed was overtime and staffing costs. Assemblyman Price referred to the language "fees to go to the challenged candidate." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the committee could have a right to make a determination. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani pointed out the burden of proof was always on the contestee except in the case of a criminal aspect. Assemblyman Price referred to Section 2, subsection 9, page 3, lines 34 through 37 noting since each house was the final determination of how they go about selecting their speakers, he was not sure this needed to be in statute. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani informed she had consulted with Kim Morgan, Counsel, who said only for the purpose of the contest, would leadership appoint the select committee, and if the leadership happened to be the one challenged, Counsel asked for a provision which said the body could appoint leadership only for the period of the contest. The House would still reconvene and determine who its leadership would be. Chairman Close asked for public testimony on A.B. 635. There was none. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 635 and opened the hearing on A.B. 636. ASSEMBLY BILL 636 - Requires disclosure of certain information by persons conducting certain surveys by telephone. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9 and prime sponsor of A.B. 636, spoke concerning calls which her constituents received after the last primary election. She explained her rationale for proposing A.B. 636. She asked the committee's consideration of potential amendments to the language in A.B. 636 and explained the suggested changes which were highlighted by capital letters in (Exhibit D). Assemblywoman Giunchigliani also submitted (Exhibit E) which described the types of polls referred to by the legislation. Committee discussion ensued regarding types of phone calls and the time allowed for disclosure (A.B. 636, page 1, lines 5 and 6). Chairman Close thought disclosure by the caller should be made at the beginning of the call. Assemblywoman Lambert questioned the wording, and suggested closing a loophole to disclose the main person who initiated the calls. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani cited a constitutional issue raised in the newspaper where it was overruled that disclosure could not be required on printed materials. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani would ask staff to review and determine if language might be constitutional or unconstitutional based on that ruling. Mr. Steven Miller, testified in opposition to A.B. 636 as it was worded because, he said, it would prejudice the responses to the questions of the survey. He believed the bill should go through with language that the caller give notice after the survey was completed. Notification beforehand would prejudice responses received by the caller from the survey. Mr. Miller conveyed he had been trained in market research and had taken courses in public opinion research at the University of Nevada. He was currently a graduate student of public administration and had graduated in Business Management. Assemblyman Price believed the real purpose of the types of "surveys or polls" referred to by the legislation was not to get true information but to say something which would affect the opinion of the person called. Assemblyman Price believed it was a form of negative campaigning and was not a poll as was ordinarily thought of where scientific evaluation was the goal. Mr. Miller responded he was not familiar with the type of negative campaigning Assemblyman Price referred to. Mr. Miller was thinking of a pure political research poll to gauge public opinion. Mr. Miller broadened the definition and said Assemblyman Price was referring to calls which were a type of persuasion. Mr. Miller then announced he could support A.B. 636 if notice was given after the survey was completed in order to protect the legitimate survey-takers. Mr. Miller felt the results would be skewed if the caller gave identification before requesting information. Chairman Close believed the intent of A.B. 636 was to curb the push polling before it was out of control. If the surveys were legitimate and taken in open-market research, the intent was to let those surveys proceed. He thought a definition of each type might be reviewed. Committee discussion ensued regarding the possibilities of results of the survey when the caller identified himself or herself at the beginning of the call. Ms. Ande Engleman testified in favor of A.B. 636 with amendment and announced she was testifying as a former director of the Nevada Press Association, because of what occurred during the last campaign. She was sympathetic to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's proposed legislation. As former Director of the Press Association, she was not allowed to get involved in politics which meant if a poll called where Ms. Engleman could be identified as having answered any questions, she was not allowed to participate. Knowing who was conducting the poll would make it clear whether she should hang up the phone. She believed knowing who was conducting the poll does affect the opinion of the person called and could make a difference in the results of the poll. Ms. Engleman believed the legislation would hurt campaign consultants and polling companies within the state of Nevada. Some candidates hired campaign consultants outside the state of Nevada (Arizona, California, New Mexico), who, in turn, hired pollsters out of Washington, D. C. Nevada legislature would not enforce the law against people who were not in Nevada. She reiterated she did not believe the law would be enforceable. It would only hurt in-state campaign consultants and in state polling companies. She believed the Committee would have to go into NRS 703 to change the law. Assemblyman Humke asked Ms. Engleman if this was a permissible restraint of political speech represented in A.B. 636. She responded by stating Assemblyman Humke would find disagreement on the answer. The recent Supreme Court decision said you cannot require disclosure; that it puts a chilling effect on free speech. Some were interpreting it as only applying to print matter versus electronic matter which Ms. Engleman thought was a constitutional problem under the Fourteenth Amendment under equal treatment of the media. