MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 11, 2003

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:52 p.m., on Tuesday, March 11, 2003.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Grady

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8, Clark County

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Debbie Cahill, State of Nevada Employees Association

Terry Hickman, Nevada State Education Association

Mary Ella Holloway, Carson City Education Association

George Pyne, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada

Lynn Warne, Washoe County Education Association

Scott MacKenzie, State of Nevada Education Association

Susan Hastings, Nevada Classified School Employees Association

Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union

Marty Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada

Joyce Peirce, Citizen

David Chien, Taiwan, Republic of China

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly

Mary Henderson, Nevada League of Cities

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder

Barbara Reed, Douglas County

Larry Struve, Nevada Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order at 3:52 p.m.

 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1271.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 1190.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 35.

 

Assembly Bill 35:  Makes various changes concerning Legislative Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance. (BDR 17-631)

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst, said the Committee had heard A.B. 35 on February 20, 2003.  Assemblyman Parks, Chairman of the Legislative Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance during the 2001-2002 interim, presented the bill to the Committee.  The measure changed the membership requirements of the Advisory Committee to the Legislative Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance.  A.B. 35 allowed for a representative of a general improvement district to be appointed to the Advisory Committee, rather than a member of the board of trustees for a general improvement district, as provided by current law.

 

Additionally, A.B. 35 eliminated the Subcommittee to Study the Cost of Maintaining Highways, Roads, and Streets.  This subcommittee was charged with studying the cost to counties and incorporated cities in Nevada for maintaining highways, roads, and streets, and the practices of counties and incorporated cities in maintaining those highways, roads, and streets.  A.B. 35 transferred those duties to the Advisory Committee.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the language found on page 3, Section 2(b), lines 14 through 17, which dealt with the removal of the authority to impose a governmental tax by the Board of County Commissioners of Washoe County was needed.  She said if a change was needed, the bill could be amended at a later date.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 35.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

********

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.J.R. 3.

Assembly Joint Resolution 3:  Urges Congress to amend Social Security Act by repealing certain provisions that require reductions in social security benefits for persons who also receive certain federal, state or local government pensions. (BDR R-839)

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8, Clark County, sponsored A.J.R. 3.  With regard to the Government Pension Offset (GPO), nine out of ten public employees lost their spouse or survivor benefit even though their spouse paid into the system.  She gave the following example:  Ms. Buckley said if she were a public employee, and her spouse paid into Social Security and worked his entire life and passed away; if she were not a firefighter, school teacher, or public employee, she would get the benefit of what her spouse had paid into the system.  But if she were a teacher, firefighter, or other person who received a government pension, she would not get that benefit.  She would receive an offset.

 

Ms. Buckley said if she were a teacher and chose to go back to work, the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) would cause her to lose up to 60 percent of the benefit she had earned in private employment by virtue of that provision.  She referred to an e-mail she had received from a teacher who lived on Upland Avenue.  The teacher explained that many people who spent their lives in public service wanted the ability to educate the public about it and to put the force of the Committee behind a resolution to Nevada’s federal representatives.  Some members of Nevada’s delegation sponsored a bill for change at the federal level.

 

Assemblyman Beers located the e-mail Ms. Buckley had referred to and read a portion of it into the record (Exhibit C).  Verlene Chiodini was a retired teacher in Clark County married to a sheet metal worker who now had his own shop.  She was drawing her Public Employees’ Benefit Program (PERS) retirement.  Her husband had applied for Social Security.  In the event that he should die, she would receive nothing from the years he paid into Social Security because of the offset.  In fact, she was being penalized for her work in the education field rather than in private industry.  Had she worked for a department store for all of those years, she would have received a widow’s allowance.  She said, “This is not conjecture.  The Social Security agent worked out the figures.”

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said she appreciated the opportunity to sponsor A.J.R. 3.  She said she had not known about the issue, and it forced her to stop, take a look at it, and question its fairness.  Ms. Buckley said she wanted to encourage people to enter public service.  It paid less, but was rewarding.  She said the penalties involved in the system were a disincentive to those who wanted to fight fires, teach children, and do important work in our communities.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she was a public employee and had been unaware of the Windfall Elimination Provision.

