MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session June 27, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 4:45 p.m., on Tuesday, June 27, 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. 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 Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5, Assemblywoman Deanna Braunlin, District No. 4 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director Ms. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst Mr. Fred Dugger, Manager, Information Systems, Legislative Counsel Bureau OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Tom Stephens, Nevada Department of Transportation Mr. George Pyne, Executive Director, Public Employees Retirement System Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, office of Secretary of State Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters Chairman Giunchigliani announced the meeting would be opened as a subcommittee since some of the members would be arriving late due to another meeting. As a matter of information for the audience, Chairman Giunchigliani informed the Committee had voted behind the bar on June 24 to select the four interim committees which were A.B. 538, A.C.R. 33, A.C.R. 38 and A.C.R. 49. Amendments were needed and the Committee would like to have input from the audience. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning management of housing programs in Nevada. Regarding A.C.R. 38, Chairman Giunchigliani asked the Committee to refer to (Exhibit C) entitled, "Work Session Concerning Measures Identified for Interim Study by Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures" dated June 27, 1995. She requested feedback as to whether only the legislators on the study committee would be voting. Seven individuals from the private sector and four legislators would comprise the committee which would be appointed by the Legislative Commission. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for comments from the audience. There were none. She then announced a delay on the vote to await discussion by Assemblywoman Lambert upon her arrival at the meeting. ASSEMBLY BILL 538 - Creates legislative committee to study state regulations. At the request of Chairman Giunchigliani, Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, assumed the testimonial table. Mr. Erickson referred to (Exhibit C) and said staff had listed approximately 20 chapters in Nevada Administrative Code which might relate to business and economic development. (Exhibit C) was a method to focus the study which would review state regulations. Mr. Erickson called attention to a handout from Ms. Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, (Exhibit D). Ms. Vilardo, who was not presently at the meeting, suggested certain tasks assigned to the A.B. 538 committee be removed. At the request of Chairman Giunchigliani, Mr. Erickson summarized the suggested amendments to A.B. 538 submitted by Ms. Vilardo. (Exhibit D). Her suggestions were to eliminate on Page 1, subsection 1 of Section 3; Page 2, Section 3, subsection 2 (lines 1 through 4); Page 2, Section 3, subsection 4 (lines 7 through 12). Mr. Erickson clarified the remaining tasks under Page 1, Section 3, would be subsections 3 and 5. Page 2, line 13 would be reworded to acknowledge that some information compiled during the last interim would be used to assist in subsection 5, he added. The measure could be further streamlined by specifying only certain chapters of NAC. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Humke to elaborate and to state the number of people he felt should comprise the committee. Assemblyman Humke, prime sponsor, explained Government Affairs rewrote A.B. 538 as an interim study. He favored going generally with the recommendation of Mr. Erickson in considering the chapters of NRS for examination. Assemblyman Humke recalled Assemblyman Dini suggested limiting the chapters of NRS. Assemblyman Humke then outlined his own recommendations. He suggested not including the SIIS Chapters and related chapters since an interim study would be incorporated in one of the bills just passed. He suggested not including Public Service Commission and related chapters since P.S.C. was not a problem in terms of regulations because they have a large body of law and sit in a quasi-judicial manner to process regulations. Those were the two large ones that could be removed and a few other chapters could also be removed. Assemblyman Humke believed the recommendations would leave a workable set of chapters of NRS for the committee. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Humke for his comments on Page 2, subsection 2. Assemblyman Humke felt this was an important area to be studied. He admitted it could be difficult to achieve, but felt it was extremely worthwhile. Mr. Erickson clarified Assemblyman Humke's suggestion included the removal of Chapters 616, 617, 618 and 703. Responding to Chairman Giunchigliani's inquiry, Assemblyman Humke agreed to striking Chapter 523. Assemblywoman Freeman asked Assemblyman Humke what criteria he used for choosing the particular chapters. Having compiled the list, Mr. Erickson was asked by Chairman Giunchigliani to respond. The instruction was, he said, to review those sections of the Nevada Administrative Code which would impact business and economic development. His staff then compiled the list. Some of them would not have a major impact on business or economic development, but staff tried to identify those that were thought to have some effect. The wording, he reiterated would read, "The committee shall look at