MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 8, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 4:22 p.m., on Tuesday, April 8, 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.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

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:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel

Kathy Steinle, GIS Specialist

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State of Nevada

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer

Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder

Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas

Janine Hansen, Citizen

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Good afternoon.  [Roll called]  What I’d like to do first, if you wouldn’t mind, is have Scott [Wasserman] and Kathy [Steinle] go through the Washoe County maps, and then as I indicated last week, Mr. Beers was kind enough to let us use his bill jacket.  We can at least move that piece of legislation. 

 

Scott, I don’t think you need to go through every single map, but if you go through at least the first couple, we’ll see if Mr. Anderson or any people from the northern part have any questions.

 

Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel:

[Introduced himself]  Sitting with me is Kathy Steinle.  She’s the GIS specialist.  We, of course, aren’t here to support or oppose any legislation.  We’re just presenting the changes that were requested by Mr. Burk.

 

I’m just going to make a few general remarks about the changes that are in Washoe County.  They affect a much smaller population.  It only affects 50 people in all of these changes.  Most of them have a zero population, and when you go through the maps, you can see that for yourself.  We again limited our review and consideration to only precinct changes that would involve 50 people or fewer, so there’s no significant impact on population totals in the overall plan.  These include all the changes within those parameters that were provided by Mr. Burk, the Registrar of Voters in Washoe County, except for those that did not follow census boundaries.  We weren’t able to incorporate those changes into the proposed changes. 

 

None of the changes affect any incumbents, and the largest change is from Washoe Senatorial District Number 2 to Washoe Senatorial District Number 1 of 42 people.  Statistically, that represents 4/100 of 1 percent of a change between the two senatorial districts.

In the Assembly, only 8 people are affected.  They were moved from Assembly District 30.  Four of them went into Assembly District 24, and four went into Assembly District 32.

 

The Board of Regents and the State Board of Education changes have a census population of zero, so that doesn’t affect the overall population at all.

 

The overall population for the plan stayed the same in the Assembly based on these changes, and in the Senate went down 3/100 of 1 percent.  So it’s in the right direction.

 

Last, but not least, at the last hearing Mr. McCleary had asked me about if freezing the precinct boundaries or if there was a statutory change that was necessary that would help this from occurring in future rounds of redistricting, and I had indicated that the statutes are already in place for that.  I gave it some more thought after I left, and I think that the answer isn’t statutory, it’s a matter of policy, what the Legislature chooses to use to draw their districts.  If you started at the precinct level and stayed there the best that you could, then you wouldn’t have so many of these variations.  If you start at the census block level, and then you just draw new districts and don’t worry about where the existing precincts are, that’s how you end up with all of these mail-in precincts.

 

[Mr. Wasserman continued]  I’ll just go through the first couple of maps as you asked, Madam Chair, and then you can let me know if you have any questions or you’d like me to go through any additional maps (Exhibit C).

 

The first thing I would note is that Kathy gave us some new colors here, so she’s going to test our color blindness.  Hopefully, I can follow along here.  But on the very first one, it follows the same type of pattern as the Clark County maps.  The purple line is the existing Assembly district.  You can see Washoe Senatorial District Number 2 on the right in blue.  Washoe Senatorial District 1 is in yellow on the left.  We’re moving from Washoe Senatorial District 2, that little yellow triangle block, which has a population of zero, and we’re moving that into Washoe Senatorial District 1 if you approve these changes.

 

The second map shows a change from Washoe County Senatorial District 1 to Washoe County Senatorial District 4.  Again, here the yellow line is the existing boundary, and the tan block that you see in Washoe County Senatorial District 1 would move into Washoe County Senatorial District 4. 

 

Unless you would like me to continue with any other maps, I can answer any questions the Committee may have.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

If we look at these two maps together, Washoe 1 will end up with this isolated little block of zero between Longley and McCarran.  I’m familiar with the piece of property between.  It’s part of the University farms.  If we’re going to move that zero population, why don’t we move it in to Washoe 4, if there’s nobody there, rather than isolate it out there in the event that it moves along?  It makes no sense to me.

 

Scott Wasserman:

To answer, the changes are proposed by Mr. Burk, because without the change it creates some type of mail-in precinct.  I think we have to look at the Assembly district, the Senate district, the Board of Regents, and the State Board of Education all at once.  You’d have to lay them on top of each other to see that this should result in all of those matching up.  I will indicate that Mr. Anderson asked us about this first map, and I believe the last one has number 8 on it.  That number 8 was just provided to us just before the hearing today from Mr. Burk, so we haven’t had a chance to look at how these would have worked together.  That is something we can follow up on.  The overall reason for making this change should be because when you overlap all four of those districts, it will make a common precinct.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Instead of a mailing precinct, which was what we were trying to eliminate.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I don’t like to see an isolated block like that sitting in the middle of an island.  Either move it into 2, or since there’s no population there, why would we not just make it consistent with Washoe 2?  I heard your argument relative to the University, but Longley is a common, as is McCarran.  Maybe the problem is that land area south has some population in it.  I figure there’s a golf range there, and I think a couple of houses that are on Pembroke.

 

Scott Wasserman:

Madam Chair, this map that you’re keying in on was one that was just brought to the Committee room because Mr. Burk had just provided that information last minute for us to present this map.  As I study this map, this change cannot occur, because it would create a noncontiguous piece of property.  This one is gone, so you can forget about that one.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s good, because by law it has to be contiguous.  You were looking at this one, or you were looking at this one.  These two.  These are the same, so these two would actually go. 

Scott Wasserman:

They’re mutually exclusive.  We can talk to Mr. Burk, and he has to pick one or the other.  That’s the problem.  By this last-minute change, what happened is you end up with that yellow block.  I’m assuming because his first change wanted us to move that into Washoe Senatorial District 1.  That was necessary to eliminate a mail-in precinct.  If that were the case, then he would want to go with this.  But on the other hand, this last map was probably going to eliminate a mail-in precinct.  I think if the Committee has a preference of which one of these two changes to make, or if not, if Mr. Burk has a preference of which one to include.  They clearly are mutually exclusive.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Do you have a feeling one way or another, Mr. Anderson?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

It seems to me that if we take map number 1, we don’t create an island, and we have the least population change.  If we take map number 2, we would create an issue that we don’t want, plus we have a population change of 32.  It seems to me that if we pick map number 1, we’re okay.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It appears that way.  Do you mind checking with Mr. Burk, then, since you just got this, and then Thursday, when we take up this action, then we can have an answer by then?

 

Scott Wasserman:

Thank you, Madam Chair.  I’d be happy to confirm that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Are there any others that we ought to red-flag that are like this in this group, or was that the only one that you haven’t had time to look at?

 

Scott Wasserman:

It’s only because we didn’t have this one incorporated in the maps that we had a chance to study before the hearing.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Does the Committee have questions on any of the other maps?  We have no further questions.  Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience.

We’ll take up A.B. 375 on work session on Thursday, and we’ll get confirmation on map number 1 versus map number 2.  Our preference, apparently, is number 1 if that works.

 

Let’s try to go to our work session document (Exhibit D).  Michelle [Van Geel] is going to start the work session with A.B. 292.

 

Assembly Bill 292:  Prohibits political subdivisions from challenging initiative petitions, referendums or recalls under certain circumstances. (BDR 24‑329)

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division:

[Introduced herself]  A.B. 292 was heard in Committee on March 27.  Mr. Anderson presented the bill to the Committee.  Essentially, it prohibits a political subdivision in the state from challenging an initiative petition, a referendum petition, or a petition for the recall of a public officer under certain circumstances.

 

There were numerous amendments proposed to the bill.  One of them was in writing.  It’s under Tab A.  The other ones were just verbal amendments that the Committee can discuss. 

 

Amendment number 2 on your work session that isn’t under the tab would amend Section 1, subsection 2, to add language broadening the bill to prohibit private parties from challenging an initiative petition, referendum, or petition for the recall by adding a phrase such as, “or any other entity,” or something similar after the word, “state,” on page 1, line 8.

 

The third proposed amendment is also Section 1, subsection 2, to add language requiring the Attorney General to determine the procedural flaws in an initiative and not the local governments.

 

The fourth one was a broad amendment to the bill that would add language to allow the citizens who proposed the petition to recover legal expenses if they prevail in a court case.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The first one was dealing with the City of Reno’s recommendation, which I think the answer was no.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I think it guts the bill.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I do, too.  The second one was dealing with Mr. Garvin’s recommendation that we add “or any other entity” on page 1, line 8, that would then read, “The government of a political subdivision of the state or agency of the political subdivision or any other entity shall not commence a legal action,” etcetera.  There was discussion from the Committee about adding, “or any other entity” to deal with private parties.  Who else would have standing, not being an attorney?  That’s what I don’t understand.  Would anybody have standing?  Do you know, Mr. Anderson?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I think any private citizen would be free to have standing on their own if they felt that there was something that they wanted to hire an attorney with, and they could bring it to court.  That would be my opinion, and I have no idea.  I’m not an attorney, either.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think this related to the Douglas County issue with the developers entering in and filing a suit under the guise of the local government.  I think that was Mr. Garvin’s concern.  Is there a feeling of wanting to add that protection so that other entities could not challenge the commencement of an initiative petition?  If we say local government shouldn’t, then we probably shouldn’t let other groups do it.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I think that you’re setting yourself up for a problem.  I believe that this was Ms. Freeman’s bill initially, and I have picked it up for her.  I don’t think that she would have accepted that language as being a friendly amendment.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It’s your choice.  It’s your legislation.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I don’t believe that would be helpful.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Then we don’t have to suggest that at this time.  I would ask, and I’ll try to e‑mail Lynn Hettrick, though, because it was in his county, to see if he had any thoughts one way or another on that part of it, if that would be acceptable.