 

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Employees Association (NSEA), presented two videotaped segments for the Committee to view.  The first videotape dealt with amendments made to the Social Security Act in 1983 that threatened the retirement security of teachers, education support professionals, and other public servants across the country.  The NEA and key members of Congress had launched a fight to repeal those laws.  The Government Pension Offset took away survivor benefits.  Educators who lost their spouses did not get the Social Security their spouses had earned.  The WEP took away benefits educators earned by working in part-time jobs, summer jobs, or previous careers.  The NEA asked people to write, call, or visit their congressmen and urge them to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

 

The second segment Ms. Cahill showed was taken from a CBS Evening News broadcast.  In it, anchor Dan Rather had reported that every year the Social Security Administration sent workers an estimate of how much they could expect to collect at retirement.  There was some fine print in that estimate, and workers who did not read it could be surprised.  In an effort to keep Social Security afloat, Congress passed a law 20 years ago that barred highly paid citizens who already received a pension from receiving their full Social Security benefits.  In 15 states, public servants, including teachers, firefighters, and police, paid into state retirement plans instead of Social Security.  Because of that little-known federal law, those workers could not receive their full Social Security benefits from their private sector work.  Like their better-paid counterparts, low-paid public workers could not double dip.  Sue Shaw, a retired teacher, started a national grassroots campaign to repeal the federal law, calling it “robbery.”  A woman who served on the Social Security Advisory Council under President Clinton said the law did not need fixing.  She said it would cost billions of dollars to provide full benefits to everybody, and did not know why they would want to favor those people.

 

Terry Hickman, President of the Nevada State Education Association, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit D).  He supported A.J.R. 3 because it dealt with an injustice that had penalized public employees for many years.  Mr. Hickman gave a brief history of how this unfair penalty came about:

 

Mr. Hickman said the original Social Security formula was intended to help low-paid workers by replacing a higher proportion of their earnings than for workers with higher earnings.  However, the formula could not differentiate between those who worked in low-paid jobs through their careers and those covered by Social Security.  Instead of protecting low-earning retirees, the WEP had unfairly affected retirees with only slightly higher earnings.  The WEP reduced the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also received a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security.  It also affected people who moved from a job in which they earned Social Security benefits to a job, such as teaching, in which they did not.

 

Mr. Hickman said that estimates indicated that nine out of ten public employees affected by the GPO lost their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses had paid Social Security taxes for many years.  He gave several examples of problems retirees had with the system.  Mr. Hickman thought it was time for Nevadans to receive fairness and justice from the Social Security system.  He said it was time to end the penalty for public service.  He asked that the Committee send A.J.R. 3 to the Nevada congressional delegation so they could vote to repeal the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision.

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked Mr. Hickman if there were any indications that the two bills currently in front of Congress would pass.  Mr. Hickman responded that last year was the first time in 20 years that there was a bill in Congress to work on changing the WEP and the GPO.  It was not an issue of party; it was a question of fairness.  In the Nevada delegation, four of the five legislators had either signed on as co-sponsors or were going to sign on.  Unfortunately, only Senator Ensign had not yet committed.  He hoped that before the session was over, more than 200 in the House and 40 to 50 in the Senate would sign on as co-sponsors.  Mr. Hickman said that kind of power would make a difference.  He said it was an uphill battle because the cost was tremendous.  He thought it could be successful this session.

 

Assemblywoman McClain said she had worked for a school district in Colorado when this bill passed.  She had been aware of it and said she was glad that somebody was finally trying to repeal it.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said that while she listened to Mr. Hickman’s testimony, Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, had mentioned to her that because legislators might eventually receive a pension, this could apply to all legislators. 

 

Assemblyman Anderson disclosed that there were several legislators on the Assembly side that were currently affected by this legislation:  Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Goicoechea, Mr. Grady, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Knecht, Ms. Koivisto, Ms. Leslie, Ms. McClain, Mr. Oceguera, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Williams. 

 

Assemblyman Beers said everybody who participated in the legislative retirement system should be added to that list.  Assemblyman Anderson said he had only mentioned those people who had fit into the category at this time.

 

Assemblyman Conklin said that as a private businessperson he had several 401Ks, and he also paid into Social Security.  He wondered what would happen to his Social Security if he served as a legislator for more than ten years.

 

Mary Ella Holloway, Clark County Education Association, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit E).  She said she was one of many teachers in Nevada who would be affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision.  She thought “windfall” was an interesting concept.  Her first Social Security job had been with the Air Force when she graduated from high school; she had earned 60 cents an hour.  Over the course of the next 15 years, she had worked at several jobs and never earned more than $8,000 per year, so her retirement benefits from Social Security would be small.  When she retired, her benefits would be reduced by two-thirds after paying into the Social Security System for 15 years.  She would receive about $100 per month.  She urged the Committee to support A.J.R. 3.