these but not be limited to ...." If the committee thought it had a marginal impact on business, minimal time would be spent on it. Mr. Erickson noted Assemblyman Humke also suggested omitting other chapters which related to industrial insurance which were 617 and 618, and 523. Assemblyman Close asked if it would be necessary to do the assistance to finance housing if the housing interim study was done. Assemblyman Humke had no objection to striking. Responding to the previous question from Chairman Giunchigliani regarding the size of the study as to legislators, Assemblyman Humke said her question obviously had a cost impact. Of greater importance was the way it was staffed, and he suggested five legislators. Mr. Erickson added oftentimes the bill or resolution did not need to specify how many members the Commission should appoint. The Commission needed flexibility in order to stay within the appropriation which, in this case, was about $70,000 to do all of the interim studies. See (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 33 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study to consider appropriate division of fiscal responsibility for programs and services between state and local governments. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson to discuss the suggested amendments to A.C.R. 33. See (Exhibit C). Mr. Erickson then recapped the amendments to A.C.R. 33 which were outlined on Pages 2 and 3 of (Exhibit C). Chairman Giunchigliani asked if it was past practice that the "Whereas's" dictated what would be reviewed. Mr. Erickson informed it was not; only the "Resolve's" were reviewed. She added, for example construction and maintenance of streets and highways study was not approved, and there were individuals present who wanted to testify on that part of A.C.R. 33 because it was mentioned in the "Whereas". Chairman Giunchigliani thought it was imperative to be reviewed. In the "Whereas," she suggested striking the education on lines 18 and 19 and instead putting in health care delivery. Assemblywoman Freeman asked if Chairman Giunchigliani would be specifically targeting long term care. Chairman Giunchigliani explained the intent was to look at who was responsible. If it should not be a state policy, funding might be done differently. Long term care was just a part of it, but the subject arose in 1991 and in the present session. Assemblywoman Freeman felt health care should be narrowed even more. Chairman Giunchigliani, referred to Mr. Erickson's statement that the "Whereas's" were not of import. In reality they were simply to name what types of programs and services were provided by state government. They were not meant to be intended to have to dictate the committee had to review them. The "Resolve" tightens up because the Senate would review at-home rule, and they folded S.C.R. 14 in which was consolidation. Terminology, however, was changed a little, she added. Assemblyman Close believed the need was to seriously look at indigent health care which was becoming a great deficit for counties as the counties were asked to continue to provide the services. Assemblyman Close had suggested it be an interim study by itself. He felt the subject was critical because "if we don't do something, it is going to break us all." There was no better example of how state and local governments have to work together than indigent health care. Assemblyman Humke felt the amended version largely expanded the second "Resolved" section in very positive ways. "If you subscribe to the theory that the `Whereas's' are nice but not necessarily binding, and their `Resolved' statements are the part that determine the limits of the study and do bind you, I think the Amendment does a very good job of doing what you wish to do in studying state/county relations with regard to the long term care issue, and they would also bring the possibility of study, something that is important to Assemblywoman Evans and myself, and, that is, study of juvenile court and juvenile services matters. That one is right on the cusp between state and local and there are very many blurred lines," he pronounced. Assemblyman Humke thought the amendment very clearly delineated what could be done. Assemblywoman Evans felt the amendment added immeasurably to the Resolution. She did not wish to be too specific in the subject matter as, she said, the participants should help define the agenda and priorities. Chairman Giunchigliani announced the School Board was recommended if the direction of education was pursued. If education was eliminated, the School Board would not be added. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT A.C.R. 33 AND THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO STRIKE ON LINES 18 AND 19, OF PAGE 1, "PROVISION OF EDUCATION TO THE CHILDREN OF THIS STATE" AND SUBSTITUTE ANY WORDING COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE IN REFERENCE TO HEALTH CARE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, AND TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. ERICKSON IN (EXHIBIT C), PAGES 2 AND 3. THE MOTION WOULD INCLUDE TO STRIKE THE INCLUSION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion from the Committee. Chairman Giunchigliani confirmed the striking of the representative to school board since education was being removed. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT, ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 589 - Requires allocation of certain portion of tax levied on special fuel to counties in which payments of tax originate. Mr. Tom Stephens, Nevada Department of Transportation, testifying in favor of A.B. 589, said A.B. 378 of the 67th Session was a comprehensive study of roads. A.B. 589 of the present session was a bill to give 80 percent of the diesel tax to the counties which the Department of Transportation opposed. Ninety percent of the heavy truck traffic was on the state roads. The counties wanted to take care of the residential streets. As part of A.B. 589, rather than fight between Clark County and the State, an interim study was agreed to and the study committee would consist of two members of the Transportation Committee and two members of the Taxation Committee from each house. The study would cover highway funding and more ways to fund highways as well as division of responsibility. Mr. Stephens testified there were 5,000 miles of highway maintained by the D.O.T. He was not in favor of a comprehensive transportation study as an issue in A.C.R. 33 and stated he opposed adding A.B. 589 to A.C.R. 33. He added there was a suggestion that money be taken out of the highway fund to fund A.C.R. 33. Chairman Giunchigliani did not believe that would be a proper use of the dollars. Mr. Stephens said A.B. 589 apparently was not going to happen because only a certain number of studies were allowed and A.B. 378 was just done during the 67th Session of legislature. No other testimony was given, and Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 589. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 49 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of competition in generation, sale and transmission of electrical energy. Chairman Giunchigliani reminded the Committee there had been one suggested amendment which was listed as item 4 on (Exhibit C), page 3. The amendment would be to insert "(h) Issues concerning proprietary information in a competitive market." She asked for questions or concerns from the Committee. There were none. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT A.C.R. 49. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblywoman Braunlin, primary sponsor of the legislation, if she wished to make a comment. Assemblywoman Braunlin had no comments. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT, ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 729. ASSEMBLY BILL 729 - Provides for prospective repeal of certain interim legislative committees. Chairman Giunchigliani explained the concept of A.B. 729 which was to review the boards, commissions and groups which had been in effect for a long time, and to put a sunset on them which would require review. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Erickson to review the data sheet (Exhibit F), "Committees and Commissions Affected by Assembly Bill 729." Mr. Erickson read the names of the committees and explained all of the committees were sunsetted or would go out of existence on July 1, 1997, unless the next legislative session took specific action to continue those committees. Assemblyman Close thought it was important to note for the record it was not their intent to direct A.B. 729 towards any one organization or commission. It was just with the demand which they had for accountability in government. "The people think or envision that these boards, commissions, agencies, whatever you want to call them, go on in perpetuity and always find something to do to continue their process. We are not here to justify ourselves, and it is unfair for us to make that justification, but give it to them to have the opportunity to say `Have we met our charge? Are there things left to do? If we have met our charge, we can disband; if not, let's come back with a recharge as far as what things to do.' And so I hope that goes around the body because, again, there have been a lot of people calling me, expressing their displeasure of even bringing it up. But I think it is something that needs to be looked at and would encourage at least your consideration." Assemblyman Humke announced his agreement with Assemblyman Close. He added if the Committee planned to go forward with the legislation, it was important to seriously look at each of these. Mr. George Pyne, Executive Director, Public Employees Retirement System, testified the Retirement Board had not taken a position on A.B. 729, but staff would be recommending the Board take a position in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Pyne provided the Committee with prepared testimony (Exhibit G). Assemblywoman Evans asked Mr. Erickson what selection criteria was utilized in developing the list (Exhibit F). Responding, Mr. Erickson informed the list was a complete list for legislative committees. The original discussion came on creating more permanent committees of the legislature to operate in the interim. "Why don't we take a look at those legislative committees that are already in existence that are ongoing by statute," he said. "I don't know what has been excluded except for IFC and Legislative Commission. Mr. Erickson and Mr. Malkiewich compiled the list after discussing with the chairmen." Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion on A.B. 729. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 729. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion to adopt minutes for May 25, May 25 Joint Meeting, May 30, June 1, 19, 21, 23, 24, February 23, April 13, May 4, May 9 and May 10, 1995, Elections and Procedures Committee Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 25, MAY 25 JOINT MEETING, MAY 30, JUNE 1, 19, 21, 23, 24, FEBRUARY 23, APRIL 13, MAY 4, MAY 9 AND MAY 10, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning management of housing programs in Nevada. Chairman Giunchigliani, re-opened the hearing on A.C.R. 38 and addressed Assemblywoman Lambert regarding the issue she had raised concerning people who were not legislators being non-voting or voting. Assemblywoman Lambert understood if there were voting members on equal footing with the legislators, a workload problem for the staff person of the Committee could be created. Chairman Giunchigliani said the Committee appeared to be seven identified non- legislators and four legislators. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the Committee wished to Amend and Do Pass to do non-voting for the non-legislative members of the committee and the other amendments that were there. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT A.C.R. 38. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. Mr. Erickson brought forth the subject of payment for members of the study committee. He reminded there was a salary set forth in NRS for service on a state board or commission. Chairman Giunchigliani asked the Committee if they would prefer to take the language from A.C.R. 33 and insert that salary, wage or travel would not be paid. She then suggested to the Committee the following amendment: "The members of the committee who are not legislators shall serve without salary, per diem allowance or reimbursement for travel expenses." Chairman Giunchigliani then called for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly for 68th legislative session to require standing committees that review budgets of state agencies to require certain agencies to deposit revenue within certain time after receipt when practicable. Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.C.R. 32 First Reprint. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, explained S.C.R. 32 came to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations from the State Treasurer's office, and it was originally proposed to provide for the use of lock boxes on the deposit of state money. The banking industry offered some amendments which were agreed to by the State Treasurer's office. Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, office of Secretary of State, testified S.C.R. 32 came from an interim study. Secretary of State Heller, while a member of the legislature, participated in that study and he testified in support of S.C.R. 32 in the Senate. Assemblywoman Evans expressed the opinion that lock boxes were not necessary. The main objective was to get the money in there in order for the state not to lose interest from the money. It was to the state's advantage to get the money deposited instead of sitting around for days or weeks. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 32. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 246 - Makes various changes relating to prefiling of legislative bills and resolutions. Chairman Giunchigliani explained the prefiling of bills was done for the first time for the 68th Legislative Session, and some of the legislators who did not return had their bills prefiled. The Chair recognized Mr. Bob Erickson who explained Senator Mike McGinness had asked Mr. Erickson to substitute for him at the meeting. Senator McGinness, during the last interim, was looking for ways to speed up the legislative process at the start of the session, and it came to his attention that the Nevada Legislature has had in NRS for 20 years provisions which allowed for prefiling of bills, and the provision had never been used. Senator McGinness thought it should be revived, and, after going to the Commission, the Commission suggested it be studied. Senator McGinness then met with Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk, and Jan Thomas, Secretary of the Senate. Mrs. Landing and Mrs. Thomas both looked at the version that first came out, and certain amendments were made. Mr. Erickson believed both of them thought S.B. 246 was a good bill. He stated it would help the process next session. Prefiling was done this session, and fine tuning was needed to make it work better. One of the problems was the law reads at present that a legislator cannot request that a bill which he or she has requested be prefiled until that person has received his/her certificate of election. S.B. 246 in its First Reprint fixes that by saying that once the official canvas of votes has been concluded, those individuals certified as the winners or having the most votes can prefile bills and any other entity authorized to request bills. Chairman Giunchigliani said it basically says if you do not seek reelection, you do not get to prefile, and if you lose, you do not get to prefile. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 246. ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 538 - Creates legislative committee to study state regulations. Assemblyman Humke, prime sponsor of A.B. 538, stated Chairman Giunchigliani, wished to have the input of Assemblywoman Lambert and Assemblyman Dini should they be present. Assemblywoman Lambert was now present. In consultation with Ms. Carole Vilardo, who was then present in the audience, she suggested the amendment at Page 2, subsection 4, lines 7 through 12 was extremely ambitious, and probably should be removed. Mr. Humke stated he had made a case for the above suggested amendment by Ms. Vilardo which was deleting lines 1 through 4 of Page 2 that would ideally be included, but he could be persuaded to delete that. He asked for Assemblywoman Lambert's input. Assemblywoman Lambert expressed her approval of Page 2 lines 13 down. Generally the best regulations were the ones