 

Number 3, Section 1, subsection 2, suggested language to require the Attorney General to determine that if someone wished to challenge a legal action, it first had to go to the AG’s office under an expedited procedure.  They would solely rule on whether or not there were procedural flaws in the initiative.  If they said there weren’t, then it goes to ballot.  If they said there was, then I guess it wouldn’t go to ballot.

 

Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties:

[Introduced himself]  This is an idea that was brought up during the hearing.  I took this back to some of the county folks and some of the city folks, and they did like this idea.  We do support this particular amendment, the idea being that if there isn’t some sort of gatekeeping process, the ballot could become flooded with initiative petitions, the majority of which might not be legal or constitutional, and I think this undermines the integrity of the initiative petition process as a whole.  I’ve had some conversations with some of the Committee members on this matter, and for the record, this is a policy decision for you folks to make, whether or not an initiative petition can be challenged before or after it’s placed on the ballot.  It’s your decision.  With that being said, it’s our feeling that a lot of initiatives, many of which aren’t substantial or aren’t legal, could be placed on the ballot if there is not a gatekeeping process.  That’s our concern with this bill.  With due respect, it is your decision as a policy-making body.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Mr. List, can you give me an example of an illegal initiative?

 

Andrew List:

The example would be the one I gave in the prior hearing.  If the citizens of Lincoln County determined that they wanted a swimming pool but didn’t have the money and had enough signatures to put something on the ballot that would allow them to have a county lottery, that’s clearly unconstitutional pursuant to our Constitution.  That’s something, I think, that should be stricken before it goes on the ballot, just because it’s very unconstitutional in nature.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

The swimming pool, or the lottery for the swimming pool, is unconstitutional by Nevada?  I mean, it’s clearly spelled out?  What about other areas?  Is that the only example we’ve got of an illegal initiative?  The only reason I’m asking is I’m coming right back to my question to you during our last meeting.  It’s a matter of letting the elected officials know how people feel about a particular issue.  Anytime you work to curb that, you’re not listening to what the voters have to say.  We have to be very careful with how we proceed with this particular piece of legislation in that regard.  That’s the only reason I ask you if you can give me another example.

Andrew List:

Another example would be the initiative petition on the train trench that was eventually found to be illegal.  The attorney who testified before cited several other court cases where the subject matter of the initiative petition was found to be illegal.  I agree with you wholeheartedly that what’s happened in some unfortunate circumstances appears to be a muting of the voters by their own government.  But I still maintain that if you take the Attorney General to look at some of these measures before they go on the ballot, that’s a gatekeeping process.  I think that the Attorney General is removed enough from the local government as to give an unbiased, nonpolitical opinion.  You’re free to disagree with that point, but that’s what we’re trying to do here.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Just for the record, I don’t think we should thwart their ability to put something on the ballot.  Maybe it needs to be changed.  Instead of demanding something, it needs to be an advisory question.  Their voice has to be heard.  I think that’s critically important.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I agree with Marcus [Conklin] a little bit, but I think by having the Attorney General’s office as a gatekeeper statewide sets the standards, it’s the uniform decisions, and I think it would eliminate a lot of problems down the road.  You don’t want something that goes on the ballot and actually gets voted on and then gets thrown out, because that really sends a bad message to voters.  It’s like, “Why did I bother at all?”  They need to know up front whether or not it’s procedurally correct or constitutional—that high level gate-keeping thing.

 

Andrew List:

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I think that what we’re trying to do here is protect the initiative process and the integrity of that process.  This allows for that.  As I testified before, I’ve actually collected signatures on initiative petitions, and I wouldn’t want all of my time wasted, or all the groups’ time wasted, getting something on the ballot that’s not going to be upheld.  They’re going to have to go through the process again at a later date.  By asking for an opinion first, they’ll find out where they stand with the law.  Again, it’s a non-binding advisory opinion, but the local government would retain their right to have a court decision after it was placed on the ballot after it was voted on.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

We’re talking here about the third point under proposed conceptual amendments, right?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

What this says is, “to determine procedural flaws.”  That does not talk about constitutionality.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Exactly.  That’s my concern.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I support the AG looking at procedural flaws, but not to question the constitutionality.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

How would you define procedural flaws?  That’s a question that I have, because if it’s unconstitutional, then maybe that’s the proper place to say, “You shouldn’t go forward with it.”  If it’s simply a procedural matter, where is that defined to tell us that we feel comfortable that we’re not getting to the same point that the city of Reno had actually first recommended and whether something was “legal”?

 

Andrew List:

Madam Chair, I’m looking at something that’s beyond procedural flaws.  I’m looking for the legality of the measure as a whole; it’s constitutionality and procedural flaws.  The way that I would like to propose the amendment would be to address all three of those issues, not just the procedural matters.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Would you state that again?  Unconstitutional, illegal, or what?

 

Andrew List:

Illegal, or in violation of state law, or some sort of supreme law, federal law.  Also, procedurally, some defect in the procedure.  That might be a timing issue.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Wouldn’t the Secretary of State have to review those types of things before even accepting the initiative petition?

 

Andrew List:

It’s my understanding these initiative petitions go directly to the clerks.  That’s my understanding.  You have a couple of clerks here.  Maybe they can answer that.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Renee, we have a question.  On initiative petitions, do they come to the Secretary of State for review before they go to the clerks, or do they just go directly to the clerks? 

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State:

They go to the clerks first.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

My quandary is in reading the suggested number 3.  It sounded like they were going to be taking the place of the Secretary of State, and I thought that would be incorrect if they’re going to be looking for determining the signature, the incorrect form, whether the petition was prepared in a manner other than procedurally incorrect, which is what page 2 of the bill, lines 1 through 4, before the petition is presented.  I was thinking that they were of the opinion that the Attorney General should be looking at those things, rather than the Secretary of State.  I think that it is a function of clerks at the county’s municipal level to verify that the signatures and correct form and the proper preparation. 

 

I again argue the question is that even as acts of the Legislature may be challenged and disapproved of by the Attorney General, to put the Attorney General into a position of having to make a determination of its constitutionality of a question, I think, is improper.  The opportunity for challenge after the people have spoken, I believe is there, just as after the Legislature has spoken.  I think it takes away the value of the initiative petition process by putting any additional governmental restriction between the voter and the petition gatherers.  It’s not my favorite way to see legislation made, and I surely don’t want us to model ourselves after our sister state to the west, but to quote Jefferson, “The inherent dangers that you have to take: The public sometimes does not always make the best choices, but either you trust them or you don’t.”  That’s kind of a paraphrase.  I’ll go get the exact quote.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

There’s another way of looking at that argument, though.  You can just go out and get signatures on this question that you want to get voted on, but if you don’t know ahead of time that it’s totally unconstitutional, then you’ve wasted a ton of money and everybody’s effort only to be overthrown in the end.

 

Andrew List:

Madam Chair, I agree with you and Assemblywoman McClain that having some sort of an intermediate review does protect the integrity of the process.  I’d like to address the word “procedural.”  The way that I see this happening would be that the county clerks would look at the initiative petitions for the number of signatures, the validity of the signatures, and the things that they currently do.  Procedural items beyond that, legality issues and constitutional issues, would go to the Attorney General’s Office for their review prior to being placed on the ballot.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Well, you woke everybody up, Andrew.

 

Andrew List:

If there are no more questions, I appreciate your time.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I don’t see any right now.  Thank you.  We’ll come back to that.  Let’s talk about number 4 regarding citizens being able to recover legal expenses.  What’s the feeling?  Scratch that.  Scott, since we have you here, where might they define “procedural flaws”?  In the context of initiative petition, if we wanted to add that the Attorney General would review in a nonbinding way for procedural flaws, would that mean that they could just simply recommend something not go on the ballot because it was simply unconstitutional, or it was because it could have been other matters?  I’m just trying to get a handle on what that means.  It’s not in there currently.  It’s been suggested to maybe do it as a review. 

 

The suggestion is that when an initiative petition or a referendum qualify, that some of the cities and counties are asking for an opportunity to have someone do a procedural review, recommending the Attorney General, recommending that it be not binding, right?  Right.  [Mr. List answered in the affirmative.]  It still will go to a vote, unlike what happened with the railroad trench, and then if it passed, the cities or the local governments would have an opportunity to say, “Well, there were these X, Y, and Z flaws with it,” or “It was reviewed and recommended as unconstitutional by the AG’s office.”  What would “illegal” be?