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 636. ASSEMBLY BILL 538 - Creates legislative committee to study state regulations. Assemblyman David Humke, District No. 26, prime sponsor of A.B. 538, testified A.B. 538 was similar to a bill he had submitted last legislative session. The previous bill was processed in Government Affairs Committee and was turned into an interim study. The same thing had happened so far this session, he pointed out. He began his presentation by stating A.B. 538 was predicated on the concept that any balance between the legislative and executive branches was no longer in effect with regard to regulations. He spoke from prepared text which, along with the reasons in A.B. 538, explained why there was a need for a study. See (Exhibit F). Assemblyman Humke read into the record a statement addressed to the Chairman from Nevada State Treasurer Bob Seale in support of A.B. 538 (Exhibit G). Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated N.M.A. strongly supported A.B. 538. Conflicting regulations from various departments were seen, and, while a very good job was done at the statute level ferreting out and resolving conflicts, when they get to the regulation level, a much less adequate job is done, he said. He cited problems with the federal government and recounted a situation in the manufacturing area where you could not be in compliance with one section of the clean air act and also be in compliance with a similar section in the clean water act since the two were in conflict with each other. Assemblyman Dini asked Mr. Bacon for his thoughts on changing regulations without annual sessions. Mr. Bacon agreed part of the problem was the lack of annual sessions. Mr. Bacon discussed the proliferation of regulations and said sometimes there was a conflict between local regulations, where they were clearly overstepping their boundaries, and what the statute says and what the state regulations say. It should be looked at in depth, he said. Ms. Ande Engleman, testified in favor of A.B. 538. She advocated more control by the legislature of approval of regulations and having some response to regulations which were not in keeping with laws passed. The Nevada Supreme Court decided the legislature did not have that power. There is no doubt Nevada had a lot of problems with regulations. Ms. Engleman fully supported the study and planned to be active in the study. Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, testified in favor of A.B. 538. He interpreted the legislation to mean regulations would be put through the Legislative Counsel Bureau for review for various degrees of authority. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in support of A.B. 538 in the first reprint. The unfunded mandate relief act required the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to look specifically at how statutes and/or regulations could be amended. It allows greater flexibility for state, local and tribal governments to comply with specific federal mandates, to reconcile federal mandates that impose contradictory or inconsistent requirements, to terminate federal mandates that are duplicate or obsolete or lacking in practical utility, to suspend temporarily, these mandates that are not vital to public health and safety, to consolidate or simplify mandates, to reduce duplication and facilitate compliance, to establish the common definitions of standards to be used in complying, and to mitigate the negative impacts of mandate relief for governments in the private sector and evaluate the feasibility of applying such relief to private sector, she said. It definitely is something that does need to be reviewed and is necessary to the economic health and vitality of Nevada as a state and to the citizens. There were no questions from the committee. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 538. Chairman Close opened the Work Session. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 3 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to limit length of legislative session and to require submittal of proposed executive budget to legislature before commencement of legislative session. Chairman Close stated he had received no comments in regard to a memo on S.J.R. 3. He had discussed with Assemblyman Price to obtain resolution between Assemblyman Price's bill and S.J.R. 3, but had not come to any conclusion. He believed the Committee was ready for action. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED DO PASS ON S.J.R. 3. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Price for the status of A.J.R. 21. Assemblyman Price said they had not taken any action, and Senator Raggio was the key person. Assemblyman Price stated he had not talked with Senator Raggio, and he had no objection to S.J.R. 3 moving forward. He believed 120 days would be better than what legislature was presently doing. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani preferred both issues would go on the ballot to allow the public a right to vote and make a decision. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated her only concern was that just capping the number of days would not solve the budgetary issues. Chairman Close discussed the interpretation that the legislators were going to get 100% pay increase if legislature went to annual sessions. Chairman Close thought when committee passed Assemblyman Price's bill, it was passed with the interpretation it would not be a change in the salaries of the legislators. Chairman Close asked Assemblyman Price his intent. Assemblyman Price said committee did know it would be paid for 60 days of each session. The constitution says the first 60 days of regular session and so if you went to annual sessions that would be a regular session, but the overall cost would still be low. Assemblyman Dini recalled the Senator said legislators were going to do this in 120 days. Assemblyman Allard remembered the Senator talking about the provision for the legislature to receive the budget 14 days before the commencement of the session, and the Senator indicated that would get the budget process moving, and thereby allow legislature to finish within 120 days. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. There was none. Chairman Close asked for a motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close asked to go on record for thanking Ms. Kathy Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, for bringing the voting machine to the legislature for committee to view. Chairman Close gave the committee a schedule of bills to be discussed at the June 6, 1995, committee meeting and stated committee was on target with bills to be discussed with no backlog. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 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 June 1, 1995 Page