MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session June 13, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, Chairman Close presiding in Room 330 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: Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brad Lawrence, Registered Voter/Citizen Ms. Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer Mr. Eric Johnson, Citizen Ms. Edwina Prior, Citizen Ms. Leola Armstrong, Citizen, representing herself Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of Secretary of State Ms. Ande Engleman, Citizen Ms. Lucille Lusk, Citizen Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters Mr. Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, requested the Committee approve a Bill Draft Request to appoint members of the Legislative Commission. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt minutes for May 11, 16, 18 and 23, 1995, Elections and Procedures Committee Meetings. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY, 11, 16, 18 AND 23, 1995. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 695 - Creates presidential preference primary election. Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21, began her presentation to the committee by stating everything in the bill was incorrect, and she asked the Committee to refer to (Exhibit C), "Essentials of Presidential Primary for Major Parties and Proposed Amendments." Assemblywoman Tiffany, explained when she was speaking with Kim Morgan, Counsel, concerning redrafting A.B. 695, the changes became complicated, and Ms. Morgan gave Assemblywoman Tiffany discussion points which are attached herewith as (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Tiffany asked the Committee to consider an Amend and Do Pass Motion and bring the bill back to the Committee after the bill was reprinted. Chairman Close announced the Committee would debate each item in (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Tiffany explained the purpose of A.B. 695 was to change the election from a caucus election to a primary election. She wanted the voters to participate in the selection of the prospective major party candidates instead of the delegates being selected by unrepresented pressure groups in precinct meetings. Smaller interest groups sometimes controlled delegates through the caucus process. The presidential preference primary election method would elevate the interest level for presidential candidates to visit the state of Nevada. The primary was timed to coincide with the one in California which was the fourth Tuesday in March. If the candidates came to California, the candidates would come to Nevada, she declared. She continued her presentation to the committee from prepared text (Exhibit C) and informed the Committee Mr. Brad Lawrence would cover the issues point by point. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for a review of the 74 cents figure. Assemblywoman Tiffany explained the money was a contingency fund to reimburse the cities and counties for costs, and was done by the Secretary of State whose representative was present at the meeting to testify. The fund had $1.3 million, and was funded by the interim Finance Committee, she added. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how the candidate selected the slate of delegates, and Assemblywoman Tiffany requested the Secretary of State's office be allowed to discuss. Mr. Brad Lawrence, who had represented the State Treasurer as a volunteer, stated in the A.B. 695 hearing, he was representing only himself as a registered voter in one of the major political parties. Mr. Lawrence addressed the committee from a prepared statement (Exhibit D) and offered general asides. Assemblyman Price asked how the other parties were treated with regard to the presidential primary. Mr. Lawrence explained the proposal, and further stated the primary applied only to the major political parties. The minor political parties chose their candidates in a different way and would not come under the primary system. Mr. Lawrence pointed out a provision in A.B. 695 which authorized either of the two major political parties, by resolution filed with the Secretary of State, to allow non-partisans to participate in their primary if the non-partisans wished to do so. Participation was not required. Assemblyman Fettic asked how the fiscal note of $200,000 was arrived at. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, explained there was a statutory contingency account, and the counties were allowed to submit their bills to the Secretary of State. Upon the Secretary of State's recommendation and approval by the State Board of Examiners, those counties were reimbursed for the cost of the election. That account was also used for forest fire suppression and a few other things, he added. When the account would get low, it would be replenished. The figure of $200,000 was the starting point for discussions, Mr. Erickson noted. The cost was uncertain, but the statutory contingency account would provide additional money so that the cost of the election would not drain it. Assemblyman Fettic questioned if $200,000 was sufficient since mailings would be done. Mr. Lawrence explained the rationale was that considerable funds were in the contingency fund, but an additional $200,000 should be added to make sure the costs were covered. Assemblywoman Tiffany asked for an additional amendment if the bill was processed, which would allow Clark County other options. Clark County would reimburse themselves for that additional cost. Chairman Close asserted that subject would be covered later. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted filing fees for candidates would not offset costs. She discussed the sources of the contingency fund and questioned whether that was a proper use of the fund. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt the average every-day voter would be locked out from participating in the selection. Mr. Lawrence expressed disagreement with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. He explained his point of view was that more people participated in a primary election than in a precinct meeting. Elections brought out people more than precinct meetings, he declared. At this time, Mr. Lawrence stressed he was not representing the Treasurer, and was representing himself. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned Mr. Lawrence regarding (Exhibit C) and expressed that she did not see A.B. 695 as more voter participation. Mr. Lawrence, responding to Assemblyman Allard's inquiry regarding two congressional districts, said the rationale was to assure because of the traditional rivalry between north and south, that there would be representation required by the candidates who filed the delegates in each section of the state. The only difference would be if there was an odd numbered delegate, that one delegate would go to the district that had the largest population in the previous census. When asked for comments by Chairman Close, Mr. Erickson informed the last census was 1.2 million for the state, and each of the two congressional districts were at 600,000. District 1 was the area where a lot of new growth was not possible. Most of the growth in Nevada since the last census had occurred in District 2. Responding to a question from Assemblyman Price, Mr. Lawrence said the internal political workings of the parties in terms of favorite sons had not been considered. There had been times when favorite sons had run in their own states and lost the primary to candidates from other states. Mr. Lawrence informed they just wanted the people of the state to decide who the state's delegates would vote for in their national convention whether it was a favorite son or not. Mr. Price thought the $1,000 filing fee was high even for a presidential race. Chairman Close asked whether fees charged to the candidates in other states were equal to what Nevada was charging. Mr. Erickson stated the state of New Hampshire which used $1,000 was the state filing fee which was provided. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought individuals had a right through access, and she had not decided whether A.B. 695 restricted more or opened the process more. Chairman Close commented many aspects of A.B. 695 were in the present law. Ms. Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer, testified she did not feel strongly one way or the other, but verbalized her concerns about the administration of A.B. 695. She requested if the Committee did pass the bill, that the Committee allow the Secretary of State to do the regulations for the bill. For instance, nothing was in the bill which specified whether or not the polls would close at 7 p.m., she said. Ms. Reed stated she was in support of mail-in elections, and had conducted a number of them in Douglas County for the General Improvement Districts. The voter turnout was substantially higher, and she acknowledged an 85 to 90 percent turnout. The voters liked it, she added. Mr. Eric Johnson, not representing any organization or political party, testified in favor of A.B. 695 plus amendments. He began his presentation reading from prepared text (Exhibit E). He felt the present caucus system was complicated, unrepresentative and disenfranchising and asked the Committee to pass A.B. 695. Ms. Edwina Prior, citizen, testified as a concerned citizen in favor of the proposed amendment to A.B. 695. Ms. Prior stated she had been active as a volunteer political worker for 35 years in the state of Nevada. Since 1962 she had not missed a precinct meeting, a county convention, or a state convention. Since 1976, with the exception of one year, she had been a delegate to the national convention. Ms. Prior stated her purpose during the years was to involve more people in the political process and to make the people who volunteered more responsive to the general voting population. "We are a representative form of government. It is time that we sent a representative delegation of the wishes of the people of the state to the national convention," she testified. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Prior how she would assure that the average every-day citizen would get elected for a slate. Ms. Prior said she was not sure. It seemed the deserving people were always selected although the general populace seemed to have little interest. As the law was presently written, Ms. Prior perceived it to be an excellent law. If the law passed and did not work, she announced she would be at the legislature the next session testifying against it. Mr. Brad Lawrence, told the Committee Ms. Leola Armstrong was unable to attend the meeting and had submitted written testimony (representing herself) to the Committee in favor of A.B. 695 amended. See (Exhibit F). Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of Secretary of State, representing Secretary of State Heller, apologized that Secretary of State Heller was unable to attend the meeting, and informed the Committee Secretary of State Heller supported the idea of a presidential preference primary. Mr. Erquiaga informed he would speak in general terms and not the specifics of the bill. Secretary of State Heller agreed the presidential preference primary, which allowed participation by all the registered voters of a major political party, fosters participation. Secretary of State Heller also felt anything he could do to bring sunshine to the election process and open the campaign process was good for the process, Mr. Erquiaga voiced. Secretary of State Heller believed A.B. 695 was a step in that direction, he added. Regarding funding, Mr. Erquiaga said the figure of 74 cents came from Secretary of State Heller's office based on the Oregon experience. The state of Oregon was moving increasingly to all mail-in elections. Oregon found in their studies the number was about 74 cents per vote versus $2.20 per vote. The staff found it difficult to prepare a fiscal note on the bill in its current form. He believed a reasonably safe estimate at this time would be an average of $1.00 to $1.30 which would take into account 75 cents to 87 cents to post the ballot to the voter and allow the voter to return it. Mr. Erquiaga referred to the reserve for statutory contingency account which was a statutory account held by the Budget office. The account was not within the office of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State currently reimbursed counties for certain costs for ballot stock from that account upon a recommendation to the Board of Examiners, a standard procedure that seems a logical way for the state to fund the presidential preference primary. The $1.3 million figure that was mentioned was an account held by the Secretary of State called Special Services Account. The Special Services Account was separate from the statutory contingency account, he stressed. In a discussion with Assemblyman Price regarding primaries, Mr. Erquiaga stated Secretary of State Heller had requested if the primary was advanced to earlier in the year, the only good reason would be if the primary was held in conjunction with the presidential preference primary. Ms. Ande Engleman, testifying on behalf of Ms. Leola Armstrong who was unable to attend, called attention to Ms. Armstrong's written testimony in favor of A.B. 695 with suggested amendments. See (Exhibit F). Ms. Engleman, testifying on her own behalf, announced her support of A.B. 695 presidential preference primary in the month of March. As former Director of the Nevada Press Association, Ms. Engleman received phone calls from networks and other national media interested in knowing whether or not Nevada would have an early presidential primary, the idea being that C-Span, CNN, and other national groups would be more interested in covering Nevada at the same time they covered California. If Nevada held a presidential primary in March, Nevada would have a much higher profile national coverage, and, as a consequence, would get the voters more excited about participating in the system. Ms. Engleman, referring to Ms. Armstrong who was opposed to caucuses, said she herself, who had been a member of the press over the past 12 years, had not been able to participate in caucuses and so was not familiar enough with the process to say what was best. She did, however, have major concerns regarding a mail-in ballot. Nevada, like only one other state in the United States, did not have one postmaster. Nevada's mail system was divided among three states. The western side of Nevada was overseen by California, she informed, the Las Vegas part of Nevada was overseen by Arizona, and the balance of Nevada was overseen by Utah. When a postal service complaint was submitted, it was the fault of the other state. Senator Reid, at the urging of the press, was able to get a postmaster in Las Vegas but it had not improved the mail situation. Ms. Engleman, therefore, had concerns about trying to vote via the mail service in Nevada. Assemblywoman Lambert advised she had never had a complaint from anyone in her district that their ballot was not delivered. Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing herself, announced she was testifying neither for nor against A.B. 695, but had observations which she asked the Committee to consider. She referenced (Exhibit C) and questioned if not every presidential candidate filed in Nevada, would Nevada delegates then be restricted to those candidates who did file even if there was someone more compatible with the needs of Nevada when it came time to cast delegate votes. Ms. Lusk observed since the delegates and alternates would be selected by the candidate, the delegates would most likely be chosen by political patronage rather than by grass roots selection in a caucus process. It seemed to Ms. Lusk that A.B. 695 would emasculate even further the party convention process. Platforms long ago became meaningless, and, if delegates were not elected at the conventions, the only real purpose would be to elect officers, and it seemed to Ms. Lusk that would further weaken the major parties volunteer base. With regard to a mail election, Ms. Lusk questioned the ballot security for mail voting. If it was secure, reliable, and inexpensive, why weren't all elections held in that manner, she questioned. Ms. Lusk also questioned the use of postage paid return envelopes. She felt the amount should be considered in the cost. Ms. Lusk did not believe the amount discussed would not cover the cost. From the taxpayer perspective, it made no difference whether it was the state, the county, the city, or the federal government - the taxpayer had to pay. The committee might want to look very carefully at what the total cost would be regardless of which government entity paid that cost. Chairman Close asked Ms. Lusk if her comments were in writing. Ms. Lusk's comments are enclosed herewith, handwritten on a document and enclosed as (Exhibit G). Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters, explained she was not testifying on A.B. 695 but wished to clarify what had been said concerning Clark County's request. Ms. Ferguson was concerned with the mail and the number of sample ballots returned. In the recent municipal primary, the Registrar's office had received over 22,000 ballots returned. Not all should have been returned. Ms. Ferguson, therefore, asked for the option to have early voting only at the Election Department for anyone who did not receive their ballot in a timely fashion. If that was an additional cost, the cost would be minimal, she added. Chairman Close, referring to Mr. Erquiaga's comments regarding the increase in cost above what was originally projected as 74 cents, asked Ms. Ferguson if electronic voting or other voting apparatus was used, would her office be higher than the figures presented by Mr. Erquiaga. Ms. Ferguson said eventually it would be cheaper because the electronic machines would be a declining cost whereas an estimate of the Registrar's cost would be $1.30 per ballot. Assemblyman Fettic and Ms. Ferguson discussed the mailing of absentee ballots relating to the post office service in Clark County, which Ms. Ferguson had concerns about. Assemblyman Price and Ms. Ferguson discussed the necessity of people having to drive into Las Vegas for early voting at the Elections office. Ms. Ferguson stated she was unprepared to send ballots to every registered voter through the mail, but wanted the option of the people being able to come into the office and vote if they did not receive the ballot. Discussion ensued between Assemblywoman Freeman and Ms. Ferguson regarding 22,000 sample ballots returned to Clark County Registrar's office. Not all of the ballots were returned because the people had moved. The cost was $25,000 to buy them back from the post office so the sample ballots could be processed. Ms. Ferguson also estimated a cost of $1.30 per voter to mail the ballot for the election. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked to add to the record that she received a fax June 13, 1995, from Charles Waterman, Clark County Democratic Chair, that they were in opposition to A.B. 695. Chairman Close stated for the record he had received a letter from Brian McKay, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, who was in support of A.B. 695. There being no further testimony, Chairman Close asked for a vote. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 695. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani declared by committee rules, both Chairmen must agree to a motion, and she did not agree to the motion to Amend and Do Pass A.B. 695. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER A.B. 695. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. For clarification, he told the Committee the amendment would be drafted and returned to Committee for review. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 169 - Prohibits certain political contributions by lobbyist during legislative session and prohibits subcontracting by legislators. Chairman Close recognized Assemblywoman Giunchigliani who explained an inconsistency existed in S.B. 169 which had been Amended and Do Pass by the Committee May 16, 1995. She asked Assemblywoman Lambert to discuss. Assemblywoman Lambert said the amendment would be in Section 3, 294A.300, and on line 1 for just when it was members of the legislature. On line 12 "it is unlawful to solicit any monetary contribution for any political purpose" and on lines 30 and 31 when talking about caucuses, "it is unlawful to solicit or accept contributions or to solicit or accept a commitment to make a contribution." Assemblywoman Lambert proposed that the Committee add the language "accept a commitment to make a contribution" in Section 294A.300 and also so the lobbyist could not do it on the other side. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 169. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani at this time informed the Committee must rescind action regarding S.B. 169 on May 16, 1995. Chairman Close confirmed and declared the present motion on the floor was out of order. He asked for a motion to rescind the May 16, 1995 motion to Amend and Do Pass S.B. 169. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO RESCIND ACTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 169 ON MAY 16, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close then asked for a motion on S.B. 169. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 169 WITH THE DESCRIBED AMENDMENT AND ALL OTHER AMENDMENTS ALREADY IN THE BILL. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. Assemblywoman Lambert informed the Committee she had checked with Senator Coffin, and he agreed to the amendment. Chairman Close asked that Assemblywoman Lambert's statement be recorded for the record. He then asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 636 - Requires disclosure of certain information by persons conducting certain surveys by telephone. Chairman Close asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to discuss the amendments which she submitted. See (Exhibit H). Assemblywoman Giunchigliani informed the amendments were focused solely on the persuadable poller, better known in the market as the "push poll," to eliminate concerns raised by those who would do market research or research polling for other purposes. The amendment then defined "persuadable poll." Assemblywoman Lambert, for clarification, asked if a candidate were to hire a political consultant, then the political consultant hired the firm that conducted the poll, would the firm still have to disclose. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani pointed out language in the requested amendment "initially requested or paid". Assemblywoman Freeman asked if a candidate suspected this was happening, since the person would be guilty of a misdemeanor, who would they go to. Responding, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the enforcement would be under the Secretary of State. Assemblywoman Lambert stated if disclosure was only the name of the candidate, political party, the caucus or the committee for political action, a loophole might exist where two or three people could get together and give themselves a name, or under laws passed recently, have to register as a political action committee. Assemblyman Humke was not certain A.B. 636 did not chill free speech. It could be interpreted that compelled disclosure would chill the free speech of a group or person in talking about another political candidate. It also had some problems with freedom of association in that a committee might decide they wanted to campaign against someone. "We are free to do that under our system in this country. I am not sure it is unconstitutional, but it just basically does not look right to me," he declared. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani emphasized she did not believe in any form of censorship. A.B. 636 would not prevent persuadable pollers from calling; the persuadable pollers just needed to disclose who paid them to call. Assemblyman Allard questioned the enforcement of A.B. 636 across state lines. Assemblyman Perkins informed Nevada could initiate a criminal action against those parties regardless of where the call was initiated as long as half of the transaction (the call) occurred in Nevada. Chairman Close asked for a vote. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 636. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Erickson further commented that upon advice from the Deputy Attorney General who was present at the meeting, a small section should be added to make sure NRS 294A.410 pertaining to enforcement was consistent throughout that chapter. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed, and clarified her motion would contain instructions to refer to NRS 294A as well as Assemblywoman Lambert's point regarding the proper reference to groups, organizations and caucuses. Mr. Erickson confirmed the intent of the Committee. At the end of Chapter 294A, "The Secretary of State in consultation with the Attorney General shall enforce the provisions of..."and then the specific sections of Chapter 294A, not the entire chapter. Chairman Close asked for questions by the committee. There were none. Chairman Close asked for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 651 - Revises provisions governing mechanical voting systems. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, and Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters, assumed the testimonial table. Mr. Erickson explained he had met with the Secretary of State and Ms. Ferguson to combine the bills into one bill. An exhibit was provided to the committee which outlined amendments to A.B. 651. See (Exhibit I). Mr. Erickson and Ms. Ferguson then recapped the amendments and responded to questions from the committee. References to the language "or voting district" inserted after "precinct" were at the suggestion of Mr. Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder, and, responding to Mr. Erickson's question, Mr. Glover acknowledged the language was inserted in all of the correct places. Chairman Close requested Mr. Glover's response be inserted for the record. Assemblywoman Lambert pointed out page 5, section 16, (c) line 41 which stated "to verify the signature of the voter against that contained on the original affidavit." Ms. Ferguson agreed the language should read "or digitized signature" or however it was referred to in other areas of NRS which would allow her office to use the signature captured by computer and brought up on a screen. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani believed the language was not necessary in statute since it was already in regulation. Mr. Erickson confirmed the regulation reflected what the Secretary of State believed was legislative intent. Ms. Ferguson continued her recap of (Exhibit I) until completion. Chairman Close then asked for questions from the committee. There were no further questions. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 651. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 372 - Revises provisions governing residency requirements for candidacy for and retention of public office. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani told the Committee Kim Morgan, Legal Counsel, had informed it would be much faster if the committee would do a motion to Amend and Do Pass because Ms. Morgan would then have something to actively put together. Chairman Close reminded committee the original bill contained the word "constructively" which was removed by Staff, making the bill more realistic and palatable. The committee generally had favored the bill, but no action had been taken previously, he acknowledged. Chairman Close then entertained a motion from the committee. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 372. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani informed the amendment dealt with the word "domicile". The word "domicile" was defined, and the section was taken from the Utah code which referred to how one would declare his/her residence. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close at this point informed the committee the amendment would be brought to the floor for committee to review before the bill was submitted for final approval. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani conveyed Assemblywoman Steel would also review the amendment. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 20 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for commencement of regular legislative sessions in March. Chairman Close reminded the committee A.J.R. 20 had previously been amended and rereferred. He recommended committee reconsider A.J.R. 20. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.J.R. 20. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close stated several requests for bill drafts had been submitted and were refused at that point in time. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures June 13, 1995 Page