 

Scott Wasserman:

Looking at the language, procedural flaws, I would think, would just be limited to things like verification of signatures, the number of signatures.  It would not go to whether or not the initiative was constitutional.  I don’t believe procedural flaws would include that.  We can certainly clarify that in the language of the amendment if that’s at issue.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The clerks and Ms. Parker seem to agree with you that it doesn’t rise to that standard, but the clerks verify the signatures.  That’s already been done.  What would you accomplish having a procedural review done by the AG?  Or should we just say “review it for unconstitutionality?”

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

On statewide petitions, there have to be a certain number from each county, or something like that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  Thirteen counties.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Not just whether the signatures are right, but it’s also whether they came from the right places.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  The clerks verify for that part of it.  It would not be the AG’s office that would do that.  The clerks currently do that.

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer:

Currently, the clerks do verify the signatures, and we determine if they’re valid or they’re not valid.  That’s really as far as we go.  Sometimes we’ll have affidavits, because there are two affidavits, one for the circulator and one for the petition.  We may have one affidavit that’s been signed and the other affidavit that’s not signed, or the affidavits may not be completed accurately, or the form itself may not be what we would say is the guidelines of the Secretary of State’s Office. 

 

Currently, all we do is verify the signatures, and we do certification back to the Secretary of State’s Office that strictly addresses the signatures—how many were valid, how many were not valid, how many were duplicates, how many were illegible, whatever.  We do not go beyond that for procedural.  In the past, we have notified the Secretary of State’s Office and said, “We have affidavits that may not be completed correctly, or the form is not completed correctly.”  The position has been, “Then someone needs to challenge it.”  I don’t believe that they’ve ever challenged one on that, either.  They just leave it up to the opposing parties to challenge that.  Procedurally, all we do are the signature verifications.  I hope that answers that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Much clearer.  Thank you.

Assemblyman Anderson:

The only group I believe that we’re preventing from challenging is government.  The opportunity for an individual to come forward with it must still be done.  If there is a need for an amendment, and the petition is in an incorrect form, or the petition was prepared in any other manner than procedurally and was procedurally incorrect.  I was under the impression that the Secretary of State’s Office or the local clerk makes sure that they are done with a telephone verifying information to signatures that are gathered that you are a registered voter in that particular county, and you attest to that by your signature.  I’m not a big petition signer personally, so I guess I’m not familiar with the exact nature of those and how they go about verifying the question.  I still think that it’s not going to help us or help those people who are concerned about getting their petitions voted on, which is what this is all about.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Do you have a wind-up Mr. List?  We appreciate you bringing this forward as a recommendation for us to consider as a policy.

 

Andrew List:

Back to the procedural issue, what I’m looking at is procedural issues that are outside of the scope of the procedural issues normally examined by the county clerk.  If there were any additional procedural issues other than counting the number of signatures, making sure that they’re valid, other than those sorts of things, those procedural issues would go to the Attorney General along with legal issues and constitutionality issues.  It would be my hope that if a group asked for an opinion, or one was given as to the legality of their petition, and it was found to not be legal or not stand a chance of being legal, that they would withdraw it, redraw the language, and try again.  That’s my hope.  Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let’s see if I can figure out where we’re at.  We’ve said no to number 1, no to number 2, no to number 4, and no to number 3.  We would accept the bill.  Is there a motion to do pass A.B. 292?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 292.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Constitutionality is out of here?  No one is deciding constitutionality?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY VOTING NO.

 

Assembly Bill 298:  Prohibits public officers and employees from requesting or otherwise causing state and local governments to, under certain circumstances, make expenditures to support or oppose ballot questions or candidates. (BDR 23-408)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 298 was heard in Committee on March 27.  Mr. Parks presented the bill.  Essentially, it would prohibit state and local governments from paying for publications, advertisements, and television programming that are reasonably likely to affect public opinion on a contested matter of public policy.  The measure also prohibits state and local governments from paying for publications, advertisements, or television programming that prominently feature current public officers who are candidates for elective office.

 

Under Tab B (Exhibit D), there are two amendments.  Dan Musgrove of Clark County presented the first one, and Assemblyman Parks proposed the second one.  It would add quite a bit of language to the bill concerning Chapter 281, which is the ethics in government section.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s what his suggestion is.  It’s the same amendment that’s contained in the Senate bill, as well.  That way, they would not be in conflict with each other, so I think that’s probably why he recommended that.  That only note I still had was if this also included constitutional offices for the purposes of advertising.  I think we were told yes.  Is there any discussion on Tab B?  I think Mr. Musgrove worked that language out with Mr. Parks, and Mr. Parks is just paralleling the rest of the bill so that it matches up and does not conflict with the Senate bill that will be coming regarding ethics and public official behavior.  The third motion would be to amend Senator Titus’s name on as a co-sponsor of the legislation.  She amended Mr. Parks’ name onto her bill, which will coordinate on the Senate side, so that would be part of the other amendment.  Hers is different, but there are parts that are the same. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 298 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY MR. MUSGROVE AND MR. PARKS AND ADDING SENATOR TITUS AS A CO-SPONSOR.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

In answer to the question, I’m not sure if they are now matching exactly or if there is a need for both bills, but we’ll find that out, in the meantime, as to the status of the Senate bill.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Assembly Bill 410:  Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-945)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 410 was heard in Committee on March 25.  Assemblyman Sherer presented the bill.  It essentially requires that a person who maintains a residence in another state must agree to forfeit his residency in the other state for voting purposes.  Additionally, A.B. 410 authorizes certain new residents of Nevada to vote for all federal and statewide offices.  The bill also provides the residency requirements include an intent to remain a resident.  A.B. 410 further revises the contents of an application to register to vote and requires, under certain circumstances, county clerks to send notification of cancellation to the respective office in another county or state where the elector previously registered to vote.

 

There were no written amendments for this bill.  There were amendments proposed during testimony.  One would be to delete Section 3.  This was proposed by Assemblyman Sherer, which proposes to authorize certain new residents of Nevada to vote for all federal and statewide offices. 

 

The second amendment would delete Section 7, which, if you delete Section 3, then you need to keep that section that’s under Section 7.

 

The third one would be to delete the new language in Section 4 regarding intent to remain and actually reside as a resident.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think the reason that was recommended is because it could impact negatively our military and students that are out of state going to school.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I can’t remember if somebody asked this question, but in Section 2, subsection 2 states, “If a person maintains more than one residence in another state, the person must, to register to vote in the state of Nevada, agree to forfeit his residency in other states for voting purposes.”  Do we have any way of enforcing that?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

No, and I had a concern about forfeiting, because I think there was a tax issue that was out there.  Some people do maintain different residences.  I don’t think we can direct them where they have to actually choose to register.  I think the issue is you can have as many homes as you wish.  You pick one for your residence for the purposes of voting.  I had a question mark on letter F of Section 5, page 3. 

 

Assemblyman Beers:

How about if we changed that, focusing in on page 3, lines 37 and 38.  If it said something more along the lines of “agree to only vote in Nevada.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Something like that would be a lot better.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

More direct for you grammaticians, grammarians, whatever you guys are.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think that might get us closer, Mr. Beers.  Notice that if a person maintains one or more residences in another state, the person must register to vote in the state of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Say, “and agree to both as a condition to vote.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

“Agree to cast a vote in only one state.”

 

Assemblyman Beers:

A notice that if a person maintains one or more residences in another state, a person must, to register to vote in the state of Nevada, agree to not vote in any other state.  Presumably, we’d have to do the same thing on the next page.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Just out of curiosity, is there anything unconstitutional about asking somebody in that manner?  Because now it’s a little broad, and I think we’re headed in the right direction, but I’m just curious.  Is there ever a case when somebody maintains their residency here, but maybe they’re not here during the primary, and they’re somewhere else?  So they vote during the primary, maybe it’s a June primary, and they come to Las Vegas for the winter months.  They’re here in November, so they vote on our ticket.  Do you see what I’m getting at?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think that’s the whole idea or concept of “snowbird.”  Can they vote in another state where they’re registered for the six months that they’re there, and they also establish residency here?  It’s a different election.  It’s not a presidential, although it could be.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

May I offer up an addition to Assemblyman Beers’ suggestion?  Maybe at the end of—and I can’t remember the exact language that he is proposing—we can put, “for each election,” or something thereto.  They vote only once during that time period.  Does that solve that problem?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That solves the problem.  I don’t think it’s enforceable, but at least conceptually fair.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

We can’t enforce this.  There’s no way.  I don’t understand the need for the legislation if we can’t enforce it.  There’s never going to be a case in history where we’re going to actually indict somebody for this.  I don’t understand why we’re even considering it.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s valid.  What’s the feeling of the Committee?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Do you want to IP?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would rather not vote it down.  I’d rather just let it go to rest, if that’s the case, if that’s acceptable.  If there’s something that comes up when we’re dealing with HAVA, because it will be here still, I am going to get it exempted for you.  I asked the Speaker and he agreed that he would do that.  So we’ll just let this one go to sleep. 

