MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session June 20, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, Chairman Giunchigliani presiding in Room 321 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. 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. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21 Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brad Lawrence, Registered Voter/Citizen Mr. Larry Struve, Chief, Department of Business and Industry Ms. Joan Kershner, Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts Ms. Judith Winzeler, Executive Director, Nevada Humanities Committee Ms. Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno ASSEMBLY BILL 695 - Creates presidential preference primary election. Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21, told the Committee the amendments to A.B. 695 had been reviewed by Mr. Erickson, Mr. Lawrence, and Assemblyman Close. She then introduced Mr. Lawrence who explained the basic amendments to the legislation. See (Exhibit C). Mr. Brad Lawrence, registered voter/citizen, explained A.B. 695 was a bill which provided a presidential preference primary in Nevada. The primary would be held on the fourth Tuesday in March in conjunction with the California primary. Previously in May of 1976 and 1980, when the experiment with the presidential preference primary was held, voter turnout was low mainly because the primary was in May, and the decision had already been made as to who the presidential candidate was. In order to encourage a large voter turnout, the primary was moved to March when the California primary was held. In the first hearing for A.B. 695, he said the details of the bill were reviewed. The presidential candidate would file with the Secretary of State his declaration of candidacy, and, at that time, he would list the delegates and alternate delegates pledged to his candidacy in each congressional district. It would be winner-take-all within the congressional district unlike California which is winner-take-all statewide, Mr. Lawrence informed. The candidate who won in a particular congressional district, his delegates and alternates would go to the convention, but that candidate had complete power of substitution even after the primary so he could change delegate names and alternate delegate names on his slate. It was thought this would be helpful to accommodate any particular national party rules which may exist such as gender and party officials. The delegates would be pledged to their candidate through the first ballot of the convention unless released early. If his/her candidacy faltered, the candidate could release the delegates even before the convention. In order to save money and not have to hire poll workers at each precinct on election day, this would be conducted as a mail-in primary, and ballots would be mailed to every democratic registered voter if there was a Democratic contest, and to every Republican registered voter if there was a Republican contest. It would eliminate the role of the caucuses in the selection of delegates to the national convention. The caucuses would remain for other purposes such as election of party officials. Only the one function of selecting delegates to the National Convention would be removed from the caucus system, Mr. Lawrence explained. Mr. Lawrence continued, in the first hearing, concerns were expressed by the Clark County Registrar who wanted to be sure they could conduct early voting, and that was put into the amended bill. The provision requiring a petition process for the presidential candidate to qualify for the ballot was removed. The Secretary of State's office was concerned because of the cost the County Clerks would incur with the procedure to validate signatures on a petition. That had been taken by error from the original primary law in effect in 1976 and 1980, and the petition process was never intended to be on the ballot. Assemblyman Dini asked Mr. Lawrence how the minor parties were handled. Mr. Lawrence said this applied only to the major political parties. Minor parties had their own system, and it had not changed, he replied. Mr. Lawrence stressed the discussion concerned minor parties and not the non-partisan parties. He emphasized that Section 44 summarized the entire purpose and thrust of A.B. 695 in one sentence, "Each registered voter may vote on the partisan ballot for the presidential preference primary election for one person to be the candidate for nomination for President of the United States for that party." Chairman Giunchigliani confirmed the changes Mr. Lawrence discussed were from the original A.B. 695 to the present bill. Mr. Lawrence replied she was correct, and he reiterated the complicated petition process was taken out, a provision for early voting requested by Clark County was inserted, and an adjustment for mechanical voting was requested. Chairman Giunchigliani called attention to the cost which according to testimony, she said, would be close to $700,000 to $780,000. Responding, Assemblywoman Tiffany explained how the figure was arrived at with the assistance of the Secretary of State. The fiscal note on $700,000 was both parties participating and 100 percent turnout which would never happen, she said, but was the worst case scenario. The next fiscal level, which was about $300,000, was one party 100 percent turnout. The last scenario which, she said, was probably the most likely, was a single party with 50 percent turnout. Cost would be $188,000. Committee discussion ensued regarding the cost of mailing the ballots which was estimated by Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters, to be $1.25 per vote. Assemblyman Close pointed out for the record in regard to the electronic machines, he and Assemblywoman Tiffany had some