where the people that are affected by them, both the public and the business, have the opportunity to have input because no one knows their business better than they do. Their input on the most efficient ways was very desirable, she communicated. Assemblyman Humke pointed out the list of chapters of NAC, Pages 4 and 5 of (Exhibit C). Certain chapters were deleted from consideration. About 10 percent of the chapters of NAC were represented in the list, and additional chapters stricken included 319, 523, 616, 617, 618 and 703. Ms. Vilardo also suggested that Chapter 706, motor carriers, be struck since the need for federal regulations in that area had largely gone away. Chairman Giunchigliani thought subsection 2 should probably come out in light of the A.B.153 study as well as Taxation and Business and Industry. Business process re-engineering was approved. Then based on those, because this was so voluminous, you may need to do another recommendation. Then based on those studies, you may want to get into the fees part of it, and there may be some recommendations. Assemblyman Humke wished to emphasize and seek to have placed in legislative history of this item the following: "You have mentioned, Madame Chair, the A.B. 153 study of the 1993 Legislative Session, and Ms. Vilardo emphasized that as well. That body of work would serve as a good starting point. That is, the items that were not completed pursuant to A.B. 153 would make an excellent starting point for this study." Assemblyman Humke stated he was fully in favor of that. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 538 DELETING THE SECTIONS AS SUGGESTED BY MS. VILARDO AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 1, DELETE LINES 21 THROUGH 23; PAGE 2, DELETE LINES 1 THROUGH 4 AND LINES 7 THROUGH 12 WITH THE APPROPRIATE RENUMBERING OF SECTIONS; AND INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT THAT MR. ERICKSON PREPARED, INCLUDING THE STRIKING OF THE SEVEN CHAPTERS OUTLINED PREVIOUSLY OF N.A.C. (CHAPTERS 319, 523, 616, 617, 618, 703 AND 706). ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani noted for the record that the study of A.B. 153 would be utilized in the formatting of the review. Mr. Erickson confirmed if the Committee would strike motor carriers, then it would be seven chapters that were taken out instead of six chapters. Chairman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Erickson. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * SENATE BILL 420 - Makes various changes relating to elections. Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.B. 420. Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5, explained the bill originated from a complaint of a constituent. In the February hearing, boxes in which the ballots were transported were brought to the legislature, and Senator Porter and Senator Ann O'Connell were able to easily put their hands into the boxes without disturbing the seals on the box. Senator O'Connell discussed the history of S.B. 420. Mr. Fred Dugger, Research, met with Ms. Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, who accommodated him by checking off all of the questions the Committee had raised during the February hearing. There were two pages or more of questions. Mr. Dugger tested the machine and went through every technical area he could think of to do and to question. The only thing he found wrong with the machine was perhaps the cost of it, and that Clark County went for the Rolls Royce as opposed to the Oldsmobile or the Ford. Mr. Dugger felt very confident about the machine, Senator O'Connell said, and asked Mr. Dugger to be at the present hearing to answer questions. Numerous concerns were also raised about the paper ballots, she continued. Ms. Bennett, L.C.B., had done an extensive study on the paper ballots, and could answer any questions. Senator O'Connell concluded her testimony by submitting a recap of each section of the bill (Exhibit H). Assemblyman Close at this time discussed his view of the part of S.B. 420 which related to video taping in the polls. He was not in favor of video taping even if the individuals agreed to be filmed, and he asked Senator O'Connell if that portion was taken out, would it be a major flaw for her in the bill. Responding to Assemblyman Close, Senator O'Connell replied it would not be. She explained they were trying to accommodate the concerns that were heard, and, because electronic voting was so new to the public, a group of hard core people thought abuses were going to abound from this type of voting. A letter had been sent to the county to ask the county to do two things to try to allay that fear. Since they were already going to have early voting, they were asked to consider having a Democratic and a Republican machine - two machines, one for each party, so that if somebody did not want to vote with the electrical machine, they could use the punch card ballot. They were also asked if the machines could print out the name and the people they had voted for so there would be no doubt about whether or not the machine recorded the names that they had voted for. She said there was a window on the electronic voting machine and the window would show who you have voted for and who it is recording. That feature of the machine was not pointed out at the February hearing, and the people who testified at the hearing may not have been aware of that feature of the machine. Senator O'Connell concluded by reiterating she did not have a problem with Assemblyman Close's desire to eliminate video taping. Assemblyman Close emphasized he was for open observation of the polls, but disruption of the electoral process by not getting poll workers out there who were in fear of having people taking photographs of them would be a real problem. Assemblyman Close announced he would be presenting that to the Committee today and had wanted Senator O'Connell's comment. He continued, in regard to the video taping in the counting areas, he had discussed with Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, about whether or not it could be done, and with Mr. Donald "Pat" Shalmy, County Manager. Assemblyman Close's concern was if this was allowed, it would be very disruptive. He emphasized he was not trying to restrict the people's access to watching the accounting area. He had suggested the County develop a video taping process of cameras at multiple angles of the counting area, and let them run during the counting and make copies available to the public at no charge. Senator O'Connell said her committee had discussed that same feature, but turned it down because of the additional cost for the lockboxes, and they felt that would be too much to ask to have the video cameras in the ceiling as was done in most retail stores. Chairman Giunchigliani announced committee was back into a subcommittee. Mr. Fred Dugger, Manager, Information Systems, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated he was with Senator O'Connell in the hearing because of his experience in election work. Mr. Dugger had looked at the bill and written a material response to the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Chairman Giunchigliani related Ms. Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters, had brought one of the machines to the legislature which helped for a lot of people just to visually see. She believed there was more of a comfort level after people actually saw the machine. Mr. Dugger thought the machine was excellent and easy to use. All public testimony against the machine applied to the punch card system as well. Everything they were against was already in place in the punch card system. They wanted a printed name, but there was no printed name on the punch card. Assemblywoman Evans' response concerned video taping. There was much good in the bill, but she was not in favor of video taping. Cameras in the counting room, she felt, were acceptable. Chairman Giunchigliani requested Assemblyman Close give the recommendations to the Committee for consideration. Anyone who wished to testify on the subject during Assemblyman Close's presentation of amendments was welcome to do so. Assemblyman Close asked the Committee to refer to S.B. 420 First Reprint, Page 1. Everything on the first page would stay in down to line 18. (The first page deals with the transport of ballots in a metal or rigid container.) Strike everything from the word "unless" on Page 1, line 18 through the word "activity" on line 21, Page 1. At the top of Page 2, paragraph 3 (lines 1 through 3) would be struck. The changes in Section 5 (lines 4 through 8) would stay, down to line 39 subsection 6 which would read, "The county clerk shall allow members of the general public to observe the handling of the ballots pursuant to subsection 5." Everything after the language "pursuant to subsection 5" in subsection 6 would be struck. On Page 3, the whole aspect would be struck. Language would be struck beginning in the first paragraph in the middle of line 3 on Page 3, through the middle of the line. Therefore, the entire Section 7 would be deleted. The entire Section 8 (on Pages 3 and 4) would be deleted. To clarify for the Committee, Assemblyman Close emphasized he was only talking about the new language; the previous language would stay in. Chairman Giunchigliani interjected, "What happens is when you delete new language, and they happen to pull that statute reference in, in order to add that language when we delete it, you are not deleting it from the permanent records. It just goes out of the bill." Section 10 would be in as printed, Assemblyman Close continued. Section 11 would be out, he said. Section 12 with the one amendment would stay in. Page 5, line 3, subsection 2, would read, "The county or city clerk shall allow members of the general public to observe the handling of the ballots pursuant to subsection 1." Strike everything else in subsection 2. Section 14, subsection 3 (lines 19 through 21) will stay in, he continued. Section 15, lines 28 through 30 would be deleted. Section 16, on Page 5, the one change (on lines 34 and 35) would stay in. Section 17, at the top of Page 6, on line 6, Assemblyman Close called attention to the wording, "Allow members of the general public to observe the counting area where the computers are located during the period when ballots are being processed." The amendment would be to strike the brackets, leaving the period in, and strike everything after the word "processed." (See Lines 8 through 13). Chairman Giunchigliani suggested an addition after the word "processed" on line 8, Page 6, "if he does not interfere with the counting procedure." Assemblyman Close agreed with adding the change to the suggested amendments. Assemblyman Close at this point confirmed that Section 18 on Page 6 was in A.B. 365 being held up in the Senate. They compared the bills, and the only part not in A.B. 365 which was in S.B. 420 was on Page 7 of S.B. 420, subsection 6, line 14, "or a petition to recall a public officer." Assemblyman Close suggested the wording remain in the bill. Assemblyman Allard, Page 5, Section 15, questioned the deletion of the publishing in the newspaper a notice of the location of each receiving center. Assemblyman Close responded it was unfunded, and it was felt the Registrar's funding could be used in other ways. The publishing was very expensive. Assemblywoman Lambert was concerned about the security of the ballots if a group wanted to disrupt the election and knew where the accounting place was located. Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Clark County Registrar of Voters, stated anyone could call the Registrar's office at any time and get a list of addresses of receiving centers for ballots. She, therefore, thought publishing was unnecessary, and, she added, there was not an interest from the public. Chairman Giunchigliani clarified the location was public information and was accessible if people wanted. Assemblyman Close suggested an additional paragraph or terminology which would state, "The county or city clerk shall provide through his/her office for a video taping of the counting procedure at the central counting place. Any Nevada registered voter who requests in writing a copy of said video tape may receive a copy at no cost." The only addition to that would be, as suggested, in counties with a population over 400,000. After Committee discussion, the following amendment was suggested: "In counties with a population over 400,000 the county or city clerk may provide for a video taping of the counting procedure at the central counting place." Assemblyman Close announced the conclusion of his recommendations for modification of S.B. 420. Responding to a comment from Assemblywoman Lambert regarding the general public observing the counting, Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, office of Secretary of State, stated ballot counting must be done in public. His office suggested adding a section to Chapter 293, "The county clerk must establish written procedures governing this conduct based on available space and those sorts of things in advance of any election. And if you would like, they can submit that to the Secretary of State for filing with us the way they do the ballot security plan which is already in statute," he said. Mr. Erquiaga reiterated his recommendation that the Committee put it in law that the county clerk must establish a written procedure just like the ballot security plan. Ms. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, clarified why Senate Government Affairs added the language that the Committee took out on the first page starting with line 18, "...unless he obtains permission..." "That language was added at the request of the press. Right now the law is silent on whether someone can be photographed while they are voting, and the Senate Government Affairs Committee wanted to prohibit indiscriminate photography or video taping within the polling place, and the press pointed out that they go in to photograph poll workers and to show the Governor casting his ballot and that type of thing. So that is why this language was added. They believe that by having this prohibition, they will no longer be allowed to film within the polling place, whether it is celebrity voting or people actually working." Ms. Bennett concluded her statement. Chairman Giunchigliani read from Page 1, line 16, "A member of the general public may not photograph the conduct of voting at a polling place or record the conduct of voting on audiotape or any other means of sound or video reproduction," and questioned whether language "unless it is the press" could be added. Ms. Bennett conveyed there were concerns about treating one class of people differently than other types of people. Mr. Erquiaga said the problem was "define the press." He suggested taking out subsection 2 (lines 16 through 21). Discussion ensued regarding allowing only the press to photograph. Mr. Erquiaga informed the Secretary of State's office opposed any filming at the polling place. Chairman Giunchigliani said the Committee would have to look at that further regarding whether to leave it in or take it out. Mr. Erquiaga suggested the Committee might want to leave in Section 4, paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 but take out paragraph 2 which might be the answer to Ms. Bennett's suggestion. Assemblywoman Lambert agreed with Assemblyman Close's proposed amendments and suggested the video taping be done coming in. Discussion ensued regarding paragraph 2 on Page 1, the omission of lines 16 through 18. Assemblyman Close, addressing the Chair, stated his intention to move to Amend and Do Pass without having to repeat all the amendments if the Committee was in agreement with what was discussed. Everything discussed would be included as far as the amendment. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 420. THE AMENDMENTS WERE AS OUTLINED ABOVE BY ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for further discussion. Mr. Erickson confirmed the amendments included the addition of two paragraphs, one that Assemblyman Close referred to regarding in counties with populations over 400,000 and one that Mr. Erquiaga referred to regarding the county clerks establishing procedures. Assemblyman Close confirmed Mr. Erickson was correct, and he asked Mr. Erquiaga to assist in the language for the two paragraphs. Chairman Giunchigliani reminded another amendment to be included in the motion was wording on Page 6, to add the words "if he does not interfere with the counting." Chairman Giunchigliani asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN FREEMAN AND MONAGHAN, ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * * There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures June 27, 1995 Page