 

George Pyne, Public Employees’ Retirement System, said the staff at the retirement system would be recommending to the Retirement Board that it support A.J.R. 3.  Since the inception of the GPO in 1977 and the WEP in 1983, numerous PERS retirees had been subject to the offsets, which had jeopardized their financial security during their retirement.  Mr. Pyne said the offsets should be significantly reduced or eliminated by Congress.

 

Lynn Warne, Washoe County Education Association, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit F).  She said she would be affected by the Social Security offset because she had earned enough credits to receive Social Security benefits before she started her teaching career.  Ms. Warne said her benefits would be inconsequential to her retirement because of where she lived.  She said Nevada was facing a teacher shortage and must try to attract educators from all quarters, including those who fell into the “second career” category.  She said a woman had called her office and asked if Social Security benefits would be reduced by two-thirds if she were to teach and retire from the Washoe School District.  When she was told it was true, the woman said she would need to re-evaluate her decision and possibly choose a job in the private sector.  Ms. Warne urged the Committee’s support of A.J.R. 3.

 

Scott MacKenzie, State of Nevada Employees’ Association, said SNEA supported A.J.R. 3.  He said his office received many calls from constituents in the “second career” category who were upset when they found out they were being penalized.  He said SNEA’s international union would be working in Washington to build more support for A.J.R. 3. 

 

Susan Hastings, Nevada Classified School Employees’ Association (NCSEA), said she represented the support staff of the Washoe County School District, including bus drivers, custodians, and secretaries.  Ms. Hastings said many of their employees had to work second and third jobs to make a living.  Those jobs were in the private sector.  In addition, they had many retirees who were unable to support themselves in retirement.  They had taken jobs with the school district and were working on a second career in retirement.  She said many of the employees did not make a living wage.  It would be devastating for their members not to receive their retirement benefits when one considered that most of their lives they worked two and three jobs just to get by.  Ms. Hastings said she had worked in the oil industry for many years.  She was now in public service and was looking to become a teacher of physical science.  She said it would be a strong enticement to go to another state that did not have the Windfall Elimination Provision.  She concluded that the NCSEA supported the passage of A.J.R. 3.

 

Richard Siegel, Nevada Faculty Alliance, said the Social Security Administration and the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) presented information on the Windfall Elimination Provision at the beginning of January.  He said over 90 percent of the people affected at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) knew nothing about the provision.  Dr. Siegel said PERS needed to provide education to public employees about the WEP so they could plan for retirement.  He said he was one of the foremost experts on this provision in northern Nevada.  He had spoken with 25 people at Social Security who could not provide him with information on the WEP.  He said people who called Social Security were given misinformation.  Dr. Siegel said it was a complicated set of programs, and every person was affected differently.  His wife would lose half of her benefit because of the WEP, and he would never receive Social Security benefits from her.  He said he had made the “wise decision” to never work for Social Security.  He asked the Committee to pass A.J.R. 3.

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked if the Faculty Alliance had communicated with other member states, which included California, Illinois, and Indiana, about the Windfall Elimination Provision.

 

Dr. Siegel replied that he was not directly involved with lobbying efforts.  He hoped that the NSEA members would form an alliance with SNEA, NFA, and all of the groups affected.  Together, they could make a difference.

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked Dr. Siegel if he thought the WEP was in retaliation against those states that chose not to surrender their state retirement systems to Social Security.  Dr. Siegel said he could not answer that question.  The measure as it existed was passed in 1983.  He said he had been resisting Social Security.  His wife would have been better off if she had been paying into Social Security instead of PERS for the six years she had worked for the state of Nevada.  Dr. Siegel said he would have been worse off had he been paying into Social Security instead of PERS for that period of time.

 

Martin Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, submitted a prepared statement (Exhibit G).  He said there were approximately 24,000 retired public employees in Nevada who strongly supported A.J.R. 3.  He said the measure would eliminate the unfair government pension offset, which could leave a person with no benefit from his or her deceased spouse’s Social Security because one of them was a Nevada public employee retiree.  He said the WEP was unfair because it could result in a major reduction of Social Security benefits just because the person worked under both Social Security and public employment and retired at a particular point in time.  Mr. Bibb said some people who retired earlier did not have that reduction of their Social Security.  He said if a person had worked a complete career in public employment and did not have the necessary 40 quarters they might not be eligible for Medicare.  Many health care plans were based upon the assumption that one had Medicare coverage.  Many retired public employees had returned to work after 30- or
35-year careers in public employment to build their quarters in order to be eligible for Medicare coverage.

