MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 12, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 12, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9 Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, Assembly District No. 16 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Kathryn A. McClain, Lobbyist, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Kenneth A. West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Ellen R. Nelson, Concerned Citizen Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America Eric S. Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Putnam Mathur, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Joann Long, Secretary Deputy for Elections Senator O'Connell opened the hearing with the introduction of the following bill draft requests (BDRs). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-723: Authorize counties to repair and secure dangerous conditions and structures on private property without notice to owner. Kathryn A. McClain, Lobbyist, Legislative Analyst, Clark County, explained that the intent of the bill is to allow counties to adopt an ordinance that will allow code enforcement officers to secure dangerous conditions on private property as soon as possible when they are reported. Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. McClain would like the wording changed from special assessment to lien. Ms. McClain said that would be fine. Senator Porter asked if Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244 applies only to counties. Senator O'Connell informed Senator Porter that the cities can already do this. Senator Lowden stated: . . . We have had some problems in [district 3] with abandoned homes and have had numerous requests from constituents . . . who want to have action on abandoned homes. They are fearful that their children are going to be accosted in these homes or that drug type people will hang out in these homes. They feel it is not good for the neighborhood. [There are] restrictions right now on notification of the homeowner . . . [and] we have a hard time boarding up these homes. The county is willing to do it, but they have stringent regulations . . . and what they would like to do is revisit those regulations to be able to go into the neighborhoods at the request of the neighbors. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-723. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** BILL DRAFT REQUEST 31-1971: Eliminates certain provisions regarding disposition of money received by agencies, departments and institutions of state. Kenneth A. West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, testified: Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 253 was written and established in 1963 before the birth of the accounting system. It creates a suspense account or holding account that causes us a little bit of difficulty in that there is a concept of control that agencies can't deposit revenues into their budget unless they work-program those revenues. . . We wish to change that to effect the suspense accounts to the budgets. [This would] allow agencies to deposit revenues in their budget accounts, but not spend it without the proper planning or program and budget. This bill eliminates the suspense account and would allow us to change the control on the accounting system. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 31-1971. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 325. SENATE BILL 325: Repeals requirement that "none of these candidates" appears as choice on ballot for election of certain officers. (BDR 24-1314) Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, testified and presented Exhibit C. Senator Jacobsen thinks "none of the above" is noneffective as a means of protest vote. Senator Shaffer asked what would happen if someone changed their name to "none of the above?" Would they be eliminated from being able to run for office? Senator Jacobsen said he had never heard of anyone with the name "none of the above." Senator O'Connell inquired if during the research for this bill, Senator Jacobsen discovered how many votes "none of the above" has received. Senator Jacobsen responded he did not know the exact number. Senator O'Connell stated, "none of the above, . . . received an awful lot of votes especially in the supreme court race. I have heard so many people say that was their way of expressing their disdain for the type of race that was run. . . " Senator Jacobsen said he agreed with Senator O'Connell, but he thinks nothing is gained by having "none of the above" on the ballot. Ellen R. Nelson, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of S.B. 325. Ms. Nelson discussed and presented Exhibit D. Ms. Nelson said she would like to see "none of these" deleted [so] candidates who run have a better shot running against another person and not [competing with] a nonentity. Ms. Nelson informed the committee that in the last election for "U.S. Senate, Senator Bryan won with 193,681 votes total; `none of these' 12,621. Governor, Bob Miller won [with] 199,902; `none of these', 8,779. Lt. Governor, Lonnie Hammargren won [with] 188,985; `none of these' 15,813. Secretary of State, Dean Heller won [with] 203,866; `none of these' 25,266. State Treasurer, Bob Seale [won with] 232,759; `none of these' 28,705. State Controller, Darrel Daines [won with] 171,099; `none of these' 24,558. Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Papa [won with] 200,857; `none of these' 10,733. Supreme Court, Robert Rose [won with] 151,108; `none of these' 89,176, so there was a substantial `none of these' vote." Senator O'Connell confirmed the supreme court numbers. Senator Porter said throughout the campaign he continuously heard about the campaigning process. Senator Porter stated he thinks a lot of people believe their vote does not count and `none of the above' gives them an opportunity to voice an opinion. Ms. Nelson argued that anyone who wants to voice an opinion could do that by not voting or not voting for a particular office. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of S.B. 325. Ms. Hansen commented that if `none of the above' won, it would mean nothing. Ms. Hansen stated she thinks it is a problem that `none of the above' is only available for certain races. Ms. Hansen stated if it is used in one race, it should be used in all races or not at all. Ms. Hansen said, "Unless we make `none of the above' . . . meaningful by actually allowing none of these candidates to win and then having another election, . . . people are essentially being fooled into thinking that their protest vote makes a difference when it doesn't." Senator Raggio commented on the different races in which `none' is included or not included. Senator Raggio stated he thinks citizens send a message when they do not vote, but when they vote for `none of the above' they send a clear message. Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified against S.B. 325. Ms. Lusk reiterated Senator Raggio's testimony. Ms. Lusk asked for the committee to consider a way to allow people to express their view that could potentially have an outcome on the race. Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, testified in opposition to S.B. 325. Ms. Cox expressed concern about the fact that many people believe that if you do not vote for every office on a ballot, the entire ballot will be thrown out. Ms. Cox suggested the media notify the public that this is not true. Ms. Cox said this vote means a lot to the people and she would like it to remain, but she would also like it to mean something. Ms. Cox suggested further legislation in which, if "none of the above" won a race, the person(s) "none" beat would be eliminated and a new election would be held for that office. Senator Titus commented that voter turnout has been on the decline since the late 60s and if going out to cast a vote for `none of the above' is a way of making a political statement then she supports it and would consider making it more meaningful. Senator O'Donnell asked, "So what you are saying is you want the vote, . . . to mean something. What would you want it to mean?" Ms. Cox responded, "If `none' actually wins at some point and time, . . . then [it]. . . would mean a new election and people could eliminate the candidate that perpetually has a lot of money, that other candidates have been afraid to jump in the race with. If `none' won, `none' would eliminate that candidate from the election and hold a separate election with new candidates." Senator O'Donnell said if `none of the above' won, there would be no one in office. Senator O'Donnell wondered what the reaction of the people would be if a special election were held. Ms. Cox suggested looking to other states for the statistics. Senator Titus stated she thinks that `none of the above' counts and sends a message now. Ms. Cox agreed with Senator Titus's statement. Senator Porter said: . . . There are very few checks and balances for campaigns. We have arguments for freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and there [are] very few ways to have a checks and balance in place. I think this does send a message that the voter is sick and tired of what is happening. What makes it even worse is this type of campaign that we are referring to . . . is a reflection of all the public servants in the state of Nevada. I think we should all look what is happening. . . I think it should remain, whether it should have some definite results . . . is another issue. . . Senator Shaffer stated he also thinks `none' sends a message. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 325 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 3. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 3: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to limit length of legislative session and to require submittal of proposed executive budget to legislature before commencement of legislative session. (BDR C-85) Senator Raggio testified in favor of S.J.R. 3. Senator Raggio discussed the history and meaning of the bill. Senator Raggio said sessions are getting longer and it is not always the preparation of the budget that has made sessions so long. Senator Raggio stated if this resolution were adopted, it would preserve the biannual session. It would require that the session would begin later and would adjourn not later than 120 calendar days after its commencement. It would require that the Governor submit the budget at least 14 days before the commencement date of each session. It would accommodate an earlier date on fiscal aspects of the Legislature; and it would allow the Legislature to develop prior to the session and accommodate the formation of a Legislative budget. Senator Shaffer suggested a June 15, to September 15, date due to the weather. Senator Raggio said he considered those dates, but the Legislature would be completely out of step with all other legislative bodies in the country. Senator Titus said: Just recently, I heard the majority leader speak twice on a matter that seems to be absolutely contradictory to this. You spoke on the floor against having a 2- week recess with a schedule for meeting in Las Vegas, maybe on Fridays, because you said we need flexibility in scheduling. Then you spoke yesterday in the legislative functions committee against Larry Spitler's bill which would require a 3-day waiting period before we voted on the appropriations bill, again because the legislature needs flexibility in scheduling. Now we have a bill that is going to [require] a set 120 days [to complete a session]. It seems this is the ultimate in lack of flexibility. You are ignoring the fact that we only meet every other year. [Of the] six other states that do [meet every other year], two of them are almost constantly in special session. It is ignoring the growth rate of the state and. . . ignoring what important issues might come up. I say if we could do it in 120 days, why aren't we doing it in 120 days now? I don't think it is because we want to stay up here in Carson City. I don't think it is because we don't want to go home to our families or our jobs . . . I think it is because it takes a certain amount of time to do business and to cut it off at 120 days would be an artificial, arbitrary thing that wouldn't be appropriate. Senator Raggio responded, "The good senator is misconstruing my positions because [of] the very reasons I advocated against [Larry Spitler's bill] and in support of doing away with the 2- week adjournment is because that turned out to be an automatic . . . extension of the legislative term . . . The reason we can't get out of here is because we don't have a definite date that we must adjourn. . . " Senator O'Donnell stated, "I believe government is like a cancer, it keeps growing and growing . . . and with every new assemblyman and every new senator that gets elected . . . there has to be a new bill. . . As long as we are up here we are just going to keep passing bills that keep making government bigger and the rights of the citizens smaller. I am in favor of limiting the session as soon and as quickly as possible. . . I am in favor of the biannual sessions and I also am in favor of limiting them as much as possible." Senator Raggio discussed and presented Exhibit E. Senator O'Connell asked, "It is pretty obvious to those of us that do not sit on finance that it is usually the budget that drives the length of the session. I wonder how the finance committee [would] perceive doing something in a shorter period of time. What changes would have to be made to accomplish that?" Senator Raggio replied, ". . . I reiterate that in most cases it is not the completion of the budget that is keeping this legislature here . . . Right now we are closing budgets. We have been through all of the budgets. We are meeting jointly to close budgets with the other house. We are awaiting the economic forum projections on May 1. Subject only to the fact that the administration is submitting new proposals and revised budgets, we are in a position to make final decisions. We could have those decisions made within a reasonable time after May 1. In my experience, it . . . has been very infrequently that the budget is the thing that is keeping us here. It is dealing with everybody trying to get a bill draft request out, everybody wanting their bills heard . . . certainly there is a lot of introduction of frivolous or unimportant legislation . . . " Senator O'Connell questioned, "Then do you think that this session we will have the budget prior to the very end of the session?" Senator Raggio responded, "Without knowing when the end of the session is . . . I can't tell you. I would hope . . . that we will get out of here by June 10. . . " Senator Titus asked, "Do we have the statistics for the number of days that the session has lasted over the last decade or so?" Senator Raggio replied, " . . . I know that the last 3 sessions have all gone [to] either the last day of June or the first or second day of July." Senator Titus said she wanted to know how many days the session has been averaging. Senator O'Connell said, "168 days . . . I think is the longest session." Senator Titus and Senator O'Connell discussed the last three sessions and how many days they lasted. Ms. Lusk testified in favor of S.J.R. 3. Ms. Lusk described her experiences with citizens about the legislative session. Ms. Lusk thinks the February start date as proposed by Senator Raggio would be beneficial because it would allow everyone to rest after the election. Ms. Lusk said if there was a limit on time, people would prioritize bills or legislation. Senator Porter commented, "I have always wanted to believe in deadlines . . . I have always been a believer that April 15 should be election day, because I think a lot of things would happen differently if we voted the same day that we pay our taxes. I would agree we need a deadline, I think it will help us set priorities and be more efficient." Eric S. Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of S.J.R. 3. Mr. Cooper stated they would like a clarification on what Senator Raggio means when he says 120 days. Does he mean 120 consecutive calendar days without any holidays or anything intervening? Senator Raggio confirmed that 120 days means 120 consecutive calendar days. Putnam Mathur, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of S.J.R. 3. Ms. Mathur said she thinks that if there is a deadline, the legislature would be more productive. Ms. Mathur said the freshmen would probably benefit from the extra time before the session starts to learn the procedures. Ms. Hansen testified in favor of S.J.R. 3. Ms. Hansen reiterated prior testimony and stated it is easier for citizens to participate in the legislative session if there is a definite time frame. Ms. Hansen said she encourages the definite time frame for the session and believes it will give greater credibility to the elected officials. Ms. Hansen thinks the number of bills that are introduced need to be limited. Ms. Cox stated her support for S.J.R. 3. Ms. Cox said less time is less law and less government. Senator Titus stated: This bill . . . limits the number of days. It doesn't do anything to the number of bill draft requests that would be submitted. You still have the same constituency as before, same groups active, same kind of problems facing the state, how do you know that this wouldn't just cram everything into 120 days? There would be less notice, less opportunity for the public to be involved, less ability to be informed on what the issues are, and things would be rammed through . . . during that whole session more then they are now at the very end. What is the safeguard against that happening and making the situation less accessible as opposed to better? Ms. Cox said she thinks the citizens elect responsible people and the atmosphere would promote correctness. Ms. Cox believes the elected officials will do what is right and only pass excellent laws. Senator Porter stated, "In my short tenure here, the one thing I can assure you is it wouldn't happen in these few months if it wasn't for the staff that we have. . . I want to take this opportunity to thank those folks behind the scenes. It really wouldn't happen in 4 months, in 3 months or in 6 months without the staff and I appreciate all of the help I have gotten from day one." Ms. Nelson testified in opposition to S.J.R. 3. Ms. Nelson stated she is in favor of limited annual sessions. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 3 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 18. ASSEMBLY BILL 18: Expands area around polling place where electioneering or solicitation of votes is prohibited. (BDR 24-1001) Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, testified, "This is a very simple piece of legislation and I think timely. I introduced it immediately after the primary election . . . I received quite a few calls from senior citizens in my district from [the] Las Vegas High School polling area who had been harassed at the polls. . . I contacted [the Legislative Counsel Bureau] and had them research . . .[a] barrier for the polling area. . . Assembly Bill 18 . . . allows you to establish a reasonable area to protect the integrity of the polling area. . . It defines that within 100 feet of the entrance to the building or other structure where the polling is located that electioneering is prohibited. . . " Senator Raggio stated he supports the concept, but has questions in regard to the definition of electioneering within the bill, specifically the item "wearing related insignia." Senator Raggio asked if someone walked within 100 feet wearing a campaign button, would they be in violation of this law? Ms. Giunchigliani responded, "Possibly. . ." Senator O'Connell questioned, "How do you plan on notifying people about the law?" Ms. Giunchigliani replied, ". . . When you file for office it would become part of the documentation that you are issued and it would be pointed out by the election department. . . I am open to ideas. . . " Senator O'Connell asked, "If you are . . . lobbying on a ballot question, . . . would that also be a part of the prohibition?" Ms. Giunchigliani answered, "Yes, my understanding of the term measure was to encompass if you were for or against a petition or a ballot question of some sort." Senator O'Connell inquired, "How would it be enforced?" Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "Having gone through a situation this year, my assumption would be this gives some teeth because there was no definition for electioneering. In speaking with the two major election departments, their thought was in their training they need to do a better job in training their poll workers on what may or may not be allowed. . . " Senator O'Connell continued, "Is it a warning or a citation?" Ms. Giunchigliani said, "the warning comes first, at least that is what they told me." Senator O'Connell accepted a letter from Mr. Bill Parker, Concerned Citizen, into the record (Exhibit F). Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 18. Senator O'Connell stated to the committee, "I would like to let the committee know that on the bill that we heard . . . there seemed to be some confusion, [on] (Senate Bill) S.B. 282, . . . Mark caught me in the hall today and shared with me that they had withdrawn their opposition of that bill and I believe there was just a misunderstanding on his part as to what the process was. . . I would be happy to take a motion on that bill." SENATE BILL 282: Provides for judicial review of disciplinary order of Reno civil service commission. (BDR S-727) SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 282. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell asked the committee if they were interested in addressing some of the bills the committee heard earlier today. Senator Raggio said he would like to work on S.J.R. 3. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 3. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO). ***** Senator O'Connell asked if the committee would like to act on S.B. 325, the committee declined. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee would like to act on A.B. 18. Senator Raggio said he would like to hold on A.B. 18. Senator Townsend concurred with Senator Raggio. Senator O'Connell asked Joann Long, Secretary Deputy for Elections, to testify in regard to A.B. 18. Senator O'Connell asked: When we were talking about Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani's bill and we were talking about the information that would be included so that we knew the candidates would know that their insignias and buttons. . . should not be worn when they go into vote. Would you clarify your nod for us? Ms. Long responded, "One of the things that we had talked about . . . is that it be included in the sample ballots. . . When a candidate comes in to file . . . we also . . . explain to them that information. . . " Senator O'Donnell stated, "The bill does penalize somebody with a gross misdemeanor, which is 6 months to a year in jail, for wearing a badge or button inadvertently into a polling place. . . " Senator O'Connell said, "I think the major thing we need to do is specify a warning of some kind before there is a citation." Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 273. ASSEMBLY BILL 273: Revises provisions governing candidacy for party nominations. (BDR 24-1179) Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, Assembly District No. 16, testified in favor of A.B. 273. Ms. Steel stated: . . . This is more of a housekeeping measure then anything else. The situation in the last election . . . was a situation where people had a declared party on September 1. After September 1, [they] decided they wanted to be of another party. So what they did was slip into nonpartisan and then they went to the other party. It was sort of getting around the intention of the law to be of a party for a year before you become a candidate for that party. This bill would really just close that loophole up." Senator O'Connell asked how many races there were in which that happened. Ms. Steel said she knew of two. They took it to the supreme court and the supreme court said the way the statutes read anytime you want to jump off the nonpartisan boat, you can jump to another party. Senator O'Connell inquired if there is anything in the federal law that would address this problem. Ms. Steel stated she is not aware of anything. Senator Porter asked, "What difference does it make as long as they file as the appropriate party? Do you really need to go back to the September before?" Ms. Steel responded, "Why have a September 1? On September 1 if you are a Democrat or Republican to run for office you should remain that same party at least for the next 7 months. What they were doing is changing from Republican to Democrat by going through the nonpartisan loophole. . . " Senator O'Connell asked if Senator Shaffer had this happen in his district. Senator Shaffer responded affirmatively. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 273 and asked the committee if anyone wanted to take action on it. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 273. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs April 12, 1995 Page