 

Assembly Bill 375:  Makes minor revisions to districts from which certain members of Legislature, State Board of Education and Board of Regents of University of Nevada are elected. (BDR 17-732)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Mr. Beers, we’re going to move A.B. 375 to Thursday for work session so we can make sure we know what to do with that one map.  You did agree to number 1?  Well, if the Committee wants to, we can at least move that for amendment purposes so they can begin drafting.  I think we have to delete all the references in A.B. 375 and insert the maps that have been proposed and the description of the maps and their census that have been proposed last week and then today from LCB, in that we would accept map number 1 from Washoe County that had been presented today in lieu of map number 8.  We would note the census blocs that are contained within those changes that are there with the policy that no more than 50 people were affected in population. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 375.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We will open up the hearing on A.B. 412.

 

Assembly Bill 412:  Increases the period of residency required to qualify as candidate for certain offices. (BDR 24-359)

 

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, District No. 15, Clark County:

[Introduced herself]  I’ll give a little background on this bill, which doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot at this point.  When Myrna Williams and I were walking door to door this summer, we got to talking about different little nuances to what we had to do to get elected.  We came up with about six different things that we wanted to change in election laws, everything from a 2-day filing period to scare everybody off, and primaries in May so we didn’t have to walk in the dead heat of summer.  We were very creative. 

 

One of the things that was not a joke was changing the residency requirement.  It took a while to get this drafted, because we weren’t too sure if it was constitutional.  Since we’re talking about districts that have boundaries, it is constitutional.  We’d like to change it from the 30 days to 6 months.  The reasoning behind that is you’re elected to represent a certain set of constituents.  I think it’s only fair that you live in that area and actually know what is happening in that area, and are at least be able to find your way home after dark.  That’s the premise of this bill, to change the 30 days to a 6-month residency requirement.  I don’t think it’s unreasonable.  In partisan races, you have to be a member of your party for a certain period of time before you can file.  That’s what this bill does. 

The other thing that we seriously did talk about was moving the primary date up.  With all the talk with HAVA, and it looks like it’s going to be difficult for registrars and county clerks to be able to get some of that stuff done in those time lines, it looked like maybe that was going to happen anyhow, so I didn’t have it included in this bill.  I would like to suggest that maybe we include some language in here just in case something happens with some of the other bills that are out there.  I think we need to have a longer period of time between the primary and the general, and much shorter from filing to primary.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  People get so sick of those signs, number one.  The sooner you can have the primary, the sooner you cut out a whole lot of those signs and a whole lot of the mailing that people just throw in the trash.  I think it would be to everybody’s benefit if we moved the primary date back quite a bit.  I’ll leave it up to the Committee.  I’d like to see it happen in June, or even July.  That’s my bill in a nutshell.  I’d be happy to answer any questions.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That reminded me, that was the other conversation that we had.  Actually, I like walking in the heat, because it's my biannual diet plan.  Did we find out whether or not we could require that campaign signs could not be put up until you filed for office?

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I think I fell down on that job.  You’re right.  I was supposed to find out something, because I know Boulder City has a local ordinance. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We know we can’t constitutionally ban them, but maybe we could tighten the time frame.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

You can’t get rid of one class of signs without getting rid of all of the signs.  That would really go over in Las Vegas, wouldn’t it?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Since we’re going to do this in work session on Thursday, do you mind just double-checking to see if we could do that?  Once you’re a candidate, then your signs can go out, but you’re not a candidate until you file, so maybe that ties it together without impinging.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Ms. McClain, I see that you are also including changing all the city charters.  Have you talked to the cities on this?

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

No, I haven’t.  I think that’s just to keep it clean.  It’s designed to affect any race that has set boundaries, so I’m assuming that since cities have wards and districts—

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Not all.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Any at-large district I don’t think qualifies under this.  Maybe we could have Legal check that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Check that, because the general law ones don’t, right?  We’ll double-check that.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I’m trying to remember, but I think that if this law were in effect I wouldn’t be here.  Let me explain this.  I decided to run in August of 2001, and about 4 weeks later the new redistricting maps came out and I was no longer in the district that I had lived in for 5 years.  I missed it by 10 blocks.  So I moved, but I didn’t manage to get a house fast enough to have fulfilled this 6 months.  Maybe it would be all right because I moved back into the district I was in.  Anyway, that’s something to think about.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s a point we might need to have some language that says unless in a year where redistricting occurs, because almost everybody was affected in some way, shape, or form of no longer being in either their precinct or their districts.  That might be something interesting to take a look at.  Maybe we can have that looked at as well.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

The question I thought had to do with you should be able to move into a district, and if you registered to vote within that district, you should be able to run for office within that district.  If you qualify as a voter in that district, then I believe you’re supposed to be able to qualify as a candidate in that district providing there are no other barriers to you than that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would think as a qualified “elector” you probably would, but we’ll double-check to make sure that language is appropriate if that’s what the body wants to take a look at.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Three things.  First of all, if—and all due respect to Peggy’s situation—if we’re going to do some sort of year when we do redistricting, I would suggest the language also include a phrase that you can move to any adjacent district.  I like this piece of legislation, as point number 2, because in my race there were 7 candidates in the primary across two different parties, over half of which would not have been able to run because they just moved to the district simply because it was an open seat to run.  Some of them moved from across town, some of them moved from upstate, some of them moved from out of state.  I think that’s what the heart of the bill is trying to get at, and it’s even more of a problem during years in which we redistrict.  In Peggy’s case, I certainly understand where she’s coming from.  I’d just like to see something in there that says adjacent.  Finally, to add in terms of qualified elector, I think there’s plenty of precedent, even in the U.S. Constitution, where a residency requirement stands that is at least 6 months or longer in order to run for office on a state U.S. Congress, Senate, et cetera.  I don’t think this is out of line.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I agree.  I don’t think this stifles anybody from running for office.  It just says if you’re going to run for office, then add a little more than 30 days.  I think it’s important that you understand the area that you’re going to be representing.  I think that’s vital.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I want to apologize to my colleague from District 15.  When I signed on to this legislation, I thought the residency requirement was for the state of Nevada.  I didn’t realize it was for your district.  I don’t know if I can buy into that totally.  I can see requiring someone to be here in Nevada for 6 months before they become a candidate.  That makes sense to me.  But if I live on the east side of town, and I just changed into another district, I still know that part of town.  I apologize I signed on.  I may have misunderstood.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Let me go back to Article II of the Constitution.  “All citizens of the United States (not laboring under disabilities named in this Constitution), of the age of eighteen years and upwards, who shall have actually, and not constructively, resided in the state six months, and in the district or county thirty days next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that are now or hereafter may be elected by the people, and upon all questions,” et cetera.

 

“The Legislature may provide by law the conditions under which a citizen of the United States who does not have the status of an elector in another state and who does not meet the residence requirements of this section may vote in this state for President and Vice President.”  That’s when I talked last week about we already have some form of provisional for those individuals who did not get registered, if you move to Nevada, they have to give you that ballot at least for president and vice president.  That’s the only discussion regarding residency, and it is for the state.  So what you’re saying is this would be considered constitutional, because now we’re redefining legislatively the district that they must reside in.  Is that what Legal told you?

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

That’s the way I understand it, yes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Aren’t Congresspeople not required to live in their district even after they are elected?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

They do not have to reside in their district.  They don’t have to live within their boundaries.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Do they have to live within their state?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

They do have to be within the state, but not within their district.  We know for sure before they get elected they don’t have to.  Renee’s [Parker] going to check to see now if once they get elected they have to maintain a residence within their district.

 

Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:

[Introduced himself]  We oppose this bill (Exhibit E), because we see the bill primarily in relationship to the rights of the voter and the proposed candidate.  If this bill passes, the voter stands to get fewer choices of candidates.  The voter has nothing to gain by this bill.  The voter would have a certain percentage, a certain proportion of potential candidates who have come into his or her district, more than thirty days but less than six months, who would not be able to be a candidate in the district.  The voter loses that choice.  The voter, without this bill, has the choice that Ms. McClain makes, which is they can take into consideration the point that Ms. McClain has stated.  It’s too new a resident.  I take that into consideration when I vote for people.  They really don’t know the territory.  I don’t want to vote for them for that reason. 

 

The question of constitutionality came up.  I’m not sure how it would go, but I would tell you this:  It was a constitutional issue when we had the right to vote at more than thirty days.  If we make the right to be a candidate for more than thirty days, it may or may not be ruled unconstitutional by a court of law.  Yes, the Congressmen, Hillary Clinton, Robert Kennedy, the gentleman from Massachusetts who just got elected Governor, he was probably there a little more than six months, but serious residential issues came in, and people have been able to run for legislative office.  The ACLU and myself feel that this is something we should look at primarily in relationship to keeping as large as possible the choice of the voter and the options of somebody to run in a district they are eligible to vote in.  Having moved into that district, presumably they’re not eligible to vote or to run for office in any other district.  I think they should be able to run for office in the district they have moved in, and I’ll leave it at that.  Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  I think the issue comes down to carpetbaggers, that used to be the terminology.  When you look at the growth, at least in southern Nevada, for the last 10 years, it’s a non-issue in many of the campaigns as far as that is concerned.  I do think, though, that the 30 days was arbitrary.  Six months could be arbitrary.  Forty-five days could be arbitrary.  I think Ms. McClain’s intent is quite well founded, at least to make sure that someone that chooses to run for office at least is aware of where their district is and the boundary lines and maybe where City Hall is located.  There have been people who have run for office that don’t have that idea.  We’ll think about it, but truthfully, all of the dates that we tend to pick are arbitrary, so we’ll just have to see if there’s any appetite on Thursday on where we might want to land on something like this.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I’m not advocating this, but would it be legal for us to say you must be a resident for seven years before running for the Legislature?