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked if Congress could repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset with a caveat that would require everybody to pay into Social Security.  Terry Hickman said that current legislation did not mention bringing any other state into Social Security.  It was an attempt to make it fair to those who had paid into Social Security and would receive a reduced benefit because they had been in public service.  Mr. Hickman said that was the intent of the bills that were currently in Congress. 

 

Ms. McClain asked if he would be tracking the bill.  Mr. Hickman said he hoped the resolution signed by the Nevada Legislature would be sent to Vice President Cheney and each member of the Nevada delegation.  He said their votes were the ones that counted.  Anything the Committee could add or send to them was important.  Mr. Hickman said there were over 200,000 people in Nevada who fell under the public service penalty who were retired or would be retired in a few years.  Four of the five Nevada congressional delegates had agreed to sign on as co-sponsors.  Senator Ensign had not yet signed on.  He asked those who knew Senator Ensign to urge him to join the otherwise unanimous Nevada delegation in co-sponsoring those bills.

 

Assemblyman Beers asked Mr. Bibb if he could list classes of public employees who did not pay into Medicare.  Mr. Bibb said he could not.  He said it was based on when they retired.  He said if they worked with the retirement system they might be able to come up with some numbers that would address that question.

 

Mary Ella Holloway, Clark County Education Association, said she believed that all of the teachers hired after 1987 paid into Medicare and Social Security.  Teachers hired before that date did not pay into Social Security or Medicare.  She said she had a friend who worked at a bookstore at the McCarran Airport so she could earn her 40 quarters to qualify for Medicare.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin noted for the record that Dan Musgrove had signed in on behalf of Clark County on behalf of A.J.R. 3, but would not be speaking.

 

Joyce Peirce supported A.J.R. 3.  She said she had retired from the Nevada Department of Transportation two weeks before.  She had been collecting Social Security for the past two years on employment she had had prior to working for the state.  Ms. Peirce said she had been unaware that she would be losing two-thirds of that money because of the WEP and GPO.  She said this law would affect every retiree.

Vice Chairman Conklin closed the hearing on A.J.R. 3.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.J.R. 4.

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 4:  Urges President of United States and Congress to support free trade agreement between Republic of China on Taiwan and United States. (BDR R-1213)

 

David Chien, Assistant to the Director General, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO), San Francisco, representing the Government of Taiwan, Republic of China, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit H).  Mr. Chien thanked the Committee for giving him the opportunity to present a report regarding the support of the proposal for a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the United States.

 

Mr. Chien said that together, Taiwan and the United States promoted a shared faith in and respect for freedom, democracy, and market principles.  For the past half-century, Taiwan and the United States had worked hand in hand to preserve peace and stability within the Pacific Rim and improved the lives of their citizens and people around the world.

 

Trade between the two countries had increased steadily in the past 40 years, with marked growth over the past decade.  According to Mr. Chien, the United States was now Taiwan’s second largest source of imports, and Taiwan was the eighth-largest exporter to the United States.  In turn, Taiwan was the tenth-largest U.S. exports market, buying more U.S. merchandise than Brazil, Belgium, Australia, or Italy.  In 2001, U.S. exports to Taiwan totaled US$18.2 billion.  In the agricultural sector, Taiwan was the fifth-largest U.S. exports market, and ranked as one of the top three destinations for U.S. peaches, plums, celery, bovine hides, and other agricultural products.

 

Mr. Chien said one of the best ways to forge even closer ties between the two countries and to nurture continued and sustainable economic growth would be to negotiate a Taiwan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (TUFTA).  The benefits of such an agreement for U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers would be quite extensive.  Despite its small size, Taiwan’s population of 23 million inhabitants (roughly equal to that of Australia and New Zealand combined) had transformed Taiwan into a major, modern economy.  Taiwan was now one of the most rapidly industrializing nations in the world, with per capita income of US$12,756 higher than some members of the Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD), notably South Korea, Greece, and Portugal.  Mr. Chien said that many U.S. companies, such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, AT&T, and Citibank, were well established in Taiwan.  Building on these already firm roots, U.S. businesses would be presented with new opportunities in the expanding Taiwanese market if a TUFTA was successfully negotiated.

