MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
	AND
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 29, 1995


The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate 
Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman 
William J. Raggio, at 10:15 p.m., on Thursday, June 29, 1995, in 
Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  There 
was no Agenda.  There was no Attendance Roster.


SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Brad Lawrence, Lobbyist, Representing Nevada Registered Voters


Senator Raggio opened the meeting for a discussion of Assembly Bill 
(A.B.) 695.  He stressed the committees will only be dealing with 
issues concerning  A.B. 695.

ASSEMBLY BILL 695:	Creates presidential preference primary 
elect
ion.	

Brad Lawrence, Lobbyist, representing Nevada registered voters, 
testified in support of the passage of A.B. 695 that will permit 
one or both of the major political parties to participate in a 
presidential preference primary if the respective state committees 
choose to do so.  He indicated the first 33 sections of A.B. 695 
are technical in nature and refer to some existing statutes to 
adjust the possibility of a presidential primary.  He pointed out 
the substance of A.B. 695 begins in section 34 that contains new 
material.

Mr. Lawrence said Nevada experimented with a presidential primary 
in 1976 and 1980 held on the last Tuesday in May when the 
presidential candidates had been decided.  Consequently, there was 
low turnout for the primaries since voters felt it was irrelevant 
for them to participate.

Mr. Lawrence explained the process for selecting delegates to 
national conventions is very complex and begins at the precinct 
level, proceeds through county and state conventions, and 
terminates at the national convention.  He said usually less than 
1,000 individuals select the delegates to the national convention, 
and the delegates are selected without reference to whom they will 
vote at the national convention.  The great mass of registered 
voters in both parties have very little say in the procedure, Mr. 
Lawrence pointed out.  He said the purpose of A.B. 695 is to 
provide an opportunity to open up the process to all of the 
registered voters of the political parties.  This will permit the 
presidential candidate desiring to contest the delegates from the 
State of Nevada to file with the Secretary of State his or her 
declaration of candidacy, pay a $1,000 filing fee, and at the time 
of filing, indicate the slate of delegates in each congressional 
district pledged to his or her candidacy.  Mr. Lawrence stated it 
would then be "winner take all" within the congressional district 
to allow for differences between the congressional districts.  To 
encourage voter turnout, Mr. Lawrence said A.B. 695 provides for 
the date of the presidential primary to be moved to the fourth 
Tuesday in March, which is the same date as the California primary. 
 It was felt that candidates visiting Los Angeles will likely stop 
in Las Vegas at the same time, and candidates visiting San 
Francisco may stop in Reno, which will boost interest in the 
primary.  

Mr. Lawrence indicated at the suggestion of the Legislative Counsel 
Bureau (LCB), A.B. 695 proposes that Nevada have a mail-in primary 
rather than one held only at the precincts.  This process will 
minimize costs since salaries paid to poll workers will be 
eliminated. The only costs associated with a mail-in primary would 
be for postage and accounting charges, he said.  Additionally, a 
mail-in primary will increase voter turnout since every registered 
voter of the party will receive a ballot in the mail.

Senator Raggio asked in what manner a political party can exercise 
its option to hold a primary.  Mr. Lawrence responded section 35 of 
A.B. 695 stipulates that on November 1 of the year prior to a 
general election, the state central committee must notify the 
Secretary of State, in writing, that the particular party wishes to 
participate in a presidential primary.   Senator Raggio asked, 
"Once that is done, any candidate for the nomination of president 
for a major political party must file not later than 5:00 p.m. on 
January 2 in the election year, is that correct?"  Mr. Lawrence 
replied this must be done by the second Tuesday in January of the 
election year.  Senator Raggio  asked if A.B. 695 provides for an 
individual to file on behalf of the candidate.  Mr. Lawrence 
responded the candidate must file in consultation with the state 
party.

Senator Raggio commented an integral provision of A.B. 695 will tie 
the date for the primary to the same date in California.  He 
inquired if other states located in the western portion of the 
United States hold a presidential primary on that same date.  Mr. 
Lawrence replied he does not know the answer to the question, but 
believes other primaries are held on the same date in some of the 
western states.


Senator Mathews pointed out special elections cost considerably 
more.  She asked if any of the provisions contained in A.B. 695 
will stipulate the primary will be considered a special election. 
 Mr. Lawrence replied in drafting the measure, it was difficult to 
arrive at a specific cost for the primary since it is unknown if 
one or both political parties will participate, and costs will be 
determined by postage based upon voter turnout.  He said if both 
parties participate and there is 100 percent voter turnout, the 
costs will be high.  Mr. Lawrence said the Office of the Secretary 
of State has a statutory contingency account to be used if needed, 
and the Secretary of State will reimburse the counties out of the 
contingency fund for their costs for the primary.  Senator Mathews 
asked for assurance the state has the funds to reimburse the 
counties.  Mr. Lawrence responded the last report he received 
indicated the state has over $600,000 in the statutory contingency 
account, and A.B. 695 proposes to increase the account by an 
additional $200,000.  