discussion because the provision dealing with the electronic voting machines regarding maintenance of the voting cartridge and all those things would have to be included. Assemblyman Close said they talked to Mr. Erickson who felt he could expand A.B. 651 and include the term "presidential preference primary". Assemblyman Close asked Mr. Erickson if this was correct, and Mr. Erickson replied A.B. 651 would be the proper bill to address that subject. Assemblyman Close then confirmed A.B. 695 did not have to be amended to deal with all the various components of how to use electronic voting machines since that could be dealt with in A.B. 651. Mr. Lawrence pointed out to the committee the sunset provision was in the bill so that it expires after the upcoming presidential primary, and the next legislature would either have to remove the sunset provision or not. If A.B. 695 did not work, the legislature could just not remove the sunset provision. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there had been any discussion if one party or the other would pick up the cost. Mr. Lawrence believed there were legal problems about a party paying for a primary situation. It used to exist in some states, particularly in the south where the Democratic party would pay all the cost of the primaries. However, it was ruled illegal because it was a public function to pay for primaries and general elections and not a party function, Mr. Lawrence conveyed. Concluding, Chairman Giunchigliani announced A.B. 695 would be posted for Thursday, June 20, 1995, for action. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38 - Urges state and local governments to establish programs to encourage participation of residents of Nevada in development of public policy and operation of state and local government. Assemblyman Close announced Chairman Giunchigliani was chairing the meeting on this date, but had to leave the meeting briefly. In her temporary absence, as Co-Chair, Assemblyman Close opened the hearing on S.C.R. 38. Senator Dina Titus, District No.7, introduced Larry Struve, Chief, Department of Business and Industry, Judith Winzeler, Executive Director, Nevada Humanities Committee, and Joan Kershner, Department of Museums and Arts, who assumed the testimonial table to discuss S.C.R. 38. Senator Titus explained the genesis of S.C.R. 38 was to encourage participation by the public in the political process. The process had already started on a scattered individual basis, she informed. Mr. Larry Struve, Chief of Business Finance Planning, for the Department of Business and Industry, and former Executive Director of the Nevada Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, testified in support of S.C.R. 38 and submitted (Exhibit D). Declining participation by citizens in governmental processes was evident, he conveyed. He enumerated five things which he said S.C.R. 38 did. He noted it was a simple request to each state agency and to every local government in Nevada to adopt a statement which would express their commitment to the principle that citizens in their district or jurisdiction should be involved in the formation of policy or in other operations of the government. Secondly, he said S.C.R. 38 would urge the governor every year to include in his proclamation that is required under a statute processed through the Bicentennial celebration, NRS 236.035, included in (Exhibit D), to include a reference to the resolution in the proclamations over the next two years so it could be disseminated throughout the state and the effort begun to solicit suggestions on how to improve government. Third, S.C.R. 38 encouraged public officers, employees and residents throughout the state to develop new ideas and programs that would increase participation of residents in the processes of governments. Four, S.C.R. 38 designated the Department of Museums, Library and Arts as the repository to receive these suggestions. Five, S.C.R. 38 specified a report would be submitted to the 1997 session of the Nevada legislature providing a summary of the suggestions that had been made and any recommendations that would come therefrom. Mr. Struve then described the material enclosed within (Exhibit D). At this time, Assemblyman Close interjected to request Committee Secretary to record the Committee was a Subcommittee. Ms. Joan Kershner, Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, testified in support of S.C.R. 38. The State Library and Archives had worked diligently over the past few years to support projects such as S.C.R. 38, she declared. Assemblyman Close, noting Ms. Kershner's department was the repository for the information, asked how she would handle the information as it was received. Ms. Kershner informed their business was to organize files and papers such as generated in the legislature, and her department would be using normal procedures. Ms. Judith Winzeler, Executive Director, Nevada Humanities Committee, proponent of S.C.R. 38, informed she served with Mr. Struve and Senator Titus on the Nevada Bicentennial United States Constitution Commission. The Humanities Committee worked closely with the Commission and the State Library in supporting national issues forums. She announced support for S.C.R. 38. Ms. Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, discussed Reno's program, "Reno Directions", which encouraged citizen participation. An education program was done for 1« years, she said, in order to generate citizen participation. Education through surveys, town meetings and full page advertisements in the newspapers with information of what was going on in the community was done, and presently they were in the process of developing citizen committees that represented different areas of the community. Reno Directions was receiving a lot of participation, she said, and would assist any agency who wished to follow the guidelines of Reno Directions as a resource to make S.C.R. 38 successful throughout the state. Assemblywoman Freeman asked the type of response received from the public. Ms. McKenzie discussed the telephone surveys and added a lot of people were applying to be on the committees and subcommittees. Assemblyman Close asked for the budget which Ms. McKenzie said was funded by the Reno City Council. Ms. McKenzie did not have budget figures but discussed methods of saving money. She told Assemblyman Close she would send the budget figures to him. Reno Directions was obviously a success story, Assemblyman Close said, and he asked Mr. Struve if other cities had done that. Mr. Struve was only aware of Reno. He thought S.C.R. 38 was a way of showing encouragement at the state level to local governments to do something similar. Assemblyman Close pointed out line 25 was the example to which Mr. Struve was referring. Assemblywoman Freeman asked if Reno City Council members were involved so the voters who attended the meetings could see city government was responding. Ms. McKenzie replied key staff people and council members were at every meeting. Assemblyman Close asked for information regarding Reno Directions which Ms. McKenzie agreed to send. Assemblyman Close closed the hearing on S.C.R. 38. Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.C.R. 20. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 20 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to establish policy regarding sexual harassment and procedures for administration of related claims. Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, prime sponsor of S.C.R. 20, explained S.C.R. 20 added to the standing rules a policy on sexual harassment. For the last few sessions a policy on sexual harassment was adopted by the Commission and distributed in memo fashion from leadership. When distributed by memo, fewer people knew it existed so it did not become an effective mechanism for resolving problems or cases of sexual harassment, she contended. S.C.R. 20 would make it clear from the standpoint of the person who felt he or she was being harassed and also for the person being accused. Senator Titus informed S.C.R. 20 was close to federal policy. The Attorney General's office had worked with her to be sure the bill was in keeping with federal regulations. Assemblywoman Evans expressed the feeling that S.C.R. 20 should be extended to interns on lines 11 and 12. Senator Titus agreed it was a good idea to include them. There were no further questions, and Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.C.R. 20. Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.C.R. 31. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to provide for joint sponsorship of bills and resolutions. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, on behalf of Senator Raymond Rawson, explained S.C.R. 31 would provide for the joint sponsorship of bills and resolutions. If people from the other house wished to sponsor a bill or resolution, their names would go below the date so there would be no confusion. Mr. Erickson explained Section 1 of the bill was about those things that were introduced by a standing committee and Section 2 of the bill was about those that were introduced by an individual member. Section 3 of the bill was like any other bill or resolution. The only difference would be the possibility of having members of both houses to sign on the bill. Assemblyman Close questioned the prohibition of introducing bills with the same or similar subject in both houses and asked whether the subject could be added into A.B. 279. Mr. Erickson believed the subject matter was similar enough that it could be included. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson if he would talk to Senator Rawson regarding Assemblyman Close's suggestion. At this time, Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a committee introduction to request a bill draft request. BDR R-2146: Commends People to People Student Ambassador Program and sends greetings from Nevada Legislature to Honorable Sir Andrew Bowden, M.P. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN, ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38 - Urges state and local governments to establish programs to encourage participation of residents of Nevada in development of public policy and operation of state and local government. Chairman Giunchigliani asked the Committee if they wished to take action on S.C.R. 38. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 38. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN, ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 20 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to establish policy regarding sexual harassment and procedures for the administration of related claims. Chairman Giunchigliani asked committee if they wished to take action on S.C.R. 20 including Assemblywoman Evans' suggested amendment which was to include interns on the list beginning on line 10. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT S.C.R. 20. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN, ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Giunchigliani stated she normally did not like to suspend Rule 92, but for the specific purpose of posting the agenda for Thursday, June 22, the Committee would need a motion to suspend the rules. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO SUSPEND RULE 92 FOR THE PURPOSE OF POSTING THE AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995. Chairman Giunchigliani said the following would be posted on the agenda for June 22nd: S.B. 553, S.B. 446, A.C.R. 38, and A.B. 695. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures June 20, 1995 Page