 

Mr. Chien said a free trade agreement would be a catalyst for the establishment of Taiwan as a gateway to Asia for U.S. firms.  Taiwan’s unique culture, economy, and geographical location made it well suited to serve as a springboard for U.S. economic expansion in the Asia Pacific region.  The World Economic Forum’s 2001 Global Competitiveness Report ranked Taiwan third among the top 21 technology-driven economies in the world in terms of innovation, after Canada and the United States.

 

Mr. Chien listed some of the benefits of a TUFTA to the United States.  He said it would achieve the following policy objectives:

·        strengthen ties with a long-time U.S. strategic and economic ally

·        promote peace and stability in the Pacific Rim

·        increase bilateral trade and investment

·        add momentum to U.S. free trade initiatives

 

Mr. Chien listed expected TUFTA benefits as follows:

·        reducing or eliminating barriers on essentially all Taiwan–U.S. trade in goods, including agricultural products

·        reducing or eliminating market barriers for service providers

·        allowing U.S. companies to establish business operations in Taiwan with few obstacles

·        establishing a mutual recognition mechanism for efficient testing and certification of electronic and electrical equipment and other products

 

Mr. Chien said Nevada exports to Taiwan reached US$27 million in 2001.  He said Taiwan was the ninth-largest free trade partner of Nevada.  According to a report released on October 21, 2002, by the United States International Trade Commission, once the United States and Taiwan established a TUFTA, the U.S. sectors likely to benefit the most would be motor vehicles, agricultural products, and other processed foods.  The report predicted those sectors would experience increases in exports to Taiwan of more than 100 percent.  After the establishment of TUFTA, the exports of goods from the United States to Taiwan would increase 16 percent to US$3.4 billion, which would create 170,000 job opportunities.  The top five exports from Nevada to Taiwan were processed foods, electronic instruments, agricultural products, and mechanical components.  Mr. Chien said Nevada would benefit from a free trade relationship between the United States and Taiwan.  He said no Nevada workers would lose their jobs after the establishment of TUFTA.  On the contrary, more job opportunities would exist.  It would improve Nevada’s economy.

 

Mr. Chien said Taiwan was the sister state of Nevada.  The sister state relationship was established on October 21, 1985.  He said a close friendship had been maintained for a long time.  Last year, the Nevada Legislature made a declaration to support Taiwan’s entrance into the World Health Organization.  The Republic of China on Taiwan appreciated the Legislature’s help.  Mr. Chien said he hoped the Legislature would support A.J.R. 4.

 

Assemblyman Christensen said he had lived and worked in foreign countries and had seen the value of positive trade relations.  He said he did support A.J.R. 4 and wanted to thank Mr. Chien for his presentation.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it helped to be able to put a name and face to a resolution.  She thanked Mr. Chien for his presentation.

 

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly, urged the Committee to pass A.J.R. 4.  He said the Republic of China on Taiwan had been a friend and ally of the United States for many years, unlike France, Belgium, and Germany.  He said this resolution should be passed because of Taiwan’s loyalty; they had been one of the United States’ biggest trade partners and had always treated the U.S. well.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Wagner.  She said she did appreciate other countries exercising their prerogative to express their opinions on the issue of whether or not the U.S. should go to war.  She did not feel it was degradation.  She said they were asserting the democratic principles that we stood by.  She said the Legislature had supported the World Health Organization resolution and would take A.J.R. 4 into consideration. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.J.R. 4 and opened the hearing on A.B. 233.

 

Assembly Bill 233:  Makes various changes concerning primary city elections and general city elections. (BDR 24-336)

 

Mary Henderson, Nevada League of Cities, said she had listened to the testimony on A.J.R. 3 and was beginning to question the wisdom of her retirement the previous July.  She thought that she and Assemblywoman McClain might exercise their rights as former Iowans and children of the Sixties to start their own chapter of the Gray Panthers, since both of them had worked in the private sector and the public sector.

 

Ms. Henderson said A.B. 233 was a bill requested by the Nevada League of Cities that affected only general law cities in the state.  The Nevada League of Cities was asking for the ability to allow them to change the date of their elections.  At the present time, they were required to hold their elections in June of odd-numbered years.  The general law cities were the cities of Ely, Fallon, Fernley, Lovelock, West Wendover, and Winnemucca.  They were not charter cities.  Section 3, subsections 1, 2, and 3, described a process that would give cities the ability to hold public hearings to be able to make changes at the local level.  The term of office for elected city officials could not be shortened as a result of the ordinance.  Ms. Henderson said A.B. 233 was part of a cost-saving effort and was an attempt to facilitate a higher voter turnout.

 

Assemblyman Anderson said he understood the economic factor of wanting to hold elections on one date.  It seemed to him there was an advantage to smaller communities in that they could enact legislation that focused on their local issues, rather than competing with other statewide and national issues that were in those same elections.  Mr. Anderson said there was limited sign space, and state and national elections tended to have glossier material than the smaller communities, where campaigns tended to be run by word of mouth.  He asked Ms. Henderson if the Nevada League of Cities had had discussions weighing the advantages and disadvantages of larger elections.

 

Ms. Henderson replied that they had had extensive discussions.  She said that some of the charter cities preferred the November election date, while others preferred the June election date.  Each community wanted the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.  She said they sometimes had ballot questions being decided by 16–20 percent of the voters.  Ms. Henderson thought it should be up to the individual cities to decide when their elections would be held, because they knew their constituents and what their needs were.  She thought they should be allowed that choice.

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked if there was a possibility that the cities could move their existing date and then a few years later move it back to the original date.  He thought if the Committee moved forward on A.B. 233, the cities could change their election dates each time they elected a new city council.

 

Ms. Henderson said that it was not contemplated in the language, and she knew it was not part of the discussion at the Nevada League of Cities.  Her interpretation from the membership was that once the decision was made, that was it.  She said once the communities opted to change the election date, the Committee could craft language that would block them from going back and forth changing the dates.  She did not think there would be a problem putting that language in.  She said it laid out the provisions by ordinance, and the charter cities had to go up before the Legislature to request any changes.  Once the charter cities made the decision to change the election date, they would have the option of coming back to make changes.

 

Assemblyman Conklin said that, of the 50 United States, all but three held their gubernatorial elections in off-years, non-presidential election years.  Two of those three held elections every two years, and one held the gubernatorial election in the same year as the presidential election.  The reason for off-year elections was to protect voters from “windfall elections,” where the “top of the ticket” carried the day in every state.  Mr. Conklin asked if municipalities had elections during other times to protect themselves in much the same fashion from the effect of state ticket windfalls, giving voters a much better opportunity to assess separate tickets.  He asked if the League of Cities had discussed this.

 

Ms. Henderson responded that that topic had not come up.  She believed the members had looked at the experience they had in Reno, and would probably see in Sparks.  It had not been an issue at the local level because of the non-partisan nature of the races.  Ms. Henderson thought the City of Reno had found the election date change beneficial.  It depended on local jurisdictions. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said in off elections, regardless of whether they were city or ballot initiatives, there would be less turnout, interest, and opportunity for people to be involved.

 

Assemblyman Grady said he had the privilege of spending nine years with the League, and the subject matter in A.B. 233 had been discussed for many years.  He said Fernley and Winnemucca had been seriously looking at changing election dates because of the cost of elections.  He said the city candidates and issues would be on the bottom portion of the ballot.  Mr. Grady said it would be difficult to raise financial support, and the signs were an issue.  He said the cities who would decide whether or not to do this would be doing so after a great deal of thought.

 

Assemblywoman Weber asked Ms. Henderson what a general law city was.  Ms. Henderson said general law cities were under Nevada Revised Statutes 266.050.  These cities chose to govern themselves under general law versus being under a charter.  She said there were requirements in NRS 266.050 as to how they became a general law city.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was optional, because they did not have a charter that required them to come before the Legislature.  She then closed the hearing on A.B. 233 and opened the hearing A.B. 235.

Assembly Bill 235:  Provides Voters’ Bill of Rights. (BDR 24-270)

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, thanked the Committee for introducing A.B. 235 on behalf of her office.  She said the bill stemmed from complaints received in her office after the Florida debacle.  She said the intent of A.B. 235 was to educate voters in an effort to avoid confusion at the polling place.  The intent was to have information posted and made accessible to the voters.  Ms. Parker stated that all of the rights that were set forth in this bill were contained in Title 24 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  She said it was a voter education tool to make the voting process easier, to prevent disenfranchisement, and to make voters feel like they had an understanding of what their rights were.  It would decrease the number of questions asked of poll workers and county clerks on Election Day.

 

Assemblyman McCleary asked Ms. Parker to clarify Section 3, Item 4.  Ms. Parker responded that each voter had the right to vote on Election Day.  If a voter had been waiting in line to vote prior to the close of the polls, that voter would not be turned away if he had not voted by the time the polls closed.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought that was currently the policy, and said it would be confirmed with the various clerks.

 

Assemblywoman Weber asked if the language in A.B. 235 would be included in the HAVA provisions.  Ms. Parker said Section 302(b)(1) of HAVA required state or local elections officials to cause voting information to be publicly posted at each polling place on the day of each election for federal office.  Section 302(2)(E) included “general information on voting rights under applicable federal and state laws, including information on the right of an individual to cast a provisional ballot and instructions on how to contact the appropriate officials if these rights are alleged to have been violated.”  Ms. Parker believed this was a step in complying with 302(b) of HAVA.  She said they had not included the provisional balloting information because they were bringing in HAVA-related changes in a separate bill so they would not have to address HAVA with every elections bill that came before the Committee. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she would double check that as there was another bill in the Senate that would implement federal law, and the Senate added a lot to the bill that had nothing to do with what the federal law called for.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Parker if a voter requested an absentee ballot and then decided to vote at the polling place, would they be able to do that if they turned in the absentee ballot.  Ms. Parker said that was correct.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to the section that read, “uniform, statewide system for counting and recounting all votes accurately.”  Ms. Parker said when her office introduced A.B. 235, they said, “uniform, statewide standard,” because they wanted rules in place for counting and recounting all votes accurately.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that Nevada did not get into the problems of “chads,” because they had a procedure in place.  Ms. Parker said that Larry Lomax had suggested the word “process,” and she thought that was a good idea.  She said “standard” or “process” was closer to the intent.

 

Assemblyman Beers asked if there had been cases where voter rights had been denied in Nevada.  Ms. Parker said it was based on complaints received in her office from voters who did not understand their rights.  She said the intent was to make it easier for voters to understand their rights so they would not have to ask questions of election officials on Election Day.  She said her office had not closed any complaints where they had found that any county clerk or registrar of voters or any poll workers had denied these rights.  She said there was confusion as to what the rights were.

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, supported A.B. 235 with the exception of substituting the word “process” or “procedure” with “system.”  He referred to Section 4, Item 3, where it said clerks should reprint the Voters’ Bill of Rights on a sample ballot.  Mr. Lomax said they had done an analysis of what it would cost.  Every additional page in a sample ballot, which would be one side of a page, would cost approximately $22,000.  He said his office had to print everything in 14-point font in both English and Spanish.  The requirement to print this in every sample ballot would cost approximately $43,000 per election.  He recommended saving $43,000 per election by posting the Voters’ Bill of Rights at the polling place instead of printing it on sample ballots.  Mr. Lomax pointed out that sample ballots were printed out on four-page increments.  Sometimes it worked out that space was available because of that requirement.  He said if space were available, he would be happy to include the Voters’ Bill of Rights.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, said he shared Mr. Lomax’s opinion on Section 4, Item 3.  He said that when the Senate passed a bill last session requiring the 14-point type, it cost his office an additional $11,000.  He said his office supported A.B. 235.  Mr. Glover referred to the top of page 2, Item 5, where it stated, “To return a spoiled ballot to the election board and receive another ballot in its place.”  He said people were entitled to receive another ballot, but spoiled ballots would decrease with the use of a touch screen.  He said absentee ballots could be spoiled.  Counties that chose opticscan could have ballots that were spoiled and returned.  He suggested deleting the words “to the election board,” and say that they had a right to return a spoiled ballot and receive another ballot in its place.  Mr. Glover said provisions that dealt with spoiled ballots would be handled under NRS. 

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked Mr. Glover if he had to account for the paper spoiled ballots, would he have to return them to the election worker, who was considered to be the board at that location.  Mr. Glover said an election board was the group that worked on Election Day.  If one had an absentee ballot, one would return it to the clerk.  He said it was a matter of semantics.  He said that saying “to the election board” pinned it down to only returning a spoiled ballot on Election Day, and he thought they had a right to return an absentee ballot that was spoiled.  Mr. Anderson said his concern was trying to give direction to the voter.  Mr. Glover said the language could be changed from “election board” to “election official.”