Senator Titus remarked:

When you say people do not really care who the delegates 
are they just want to know to whom they are pledged at 
the national convention...I am afraid I disagree with 
that.  I think a system where the candidate gets to pick 
his delegate...they can change them...is very elitist. 
 It excludes people from the opportunity to get to go to 
the convention.  I think the caucuses and the convention 
at the local level and the state level gives people an 
opportunity to participate in a way where they hope they 
get to go to the national convention as delegates, and 
you are eliminating that whole process.  That seems to be 
contrary to what you are proposing to get more 
participation.

If you are trying to get more participation and get more 
groups represented and more people interested, I wonder 
why you are going for a `winner take all' system.  Why 
don't you set up a proportional representation system so 
the number of people who get a certain percentage of the 
votes would get that percentage to go to the convention? 
I am afraid that what you are doing here will lock out 
minority groups or certain factions from getting to have 
representation at the convention with a `winner take all' 
system.  It seems to me that is contrary to the point you 
are trying to make.

Mr. Lawrence answered with respect to the elitism, the individuals 
that are interested in attending a national convention tend to be 
the party activists.  The average registered voter is not 
interested in attending a national convention but is extremely 
interested in knowing who the nominee of the party will be and for 
whom the delegates will vote.  Mr. Lawrence stated:

It would be very difficult if you had a very small number 
of delegates and six or seven candidates running in a 
primary to divide them up properly.  I believe the 
Republican Party delegation in Nevada this year is 14 
delegates, seven in each congressional district, so that 
if you had six or seven candidates contesting for it, it 
would be almost meaningless in trying to divide it up. 
 I believe the Democratic Party has 31 or 33 delegates 
assigned to Nevada from the national convention, and it 
would be a little easier that way.  When you have a 
situation with a small number of delegates, it would be 
difficult to apportion.


Senator Raggio commented the major candidates in a Republican 
situation probably would not come to Nevada to vie for two or three 
votes, but might consider visiting the state due to the potential 
of acquiring a block of 14 (delegate) votes.  

Senator Rawson asked how the number of delegates are determined. 
 Mr. Lawrence replied delegates to the national convention are 
determined by the national convention itself.  The national 
committee of each party under various formulas assigns to each 
state the number of delegates it will have.  Senator Rawson asked 
if the congressional districts are equally set up.  Mr. Lawrence 
answered the congressional districts are within 100 or 200 in 
population of each other as determined by census counts.  Senator 
Rawson asked what process is used to select the seven individuals 
that are selected to attend the national convention from each of 
the two congressional districts.  Mr. Lawrence responded upon 
filing his or her declaration of candidacy, the candidate also 
files the slate of delegates and alternates that are pledged to his 
candidacy in his or her congressional district.  Senator Rawson 
asked if the delegates are bound, by law, to cast their votes in a 
certain way.  Mr. Lawrence replied in the affirmative.  

Senator Coffin inquired how many sections of A.B. 695 will need to 
be amended should there be a sentiment for allowing the party to 
choose the way it apportions its delegates amongst the preference 
expressed for a candidate.  Mr. Lawrence responded, "Probably two 
or three.  I will have to look carefully at that since I have not 
considered it.  This is a sunsetted provision, a one-time shot.  We 
have been informed the Democrats are not interested in a primary 
this year."

Senator O'Connell asked if the legislation for A.B. 695 was modeled 
after any other state's legislation.  Mr. Lawrence said it was 
modeled after a few states.  He stated Montana has experimented 
with the mail-in ballot process with great success.  He indicated 
California's approach regarding the designation of delegates was 
also reviewed.  In California, he said, the primary is held first, 
and after the winning candidate is determined, that candidate then 
files the slate of delegates.  Senator O'Connell asked if the 
$1,000 filing fee is a standard price.  Mr. Lawrence said this 
amount was recommended by the LCB.

Senator Raggio said the benefit of a presidential primary does not 
relate to the amount of the filing fee, but to the attention it 
will bring to the state.  He opined the appearance of competing 
candidates in a presidential primary in Nevada will provide a lot 
of political and financial rewards.

Senator Raggio deferred to the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Government Affairs to take action on A.B. 695.  He pointed out 
since an appropriation is involved within the measure, it will also 
be appropriate for the Senate Committee on Finance to take action 
on A.B. 695.

Since the Senate Committee on Government Affairs did not have a 
chance to perform an in-depth review of A.B. 695, Senator O'Connell 
asked for comments from members of the committee regarding the 
action to be taken at this time.  Senators Porter, O'Donnell, and 
Raggio indicated their support of the passage of A.B. 695.  Senator 
Titus remarked she is not prepared to vote on this measure tonight, 
and will abstain if a vote is taken. 

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 695.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR TITUS ABSTAINED FROM THE 
VOTE.  SENATORS SHAFFER AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

	* * * * *

Senator Raggio asked that a motion be taken from the Senate 
Committee on Finance to approve the aforementioned action, and 
stipulated the measure will be referred out of the Senate Committee 
on Government Affairs to the floor of the Senate without the 
necessity of further action by the Senate Committee on Finance.

SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO APPROVE THE DO PASS MOTION TAKEN 
ON A.B. 695 BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF FURTHER ACTION ON THE FLOOR OF 
THE SENATE BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR JACOBSEN VOTED NO.)

	* * * * *

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:


	
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary


APPROVED BY:



Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman


DATE: 	



                                                                 
        
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman


DATE:                                                            
    



Senate Committee on Finance
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 29, 1995
Page