 

Richard Siegel:

If I could answer that, it would not.  It would be considered arbitrary and unreasonable by the courts.  The courts have set a 30-day limit on residency for voting, and I feel reasonably sure they would use the same standard for residency for candidacy.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Seven years is out, Bob.

Barbara Reed:

There is a state law already addressing the district attorney, and the district attorney does not have to live within the county to be able to run for the seat in another county.  If you’re going to do that, we’ll have to look at that section.  It talks specifically about district attorneys.

 

My second question, I think from what was stated, if they run countywide like our commissioners, and if they’re born and raised in the county, and they live in this district but then move to another district, if they run at large this doesn’t affect them.  It’s only the ones that are elected by district.  Is that correct?  Okay.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  That’s interesting to know, as well, about the DA.  Are there any further questions for Ms. McClain?  [There were none.]  Maybe what we’ll do, Kathy, if you can at least check on the issue on the signs, maybe what we could do is put it together on Thursday, and maybe the clerks might want to respond to this or get us something as well.  If we move the primary date back, even a couple of weeks, what would the impact be if we continued filing in May?  I don’t know time-wise what that might do.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, but I think that how a campaign works.  It seems to be set by the most energetic person.  If we set it back in May, and we have some real go-getter, we’re going to be walking all summer.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I agree.  You’re absolutely right.  It’s not going to stop that.  I was jesting on that area.  You were talking about the primary date.  I just think we need to move it a little bit.  For nothing more to get rid of sign pollution.  As far as the six-month residency, even if you want to make it three months.  I’m dead against carpetbaggers.  You need to know where you live, and you need to know the problems in your area.  That’s my final word.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I remember talking to a couple of first-time candidates who were shocked by how, in their mind, short a period of time there was for switching gears from a primary election into a general election.  I think that was part of your impetus as well, but personally, I would not like to go back to May.  I think you need a couple of months in between.  Even though people don’t like the length of the election, the problem is some people choose to start running in January.  You can’t fix that.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

I’m starting right after session.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Chad’s ready.  He’s chomping at the bit.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

If you look at the filing period, you couldn’t set the primary in June, realistically, because you file in May.  I think you could shorten that primary period quite a bit.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:

[Introduced himself]  On the issue of the primary date, for the newer members in here, the clerks have been coming for quite a number of years asking to have the primary date changed.  I’d like to report that 16 of the clerks and registrars would prefer a May date to have the primary, because we’ve always wanted more time between the primary and the general to get the ballots laid out and handle any conflicts or challenges. 

 

It became a little more important this year because of federal legislation for getting the military ballots overseas in 45 days.  Working with the Secretary of State’s Office over on the Senate side, we may have mitigated that problem.  However, I must tell you that Larry Lomax is opposed to a May primary date change.  He would prefer something like the third or fourth Tuesday in August on the grounds that to train the number of election workers that he has, he would probably have to spend quite a bit more money retraining them again before the general.  That is a valid argument, because they do tend to forget.  You’re training in May, and then you’re training again in October. 

 

The rest of us very much would like to go to a May date in there.  No date is good, because school is either in, or it’s out, or there is a holiday.  Those dates in August we looked at—I went back to the office after we had discussed it, and the ladies in my office who have children said, “Oh, no.  That’s the first day school starts.  That is absolutely the worst day you could do.”  The third Tuesday in August would certainly help us an awful lot.  Again, I think Barbara might speak to this, but May is what everybody else prefers, because it really would make the flow of the election much smoother in there and handle challenges.  When we got to printing that general election ballot, it would be nice and clean and ready to go.  We could guarantee that those voters overseas would get their ballots, and to me that’s terribly important and worth doing.  That’s your decision.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thanks Alan, for reminding me.  We have quite a few members who didn’t know that you guys had long argued for that.  Unfortunately, those of us up here haven’t bought into it.  Not necessarily other than the intent is because the voters do get tired of being mailed to and called and signed and whatever.  That would actually force people into campaigning even earlier than they already do for a longer period of time, which kind of controverts itself to what Ms. McClain was attempting to do.  Maybe there is some reasonableness to looking at an August date, and maybe we can play around with dates just to see.  Even if it’s two weeks earlier, that could give you a little more time to mail.  Maybe we have to back up filing.  Maybe filing is the last week of April instead of the first two weeks of May, and then that kind of gives you a little bit of a flow.  Maybe we’ll play around with some dates that way and see what that might do.

 

Barbara Reed:

I just have a very brief comment.  I don’t think two weeks into August would impact us any as far as having to change any other dates.  I think the clerks could easily live with the filing period that we now have, and all the other dates could stay in place.  I will tell you just so you have this information, that third Tuesday in August is the day after the taxes are due.  For those of us that are combined offices, clerk-treasurers, I believe there are eight of us in the state, the first installment for taxes are due on that third Monday in August.  The reason that happened was it used to be July, and because the Legislature didn’t have the 120 days, it kept going later and later.  We would be very happy to come back and ask that the tax day become due in July, which definitely would then negate any conflict.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think if you went into the third week of August, you’d run into year-round schools’ first day of school in some cases, too.  Maybe the second week might be something better to look at.

 

Barbara Reed:

I think we can live with the other days that are in place with maybe a little bit of tweaking, but I think we’d enough time if we just went into August.

 

Renee Parker:

With respect to your comment about when you become a candidate, it’s when you file for candidacy.  Actually, the statutes now state that as soon as you get $100 in contributions, you’re a candidate.  You’re going to need to look at that if you deal with the signs as of filing.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

You’re right.  I completely forgot about that.  Thanks, Renee.  Okay, no further testimony.  We’re moving along here.  A.B. 412 is closed.  Kathy, you’ll ask the signage questions, and we’ll put a little calendar together.  We’ll open the hearing on A.B. 421.

 

Assembly Bill 421:  Requires that candidates for certain nonpartisan offices who are unopposed be declared elected to office after primary election under certain circumstances. (BDR 24-847)

 

Assemblywoman Valerie Weber, District No. 5, Clark County:

[Introduced herself and read from a prepared statement (Exhibit F)]  I’m bringing before you an amended version of what you got originally as a bill, and I only have my name on there as a sole sponsor because it was incorrect when it came out of the bill drafting.  It may have been an error in the idea versus what the concept was that was written down.  This is a practical bill that can assist voters in several ways.  The goal of this bill is simple.  If a nonpartisan race has only one candidate running unopposed, the name of the candidate shall appear on the primary election ballot.  Currently, the name of this candidate goes on the general election ballot.  Recall that these unopposed candidates only require one vote to be elected to their respective offices.

 

We are going to examine, and you should have it in your packet behind that yellow cover sheet, the amendment as a whole.  We’re looking at NRS 293.260, Section 1, subsection 5, on page 2.  That’s pretty much the guts of the bill.  You can see that there are only two changes, the unopposed nonpartisan candidates, and the partisan and Supreme Court Justice candidates.  The latter part of these must appear on the general election ballot and be declared elected at the time of that election as required by Article 6, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution.  This bill would not affect them.

 

The benefits from this bill are several.  I put down five, but we could probably create more.  The modification unclogs the general election ballot where choices in other races are required.  For example, at least 16 names would have been shifted from the 2002 general election ballot in Clark County to the primary ballot had this legislation been in effect at that time.  If we look farther back at the 2000 general election, there would have been 14 fewer names on that ballot as well that would have shifted to the primary ballot.  This could significantly remove up to one-third of the candidate names by office that we see now.  With the initiatives in critical races for voters to ponder, this alleviates the voter of longer times to cast his or her ballot. 

 

Of course, as Assemblywoman McClain just said, part of this should help get rid of those cherished campaign signs that we see all over Clark County sooner so that we can have our open spaces back.

 

The third item there is the candidate, as we recall, only needs one vote to be declared the winner of that race anyway.

 

I do feel it is important—and that’s why the bill was changed—that the candidate’s name actually appears on the ballot as opposed to the way the bill was originally written.  I think that’s critical for name recognition for those of us who have worked hard in those races.  Plus, I think you’ll find, even in other states, that they do actually declare if there is no other opposition at the close of filing.  This is a place where we wanted the name to actually appear on the ballot.

 

Please note again that this does not apply to Supreme Court Justice candidates due to the constitutional restraints at this time, or partisan offices that go unopposed.