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, agreed with statements made by Mr. Glover and Mr. Lomax.  She had concerns about the cost of printing the Voters’ Bill of Rights in the sample ballot.  She said it would cost her office approximately $1,000 for each election.  She had no objection to having it posted in the office and at voting sites, but she said she did not want to be required to put them in the sample ballot.  Ms. Reed said she would like to see Item 5 eliminated, because Section 3 stated that the voter had the right to receive and cast a ballot that was in written format and accurately record the voter’s preference in the selection of candidates.  She thought that might address that they were going to allow them to accurately record their selection.  She did not know how they would address that with touch screens, optiscans, and absentee ballots.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the language would be discussed during a work session, as she did not want to confuse it anymore.  The issue was that if one received a paper ballot and spoiled it or wanted to vote differently, they could turn it in and be allowed to vote.  Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Section 3, Item 3, where it stated, “To vote without being intimidated.”  She thought the Committee might need to define “intimidated.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Parker which part of HAVA was required to be posted.  Ms. Parker said Section 302(b)(1) of HAVA provided that the appropriate state or local officials should cause voting information to be publicly posted at each polling place on the day of each election for federal office.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that currently if a candidate passed away or withdrew from the election, the election officials would need to post that information.  She asked for additional posting requirements.  Mr. Lomax said they were required to post an instructional ballot, a sample ballot, and the hours of polling.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Parker if the Voters’ Bill of Rights would be displayed on the Secretary of State’s Web site if the bill passed.  Ms. Parker thought that was a good idea.

 

Mr. Lomax reminded those present that early voting for municipal elections for North Las Vegas would start on Wednesday, March 19; the other cities would start on Saturday, March 22.

 

Larry Struve, who appeared independently, stated that he had served for the last five years as Chairman of the Nevada Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy.  During the 2001 Legislative Session, the advisory committee compiled a report card that assessed how well Nevadans maintained the health of their democratic system of government.  He provided Committee members with a portion of that report card (Exhibit I).  Mr. Struve said the lowest score on the report card was for voter participation.  He said the advisory committee had been mandated by A.C.R. 38 of the 2001 Legislative Session to submit a followup report.  He did not have the report available, but said it would be presented to the 2003 Legislature.  The report would give an update on many of the recommendations by the advisory committee. 

 

Mr. Struve said voting would be a central focus in improving the grade in participatory democracy.  For that reason, Mr. Struve indicated that his committee would be supportive of passing A.B. 235, because it emphasized the importance of every citizen who was eligible to vote to participate in the voting process.  He said the Voters’ Bill of Rights told a prospective voter that voting was a sacred duty and there were rights associated with it to protect their constitutional right of franchise.  Mr. Struve said Nevada had a long way to go.

 

In the 2000 Presidential Election, of all eligible voters in Nevada, only 39.9 percent cast ballots.  He said it was a close election decided by two percentage points, and Nevada’s electoral votes were decided by less than 20 percent of all eligible voters that lived in the state.  He hoped A.B. 235 would be favorably considered by the Legislature.  He said the recommendation of the Nevada Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy urged the Secretary of State, in cooperation with local voter registrars and governments, to continue his efforts in assessing and improving registration and electoral procedures, including standardization of procedures in ballot format. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Struve who would initially receive the report.  He replied that the bill had been drafted by Senators McGinness and Titus.  In the 2001 Session, the Senate Government Affairs Committee had heard the report.  The chapters to be amended would determine which Committee received it.  He said the report would be distributed to all legislators when the bill was introduced.

Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said he joined the Secretary of State’s HAVA Committee because he felt voting was the essence of democracy, civil liberties, and civil rights.  He said the ACLU would like the sample ballot to include the Voters’ Bill of Rights, even though it was costly.  Dr. Siegel considered provisional balloting important to voting rights.  He thought provisional balloting should be added to A.B. 235. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought the issue with the provisional ballot was the fact that it had not yet been defined.  She said there was discomfort in that provisional balloting only affected the federal races.  She discussed the possibility of expanding it to the local and state races to be less confusing.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that more discussion was required.

 

Assemblywoman Weber said on page 2, line 4, Item 7, needed a verb to describe the action.  She asked if it should be, “To receive a sample ballot which is accurate, informative and delivered in a timely manner.”  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it needed a helping verb.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for the indulgence of the Committee.  She said they had already voted on A.B. 35, and she had a question on whether or not the language should be deleted.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE DO PASS MOTION ON A.B. 35.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the Committee to reconsider A.B. 35.  She said the section in question was page 3, Section 2(b), lines 14 through 17.

 

Assemblyman Grady said that language was put in there when there was a problem with Washoe County, which was no longer germane to the bill.  He said that language should be deleted.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 35.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

********

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 5:43 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: