MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session June 22, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, June 22, 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 Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Bob Price GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21 Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Leola Armstrong, Citizen Mr. Brad Lawrence, Citizen Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, office of Secretary of State Ms. Ande Engleman, representing Common Cause ASSEMBLY BILL 695 - Creates presidential preference primary election. Chairman Close opened the hearing on A.B. 695 with testimony from Ms. Leola Armstrong, who spoke as a private citizen. Ms. Armstrong, testified in favor of the presidential preference primary, First Reprint of A.B. 695. She addressed the Committee reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). Ms. Armstrong felt the only true democratic process was to have a presidential preference election, preferably nationwide. There were no questions from the Committee. Chairman Close reminded the Committee amendments to A.B. 695 were discussed at the previous Committee meeting held June 20, 1995. He announced the primary sponsor, Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District No. 21, and Mr. Brad Lawrence, who explained A.B. 695 and amendments at the June 20th meeting were present. Chairman Close asked if the Committee had questions regarding A.B. 695 as amended. Chairman Close then announced a one minute recess. Chairman Close called the meeting back to order at 3:54 p.m. and asked for testimony regarding A.B. 695. There was none. Chairman Close then asked for questions from the Committee. Assemblywoman Freeman announced concern regarding the funding mechanism for the presidential preference primary. She questioned whether taking money from the fund was a common practice. Chairman Close asked for comments from members of the Committee regarding her question. Assemblyman Humke assumed A.B. 695 was placed in the contingency fund because it was an expenditure which occurred on an intermittent basis and not every year. Chairman Close then asked for a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 695. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 553 - Makes various changes concerning legislative counsel bureau. Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the Legislative Commission was asked for authority for a bill draft with clean-up changes relating to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. S.B. 553 contained unrelated changes with the common element of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Malkiewich presented the Committee with "Summary of Senate Bill No. 553" (Exhibit D) which, he said, was the new information in italics in S.B. 553, and he then recapped each section for the Committee. Chairman Close asked the amount of the petty cash fund for each building (Section 5). Responding, Mr. Malkiewich stated the total amount would be $1500 instead of $500. Assemblyman Fettic referenced Section 1 and asked who would sell the gift shop items. Mr. Malkiewich responded the items would be sold through the Publications Office which distributed free publications and sold NAC, NRS and souvenirs, such as flag sets, which visitors to the building occasionally wanted. Assemblywoman Monaghan asked where the money would go. Mr. Malkiewich responded the money would go into the legislative fund. It would not be a lot of money, but would be available to offset a minute part of the cost of the next session. The money was not budgeted so would not be authorized for expenditure on other things. There being no further testimony, Chairman Close closed the hearing on S.B. 553. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning management of housing programs in Nevada. Chairman Close opened the hearing on A.C.R. 38. He informed A.C.R. 38 was an interim study, and, as such, the goal would be to discuss Tuesday, June 27. Chairman Close asked the Committee to refer to (Exhibit E), "Amendments to A.C.R. 38," from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. Chairman Close told the Committee no action would be taken on A.C.R. 38, but testimony would be taken if anyone wished to testify. Four interim studies from the Senate and four from the Assembly would be done. He asked for questions and comments. Assemblywoman Freeman reminded the Committee that at the A.C.R. 38 hearing, the people of the building community offered to help fund that particular study. Chairman Close said they would strive for a commitment on that aspect. Chairman Close asked for audience testimony on A.C.R. 38. There was none. He then closed the hearing on A.C.R. 38 and announced the Committee would take action June 27 when the interim studies were reviewed. Chairman Close then announced a short recess. Chairman Close called the meeting back to order at 4:16 p.m. as a subcommittee. The regular Committee would be formed when members arrived, he announced. SENATE BILL 446 - Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, testified S.B. 446 was an election reform bill. On the surface, it appeared the penalties were being decreased, but the intent was to make it more likely that the penalties would be enforced. Presently if someone fails to either turn in a disclosure report or turns in false information on a disclosure report, the person could be found guilty of a misdemeanor if wilful intent was proved. In the past when people would not turn them in or mistakes had been found, the D.A.'s office was reluctant to enforce the penalty of a misdemeanor. It was almost impossible to prove wilful intent, she acknowledged. Senator Titus recanted a situation which had occurred the last campaign session where a person had received a check, turned the check back in, received two checks for $500 and did not report the transaction. The candidate blamed it on his office or somebody else, and it was hard to prove it was an intentional violation as opposed to a bookkeeping error. If anyone had information that would suggest someone had turned in false information or if the forms were not turned in, the Secretary of State, who was the Chief Election Officer, could then turn the case over to the appropriate court to take action. The action would be civil action instead of criminal action, and fines would be imposed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Senator Titus to discuss "wilful." . Senator Titus responded that currently the penalty was a misdemeanor if it was proved the candidate wilfully violated the disclosure law which would be either failing to turn in a report or turning in false information on the report. The problem was in proving "wilful." Senator Titus said it would not be a misdemeanor anymore but the intent was that with S.B. 446 in place, there would be more enforcement and a greater incentive to be honest, correct and conscientious about the filing of the report. The law would be more of a deterrent than the misdemeanor crime presently on the books which was never pursued. Assemblywoman Freeman asked the difference between NRS 294A.120 and NRS 294A.200. Senator Titus said one had to do with reporting after the election and one with reporting prior to the election. They were basically the same provisions, but two different kinds of reports. Chairman Close commended Senator Titus for her bill, saying he thought it would enhance the campaign reform legislation in the 68th Session. Mr. Ben Graham, speaking on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys Association and his Clark County office, stated the significance was Nevada would have uniform policy statewide. In discussing the issue with the D.A. Association, some of the counties had never had this problem because the counties had never filed and had never requested them to be filed. Mr. Graham concluded his remarks urging Committee support of S.B. 446. Assemblyman Fettic asked the maximum fine on a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Graham said the fine was $2,000. S.B. 446 allowed up to $5,000 civil penalty. Mr. Dale Erquiaga, representing Secretary of State Heller, announced strong support of S.B. 446 and urged the Committee to pass the legislation. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to page 2, beginning at line 19, "If the Secretary of State has received information...," and she asked if discussion was held regarding how that would occur or from whom it would occur. Responding to her inquiry, Mr. Erquiaga said currently any information brought to the attention of the Secretary of State from another candidate, from the press, office records, from the Clerk or any source would cause appropriate proceedings to begin. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for assurance that everyone would be treated equally. Mr. Erquiaga believed Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's concern was expressed in the Senate, and the amendment was altered to read the way it did instead of giving the Secretary of State authority to look for reasonable cause. He assured the Committee the reports were treated very seriously and evenhandedly. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked who would conduct the hearings and the fiscal impact. Mr. Erquiaga said the bill in its amended form would take it to a court of competent jurisdiction. It would not be done by the Secretary of State. The fiscal impact would be borne by Secretary of State's staff time and the attorney which represented the Secretary of State. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what was a court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Graham asked permission to respond, and he said in light of the potential penalty of up to $5,000 he assumed a District Court action would be filed. Compliance was the goal and he did not believe many would be filed once the law was in place. Mr. Graham said the complaint which would be served on the candidate would read, "Unless you respond in "X" number of days, we are going to take a certain judgement." It would have to be shown the person had been served. Chairman Close added attorney's costs would be incurred by the defendant in addition to the fine. Assemblyman Humke noted the Secretary of State was the filing office for some races but not the filing office for other races. Mr. Erquiaga confirmed Assemblyman Humke was correct. Assemblyman Humke then asked in those races where Secretary of State was not the filing office for the reports, what rationale would the Secretary of State have in being involved. Responding to Assemblyman Humke's inquiry, Mr. Erquiaga explained the Secretary of State as the Chief Elections Officer would collect the reports from the County Clerks which is where the "receives information" would come into play. The Clerks would inform the Secretary of State's office. It is to centralize this in the Secretary of State's office so that whatever counsel represents the Secretary of State's office would be the appropriate place for that to be handled. It is campaign practices, and not something that local District Attorneys desire to be involved with nor do they have the expertise in this area which the state does, Mr. Erquiaga informed. Assemblyman Humke asked if a local D.A. had some interest and responsibility in local violations even if it was a violation of a civil penalty. Representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association, Mr. Graham responded, "Absolutely." As soon as disclosure were filed, the case would be dismissed. Assemblyman Humke asked Mr. Graham if support of S.B. 446 and this provision was based on a vote of the District Attorneys. Mr. Graham replied it was, and, upon questioning by Assemblyman Humke, Mr. Graham said the vote was 17 to zero. Assemblyman Humke and Mr. Graham continued discussion of S.B. 446 which concerned the court where action would be brought. Mr. Graham assumed the action would be filed in Carson City, and Assemblyman Humke questioned the fairness to a defendant who might be in a far corner of the state in a local election. Assemblyman Humke referred to Mr. Graham's explanation that once a case was filed and compliance occurred with the absent report being filed, the case would be dropped. Assemblyman Humke then asked Mr. Erquiaga if that would be the intention of the Secretary of State's office. Mr. Erquiaga believed it would, and he explained currently warning letters were sent, and few cases had actually been filed. He further explained because this was a violation of a failure to perform an act of filing, once that act had occurred, the violation had gone away. Regarding the violations which Senator Titus discussed where the report was falsified, he said, "No. The person who fills out these reports signs a statement the reports are completed under penalty of perjury." Assemblywoman Freeman asked if notice would be given to a candidate and what procedure would be used. Mr. Erquiaga responded currently it was a certified letter. The intent was to spell it out by regulation so that it would not be changed by each Secretary of State. Certified mail would probably be used which was the common practice in most election notices, and the time would be noted when it was deemed to be received. Assemblyman Fettic pointed out the justice court level was just raised to $7,500. Mr. Graham informed if justice court limits had been raised, it could be in justice court. Ms. Ande Engleman, testifying on behalf of Common Cause and also for freedom of information, announced support of S.B. 446. Ms. Engleman assumed the testimonial table and stated she was asked by Common Cause to support S.B. 446 as amended in the Senate. Common Cause very much endorsed the legislation and requested the Committee do pass. Speaking for herself, Ms. Engleman stated she also supported S.B. 446 and wished to answer Assemblyman Humke's question because it was similar to the open meeting law. She recanted a court case which had occurred during the last year where the Attorney General's office had filed an open meeting law case against Nye County Commissioners on violation of the open meeting law. The Commissioners challenged the case, saying it had to be filed in Nye County and ultimately they won the court case so that precedent has been set that in those situations you would have to file in a county of their jurisdiction and not necessarily just in Carson City. She concluded her testimony by urging the Committee to pass S.B. 446. Chairman Close closed the hearing on S.B. 446. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 553 - Makes various changes concerning legislative counsel bureau. Chairman Close called for a vote from the Committee. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 553. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS, LAMBERT AND MONAGHAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 446 - Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. Chairman Close called for a vote from the Committee. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 446. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS, LAMBERT AND MONAGHAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close asked for a motion to suspend the rules for posting for the remainder of the session. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO SUSPEND RULE 92 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SESSION. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND MONAGHAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close asked for a motion to request a bill draft request to provide for prospective repeal of certain interim legislative committees. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND MONAGHAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures June 22, 1995 Page