 

In summary, this bill is practical, it assists voters, candidates, the environment, and makes the process more efficient.  I urge your support for passage of this particular bill.  I’m open for any questions.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Actually, I like this bill.  I’ve brought similar legislation in the past.  If I remember my notes, and I didn’t bring them in with me, but research showed that Nevada is one of the only states where you force someone—a primary is a nomination.  That’s really where you’re being selected by your party, so to speak.  We don’t go as formal as some states do, but if three Republicans and two Democrats get in a race, then it’s proper that you do your selection and your primary election, and then whoever goes to meet off.  If there are only two or one or three Republicans in the primary, and no Democrats and no minor party, or vice versa, that is when you are selected.  That individual that’s selected in most other states, if I recall correctly, doesn’t have to go to a general election.  They are duly elected at that time, because no other group chose to get in. 

 

We make them have to run for general election instead, so they have an 8‑month old contest instead of one that was resolved during the selection process, which was what the intent of the primary is.  It’s an interesting conversation to have.  I don’t know where anybody is going to land, but Valerie and I had talked about this.  I tried to find my old notes regarding the research that I had done several years ago on that matter.

Assemblyman Anderson:

The only question I have is whether the states that allow this to take place are open primary states or closed primary states.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

I will have to look that up, because I’m looking at two states that are included in your materials in the back, and there’s Florida and Hawaii.  I will have to determine if those states are open or closed primaries.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Are there any other questions from the Committee for Ms. Weber?  [There were none.]

 

Dan Musgrove, Clark County:

[Introduced himself]  On behalf of the Clark County Election Department, as she testified to, 25 percent of the general election ballot in Clark County was unopposed candidates.  Obviously, our AVC machine, which is the full-face machine this last general election— we literally almost ran out of space because of all of the advisory questions.  We did a fiscal note based on the original bill, which would have allowed them not to even go on the primary.  Considering the general and all the unopposed candidates, we would save about $90,000 just on the printing of the ballots.  I imagine that every county in the state would probably save money, although you would see them on the primary.  We didn’t do a fiscal note on that.  Obviously, any way that the Legislature can help us save space on these ballots, I think, makes it easier for the voter as well.  We support the intent and stand open to questions.  Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

There are no questions for you.  Thank you very much.

 

Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union:

I don’t like to be in the position of opposing two bills that came out of the members of this Committee, but I am (Exhibit G).  I appreciate the very practical reasons why this bill has been proposed.  In its initial form, it would not have had the name on the ballot at all, and that was wholly unacceptable, because we really need to legitimize the election by having an election.  That was the idea in the original thing, that we wouldn’t have had an election. 

 

I think there are two things that are very good reasons to put this name on the general election ballot.  I understand those practical reasons for not doing it, but it puts the name before the larger number of voters, sometimes three or four times more voters than would have been.  I think that adds to the legitimacy of this nonpartisan candidate.  Let us remember that the primary election ballot is primarily, as the Chair said, to sort out the party candidates for a general election.  That is the primary reason.  We wouldn’t have a primary election in many cases if we weren’t in need of sorting out the party candidates for the general election.  I want these nonpartisan offices, the mayor of Reno, for example, the council members.  I want them to go before all of the people of Reno that come to the larger general election, not the election that we created only to sort out party choices.  For that reason, I think this bill has been moving in the right direction with the amendment, but legitimacy comes from the general election, not from the primary election.  Thank you.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Are there any questions from the Committee for Dr. Siegel?  Seeing none, is there anyone here to testify on behalf of A.B. 421?  Are there any closing comments?

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

I just wanted to make a comment from Mr. Siegel’s comments.  The races that we’re looking at here are primarily district court positions that have been occupied by the same individuals season after season.  Those names are well-known in the community.  That’s why nobody runs against them, primarily—not using primarily as my platform there.  I just wanted to point that out that those are the positions that we’re looking at—justice court and district court positions.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition to A.B. 421?

 

Barbara Reed:

I only have a couple of concerns.  We are a closed primary state, and so 16 of the counties could be forced to have a primary election when we currently may not have a primary election.  If we do not have anybody that has filed to create a primary election for nonpartisan, like school board, or the sheriff, or justice of the peace, then we obviously do not have to have an election for the nonpartisan ballot.  The cost for 16 of the counties could be increased, because we would then have to do a primary election.  Philosophically, I think it’s a good idea, but we are going to probably drive the cost up in 16 counties.  Carson City is exempt, because they are under the city charter, and everybody is nonpartisan in Carson City.  They’re going to have an election for nonpartisan regardless of whether they have anybody file or not.  There could be a fiscal impact on 16 of the counties.

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Are there any questions for Ms. Reed?  [There were none.]  Thank you.  Is anyone else looking to testify in opposition to A.B. 421?  Seeing none, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 421 and open the hearing on A.B. 422.

 

Assembly Bill 422:  Exempts State of Nevada from provisions of federal law requiring daylight saving time. (BDR 19-128)

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I apologize if I’m not my usual sparkling self.  I’m recovering from having had to set my clock ahead an hour on Sunday morning.  This is a proposal that the body has heard before; not this Committee, but this is floated at least every five years, twice a decade in the Legislature for the last couple of decades.

 

The Committee may find it useful to get a brief history of daylight savings time.  I had Mr. Erickson prepare a brief (Exhibit H), which I’d be happy to pass out to folks, but basically, the daylight savings time was part of the Federal Uniform Time Act of 1966.  Prior to that time, time was variable.  There was a famed horror story told to the federal government, before they passed this legislation, of a 35-mile bus ride from Steubenville, Ohio, to Moundsville, West Virginia, that crossed seven time zones.  Pretty much everybody kept whatever time they liked, and that’s how the world worked.

 

In 1966, the federal government stepped in and said, “We’re going to have uniform time.”  At that point, daylight savings time was also invented.  It was stated at the time that this would save dollars in terms of fewer traffic accidents, and it would save energy.  Those were the two primary rationales for it.  I have no statistical data that would indicate that it has saved on traffic accidents, or as I might contend from a more visceral level, caused traffic accidents.  I know I’m not quite as sharp on that Monday after we change time.  To the best of my knowledge, I’ve not received a ticket or caused a traffic accident because of that. 

 

A couple of times, we’ve looked at year-round daylight savings time as a nation.  The first was during World War II.  At that point, to conserve electrical power was the rationale, and that lasted for two and a half years.  Late in 1973, we were faced with another energy crisis, so Congress passed year-round daylight savings time.  Winter came, the citizens at home rebelled, and Congress repealed the year-round daylight savings time before it had actually been implemented for a full year.

 

Here in the state, the 1977 Legislature looked at a joint resolution to adopt perpetual daylight savings time to where we would always be one hour ahead.  It passed both houses of the Legislature, and I’ll read directly from the Research brief:  “... but was withheld from enrollment by the Legislative Counsel pursuant to Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 34.  Unfortunately, a copy of that opinion is not available from the office of the Legislative Counsel.”

 

In that same year, there is also a bill that died in the Assembly Committee on Environment and Public Resources.  No hearing was held, but that was the same year the resolution went forward.  In the 1997 Session, there was a bill essentially identical to this that I proposed today, and the bill sponsor, somewhat like I feel, said that he would have preferred that we stay on daylight savings time year round.  However, the federal law that creates daylight savings time does not allow that.  Your choice is operate under the federal, move it ahead an hour in the spring, move it back an hour in the fall, or standard time.  Arizona, as many of you southern Nevadans know when you drive across the dam in the summer, is on the same time zone as us.  That’s because they do not observe daylight savings time.  However, they are at the west edge of their time zone boundary.  We, on the other hand, are on the east edge of our time zone boundary, so it may not make as much sense.

 

Aside from my joking personal motive of having a hard time adjusting now that I’ve become old, inflexible, and a parent of a teenager, it strikes me that the energy-saving intent of the federal government is lost on at least 70 percent of our state.  That’s because we don’t use energy to make ourselves hotter like most of the rest of the country does.  We use our energy to cool ourselves down.  In fact, adding that extra hour of sunlight after work increases southern Nevada’s energy consumption.  We’ve got to run the air conditioner a little bit longer.

 

With that brief history and personal observations, I remain open for any questions that you might have.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Mr. Beers, the bill is proposing that we stay on time currently, correct?  So we would stay with Arizona year-round.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

We would be an hour off from Arizona year-round.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Thank you for the clarification.  Are there any questions for Mr. Beers?

Assemblywoman Pierce:

That was just riveting.  I always thought that it was an agricultural thing.  I thought it had to do with cows and things of which I know nothing.  I also thought it went way back before 1966.  I don’t actually remember this happening.  Thank you very much for that.  It was elucidating.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Assemblywoman Pierce, I think daylight savings time existed before this federal legislation in the 1960s, but it was haphazardly applied.  Some localities, or perhaps even individual states, said, “We will do this,” but there was no consistent application.  You’re not old enough to, but your mother may have some older memory of daylight savings time having existed before you were born.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Are there any other serious questions for Mr. Beers?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

It’s not a serious question.  It’s just a historic note, I guess.  Living in a railroad household that never changes from standard time to daylight savings time, it used to be a requirement in my house that we had two clocks.  My father, in the railroad, did not change when everybody else changed it.  The railroad still operated on standard time.  That’s the way it was.  I applaud Mr. Beers for returning us to the age of steam.  I think that’s really great.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Mr. Vice Chair, my new motto is, “Only one clock in every house.”

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Mr. Anderson, I think Mr. Beers likes the age of steam.  He might be full of it.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

When they passed that law, that was before digital clocks that are impossible to get right.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

That’s true.  This law did predate digital clocks.  All you needed to do was move the hand around or change the dial.  Now most of us, at least in my household, just wait for the time to change back again in seven months, and the VCR is right back on track.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

This is serious.  What time is the atomic clock set in Colorado?

Assemblyman Beers:

I believe that the standard for time is Greenwich Mean Time, which is London.  The atomic clock beats to a cesium heart that I think transcends us humans.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Just one more question, and I think it’s just as valid as some of the ones I’ve heard.  When considering this, did you consider Zulu time by any chance, and are you familiar with that concept?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Zulu time, I think, is a synonym for Greenwich Mean Time.  Yes, I thought deeply about Zulu time.  It’s either plus 7 or plus 8, depending on which season we’re in here in Nevada.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Then every clock in the world could be the same time.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Harmony and peace is my legislative goal, and if synchronizing the world’s clocks is a part of that, I’m pleased to have had a small hand in the legislative solution.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Thank you, Mr. Beers.  Seeing no more questions for you, I think we’ll move on.  I can see from the check-in list that you have a lot of support on this legislation.

 

Janine Hansen, Citizen:

[Introduced herself]  I enjoyed your good humor.  We all need that at this point in time.  I just want to bring up two issues with regards to this.  I’m always in favor of Nevada being willing to exempt itself from federal provisions.  I think this is a very important issue where we would establish our sovereignty as a state.  However, let me tell you one problem that arises for some people with regards to changing the time.

 

Several years ago, I found myself a week before Christmas sitting in a chair bawling.  I said, “What in the world is the matter with me?”  I decided that I needed to look up some issues on depression, and I discovered that I had what’s called SAD—Seasonal Affective Disorder—that many women, and some men, suffer from.  It has to do with light.  You need to get enough light for certain processes in your body. 

 

Particularly, it affects you with regards to depression.  It’s very difficult for people who have Seasonal Affective Disorder in the dark wintertime when we are on standard time, rather than on daylight savings.  I love daylight savings time, not because we change the clocks—I hate that, just like Mr. Beers.  I love it because I feel better, and a lot of people with Seasonal Affective Disorder do have that same difficulty.  My sister-in-law used to go to Arizona in the wintertime in order to avoid some of the problems that develop because of that.  I just wanted to bring that to your attention.  A lot of people are affected in their health, particularly women, with regards to Seasonal Affective Disorder.  Daylight savings time does help that.  I would prefer to be on it all year round and not change at all.  That’s the conclusion of my testimony.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

In reading over some of the literature about this, another approach that’s been contemplated, because the sentiment that “I’d like to be on daylight savings time year-round” is not uncommon.  The way that we could potentially tackle that—because it is expressly against the federal law, of course, other than telling the federal government to pound sand—would be to move Nevada via legislation into the Mountain time zone.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Then we’d be on the same clock as Utah, with the exception that we would never change our clock.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Right.  Or Arizona.

 

Janine Hansen:

I’m receiving messages from the back of the room to tell you to do that.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Everybody likes that.  I won’t ask for a show of hands.  Are there any other questions for Ms. Hansen?  [There were none.]  Thank you.  Is there anyone else wishing to testify either for or against A.B. 422?  Seeing none, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 422, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 528.

 

Assembly Bill 528:  Makes various changes to provisions governing elections and campaign finance. (BDR 24-559)

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State:

[Introduced herself]  A.B. 528 is our bill, which is essentially a clean-up bill.  It includes some provisions that we brought last session.  The bill from last session died because it had statewide voter registration in it.  It is federal case law that was passed to bring our statute into conformance with the federal case law, clarify some of the issues in the statutes that the clerks and registrars in our office receive complaints or requests for clarification on, essentially on a daily basis. 

 

I did pass out some amendments last Thursday when this was originally going to be heard (Exhibit I).  I’m hoping the Committee has those in front of them.  Do you have those amendments?

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

They were just passed out again.  There’s only one page, correct?

 

Renee Parker:

Correct.  I’ll just give you a brief explanation.  I am requesting that we delete Sections 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, and 26 through 38.  The way it came out of drafting, that wasn’t our intention, but I think that was because we weren’t really clear on our intent.  I can’t actually remember what we were really trying to accomplish, so let’s just delete those provisions.  I think we wanted a cleanup change, and I think it’s been taken care of in other legislation.

 

Moving on to Section 4 of the bill, what we’re asking is to put specific provisions in Title 24 saying how you count the days.  We ran into an issue last session with the special session.  There was an issue where legislators couldn’t accept contributions after a certain time frame, and the Governor was trying to decide whether he was going to issue the proclamation on a Friday or a Saturday, and how that impacted it. 

 

In working with Ms. Erdoes, we were looking at that, and there was no provision in Title 24.  We all were in agreement that we use the default NRS provision in the beginning of the NRS.  That was one issue that brought to our attention that there weren’t provisions in Title 24.  The clerks and the registrars also have received several questions, as has our office, with respect to challenges and the time frame for computing a challenge, and the 7-day period—which you’re very familiar with, Mr. Vice Chairman—how you count the days. 

 

We’re just asking to specify in Title 24, for purposes for filings under Title 24, actions that are required.  Here’s how you count:  In computing the time period, Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and holidays proclaimed by the Governor are counted, so we are all on the same page on when an act is due.  It’s just a cleanup change.

 

Section 5.  There was a Supreme Court case in Buckley v. Valeo where it was decided that a circulator of a petition is not required to be a registered voter.  The changes in this section state that the circulator can sign and verify the petition.  I’ve also submitted an amendment to make that change into Chapter 306, which are the recall statutes, but we can’t make the same changes to statute in Chapter 295, initiatives and referendums, and we cannot make the change in that statute because under the Constitution, I think it’s Article 19, Section 3, a signer of the petition must also sign the verification.  That may not be able to be the circulator.  You’d have to have somebody that was signing the petition.  This is to bring the law into conformance with Buckley.  This was a sign that our Deputy Attorney General recommended we bring last session.  Like I said, it unfortunately was tied to a bill that had some provisions that died.  I believe it got passed out of the Senate at 12:01 a.m. in that whole daylight savings [sine die] fiasco last session.

 

In Section 6, subsection 1, changes were made by LCB.  Instead of having a number written out, they wanted to put “5” and “8.”  The change in subsection 2 is required, because under NRS 293.1715, that provides that the name of a candidate for partisan office for a minor political party, which it hasn’t already qualified under other provisions in our office, must be placed on the ballot for general election if, on the January 1 preceding the primary, the minor party has designated as a political party on applications to register to vote of at least one percent of the total number of registered voters in the state.  As of January 1, they have to make that designation.  This statute currently says that the county clerks determine the number of registered voters as of the first Monday in January, which may be beyond January 1.  So we’ve run into some issues with reconciling those two statutes.  If we make this January 1, then they can make that determination as to the number of registered voters.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Renee, out of curiosity, what if January 1 falls on a Saturday or Sunday?  Do we need to put something in here that says, “or the Monday following January 1?”

 

Renee Parker:

We could, but I think under the current statute, and with the county, it would move to that next Monday under both of them.  For this January 1 in NRS 293.133, it would be as of Monday that they make the determination, and we’d also do that.  We can certainly clarify.  Maybe Legal would have a recommendation as to that.

 

Section 7 makes some conforming changes to this statute, then I’m going to talk about in Sections 10 and 11 how we’re trying to address issues of candidates who die prior to a primary election.  We never had an issue in the state as to a primary, and we didn’t put into state law the provisions for candidates who die prior to a general until we had that circumstance.  A few years ago we had the circumstance with relation to the primary.  We had no procedures, so I’m trying to add those into state law.  Then the conforming changes to NRS 293.165 had to be made to back up the days.  When we get to Sections 10 and 11—Actually, I can jump there right now if you want. 

 

What we’re trying to do here in Section 10 is provide that the county clerks have to place in the polling place that the candidate has died prior to the primary.  Section 11 provides a deadline for requiring the deceased candidate’s name to still appear on the ballot for the primary, and the procedure for dealing with any votes that are cast in favor of that deceased candidate.  Then you have to go back to Section 7 to change other deadlines in the statutes to accommodate those changes.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Wouldn’t you be better off putting a certain number of weeks prior to the primary?  Because then if we start tinkering with primary dates, you don’t have to fix this again.

 

Renee Parker:

You’re right.  We would have to fix it again if we moved the primary.  I’m fine either way.  It’s just that these three sections had to match, and we didn’t have a provision for the primary.  We just put in provisions that are essentially the same as how we deal with it for a general.  That may be something the Committee may wish to consider, saying so many weeks prior to the election, so if you move and you have the dates during the remainder of the session, you won’t have to do a conflict amendment.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

That’s a very good suggestion.  I think Research has got that down, because we’ll probably consider both of these in work session on Thursday.

 

Renee Parker:

Section 8 is clarifying that the filing fee is not refundable except as currently provided in NRS 293.194.  That requires return of filing fees to candidates and parties when their petitions don’t contain the required number of signatures.  This was a factor of election 2000.  In our office, we did refund some filing fees when we got the request, because there was no specific procedure in the statute.  The clerks and the registrars often consider it nonrefundable, and we’re just trying to put something in the law to state which way we go in those circumstances.

In Section 9, our intent is to clarify those independent candidates must first file with their filing officer the petition of candidacy before they circulate the same for signatures.  The duplicative language of requiring a copy, at the last sentence of that section, has caused some confusion, because there needs to be a copy with our office or with the filing officer, and they don’t have to file the petition before they go out and circulate it.  That was never the intent of the statute, but the language was confusing.  We’re just trying to clear it up.

 

Sections 10 and 11 we already discussed.  Section 12 is pushing the date of the canvass back to the Tuesday before Thanksgiving instead of the day before Thanksgiving.  This was a request the Supreme Court justices made to our office, because it’s difficult for all of them to get together, or some of them that come up from Las Vegas.  The day before Thanksgiving, they have to come into our office, spend a half a day going through the canvass with the secretary, and they just said it would make it easier if we could do it the day before.

 

Section 13 is a technical change to the statute.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Renee, hang on one second.  I just want to make sure that we’re all moving along here and nobody has any questions for you.  Are there any questions on anything we’ve gone over so far from the Committee?  Please proceed.

 

Renee Parker:

Section 13 is a technical change that LCB drafters caught, because we’re adding the specific counting provisions in the beginning of Title 24.  What was specified there previously didn’t need to remain.

 

Section 14 brings minor parties on equal footing with the major parties for obtaining lists of registered voters.  Currently, the counties are required to give this free list, but it didn’t apply to the minor political parties, and it should apply the same for both minor and major political parties.  We had proposed an amendment that the clerks and registrars asked for that makes it clear that anyone who receives that list can’t go out and resell it, because the clerks and registrars currently do.  If you request a list of registered voters, they do charge for that.  A large portion of their funding comes from those lists.  It’s one thing if the parties are using it for the purposes of campaigning and to assist their candidates.  Several years ago, the major parties were allowed to receive a free list when this section was added.  We think the minor parties should, as well, but they shouldn’t be able to go out and resell it to someone for less than what the clerks would sell it for.  So they asked for that amendment, and that’s contained in the amendments.

 

We asked that they delete Sections 15 and 16.  Section 17, subsection 3, is intended to ensure that each voter receives a sample ballot prior to the time early voting begins.  I’ve submitted an amendment.  Originally, that was the intent.  We just wanted to make sure that you got a sample ballot before early voting, so we put 10 days before the period for early voting if feasible.  The problem is the clerks and registrars all agree that they need to get the sample ballots out, but the timing for printing it and getting it out prior to early voting, depending on the circumstances, the 10 days they may not be able to meet.  We’re not sure that there’s a good date for us to insert here and say, “It needs to be 3 days or 5 days.”  We all have to wrestle with the mail, et cetera, so we just amended it to say “before the period for early voting” so that the intent is that they go out before the period for early voting.

 

Sections 18 through 20 are conforming changes to the statutes for city elections to address deaths of a candidate.

 

Section 21 is conforming changes for city elections for timely ballots prior to early voting.

 

The intent of Section 22 is to clarify that a person who files a notice of intent to circulate a petition for recall comes within the definition of a committee for the recall of a public officer and is then required to file campaign disclosure reports.  The problem we’ve run into is the definition is currently if [the petitioner is] an organization.  So one person who wants to go out and circulate a petition for recall can say, “I’m not an organization.  I don’t have to file anything.  I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m doing, and I don’t currently come under the law.”  So if someone is going to go out and try to recall an official, the purpose was to ensure that they are on record as the person initiating the recall.

 

In Section 23 is another change that the clerks and registrars asked for last session that requires the disposition of unspent report to be filed with the filing officer the same as other contribution and expenditure reports are.  They are currently filed with us.  Just to make it consistent, if the change is made in A.B. 529, our campaign finance bill, we’re actually requesting this statute be repealed if we put the disposition into one report.  Then you would need to do a conflict amendment with this, or we would delete this section from this statute.  If A.B. 529 passes, we’d be repealing NRS 294A.180, so we wouldn’t need this section in here.  Or they would all be filed with our office, anyway.  So just to bring your attention, there may be a conflict amendment depending on what happens with that bill.  I don’t think it’s being scheduled prior to Friday, so that may not be an issue.

 

Section 24 is intended to specify when newspapers must make available information pertaining to advertising for candidates.  I guess we’ve had some complaints, and the clerks and registrars have had some complaints, that people are trying to get the information.  But there was no time frame if you make the request.  It says that they have to provide it, but there was no time frame, how long after somebody made a request that they would have to disclose the information.  We’re just trying to put in here some sort of time frame if somebody makes the request, you actually have to give it to them within a certain time.

 

Section 25 is the statute that deals with the penalties for filing contribution and expenditure reports late or not filing them at all.  We’re requesting that the maximum fee for a candidate that does not have any contributions or expenditures or is not going to be compensated for the office is $100.  The purpose is disclosure.  We want the reports to be filed, but you have candidates that run for general improvement districts that don’t have campaign managers, that don’t have any assistants, that aren’t very familiar with the laws, they’re not getting compensated for their office, or they’ve actually been asked by somebody in the city or the county to serve.  We’ve got some of them over at the Attorney General’s Office for $15,000 fines.  While we do currently have the authority to waive a fine for good cause, no contributions, no expenses, and no compensation for office currently do not satisfy good cause.  They are currently required to file, so we think the maximum fine should be $100 under those circumstances.  If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I do have one question.  If they don’t turn in the report, how do you know that they didn’t have any contributions?

 

Renee Parker:

If they don’t turn in the report, we wouldn’t know that they didn’t have any contributions, but the fine is based on so many days late.  If you’re up to 50 days late, you have a $5,000 fine.  They would have to give us the evidence that they had no contributions, they had no expenditures, or that they weren’t compensated for office.  Then we would know that a maximum fine.  We would ask for the information in order to justify a $100 fine versus a $5,000 fine.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

So they would have to fill out the form and give it to you before accepting this fine?

 

Renee Parker:

Yes.

Assemblywoman McClain:

 

I’m just curious.  On Section 24, do you know the background of why this is even in here?

 

Renee Parker:

No, I don’t know.  Mr. Glover, I think, knows why it’s in there.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Maybe he wants to tell me after the Committee.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Are there any other questions for Ms. Parker from the Committee?  [There were none.]  Mr. Glover, did you have something to add to A.B. 528?  Okay.  Carson City Recorder’s Office is in support of the legislation as amended on behalf of all the clerks.  We’ll get that into the record.

 

Janine Hansen, Independent American Party:

[Introduced herself]  I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State’s Office.  We’ve had some heated moments in here, and I want to thank them for a couple of these clarifications that will help minor parties, and I want to point those out.

 

On page 8, Section 7, where it talks about that in order to fill an office where a vacancy may occur it says, “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 293.166, a vacancy occurring in a major or minor political party nomination for a partisan office may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party or by the executive committee of the minor political party.”  We did have this happen this last election.  Our state chairman, Jess Howe, who was running for Clark County Assessor, died during the campaign.  Although we didn’t fill that spot, we may have been in a position to do so.  We appreciate them making this clear.

 

The other issue here is to allow us to do it by executive committee.  In some counties, especially small counties, we don’t have a complete central committee, so we wouldn’t be able to do it there.  In the major counties, we do.  It is important to be able to do it by the executive committee.  Also, if you have to do it by the state central committee, you have to call the whole state central committee together.  The executive committee can easily meet in a telephone conference.  That’s a much better way for us.  We really appreciate that.  That did face us this last election period.

 

On page 13 where it talks about the issue of providing the list for the minor parties became an issue this last election period.  As we were asking for lists, I had assumed we were covered under this.  We even called the Secretary of State’s Office and asked for clarification.  We had to pay for some of the lists that we got in some of the counties, unlike the major parties.  We appreciate the addition of this so that we’re treated on an equal basis with the major parties with regards to that.

 

On page 21 with the issue of the civil penalty, I might just bring to your attention one thing.  We continue to contend that the civil penalty may be a quasi-criminal penalty where you might be entitled to your due process rights, which are denied under this entire process.  Due process rights are denied under the entire process of assessing fines for candidates in this state, but we do think it’s better to cap this for those who desire to comply with what we consider an unconstitutional law.  For those who do wish to comply, at least there will be fewer people here who will be deterred from running for office because the fine is less.  I advocated for a man several years ago that had a $2,600 fine and had spent nothing in his campaign contributions.  It was some while until that could be resolved.  I think, for those who wish to comply with this, an improvement so that they won’t be kept from running from office.  Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and we’d like to thank the Secretary of State’s Office.

Assemblyman Conklin:

Thank you, Janine.  Are there any questions for Ms. Hansen?  Is there anyone wishing to come forward either on behalf or in opposition to A.B. 528?  Seeing none, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 528.

 

Is there any objection to my adjourning this meeting at the present moment?  [There were none.  The meeting was adjourned at 6:30.]

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: