MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 10, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 4:26 p.m., on Thursday, April 10, 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

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State of Nevada

 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll call the meeting to order.  [Roll called.]  Good evening.  Let’s see what we can grind through.  I think with this Committee, you’re all pretty “whippy,” so we may actually get out early.  I have confidence.  We’ll start with A.B. 285. 

 

Assembly Bill 285:  Revises provisions regarding filing of declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy. (BDR 24-705)

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:

[Introduced herself and presented the work session document (Exhibit C).]  Assembly Bill 285 was heard in the Committee on March 18.  Among other things, the measure requires that a fingerprint card accompany a declaration or acceptance of candidacy and prohibits a filing officer from accepting a declaration or acceptance of candidacy if the candidate has not presented certain identification.

 

There are two amendments proposed to the bill.  The first would amend the bill as a whole to delete all suggested language pertaining to the fingerprint cards and background checks.  The second proposed amendment would amend Sections 1 and 2 adding new language similar to, “If it is determined during the course of an election that a candidate is a felon who has not had his rights restored, his name must be removed from the ballot by the clerk or registrar of voters.  If such a determination is made after the ballots have been printed, the clerk registrar of voters must post a notice informing voters that the candidate is ineligible for office.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I have talked with Assemblywoman Koivisto, and it would be acceptable to her to remove the fingerprinting and the background checks. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 285.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

There’s no mock-up of the new.  Is that correct?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  Thank you for pointing that out.  I just got the verbiage, and Michelle Van Geel was running, so we didn’t do mock-ups on everything.  I think the intent is at least they’ll have to show the identification, and if they’re found to be felons who have not had their rights restored or an unqualified elector…  I did have one question, and Larry Lomax is not here.  Maybe Alan Glover or Barbara Reed can tell us.  Currently, when someone passes away, for example, we post that information in the precincts if the ballots have already been printed.  With the new types of machines, can they actually remove the name from the ballot on the machine?

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:

[Introduced himself.]  No, I don’t believe so.  Once they’re programmed, everything is locked in.  You also have your samples printed.  I don’t think you can touch those once they’ve certified.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

All right.  That was a good question.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

My question, and I don’t know who’s most appropriate to answer it, but if they’re found to be felons without having restored rights, somebody is going to have to do a background check, because certainly we’re not going to take the word of the press or an opposing candidate.  How do we get from the point of the accusation to the point of this bill going into effect?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

When the Speaker and I were talking about this language, we didn’t discuss that part.  In the one and only case that we’ve ever had that we know of, the person admitted it.  That was enough, to have him say yes.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

But if you don’t admit it, and the press comes forward and says, “We’ve seen the document,” but we—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Well, then I would imagine the sheriff probably would be involved at that point, and they could run a check, I would think.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We haven’t put anything in here that said we could do that background check.  That’s my only concern.

Alan Glover:

The experience we had here in Carson City, [we heard] rumors a candidate had felony convictions back East.  I said, “I can’t do anything on rumors.”  I went to the District Attorney, who went to the sheriff’s office, and they opened up a background check.  The problem was a felony conviction of ten or more years ago.  The records were in the basement of the Maryland State House, and it took them quite a long time to dig through their records, because I said, “We have to have proof that he’s a felon, not just rumors.”  It took a lot longer than I thought it was going to.  Once I had that, we had a discussion with the candidate, and he agreed, at that point, to withdraw, even though the deadline had passed.  We have the felony information, but it took longer than I had hoped to get it.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Maybe Mr. Wasserman or Mr. Anderson can answer this, but if it’s in statute that you can’t run if you’re a convicted felon without your rights restored, by that mere statement do we have the authority for the district attorney to check it out?  Is that even legal?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I don’t know.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We’d have all kinds of accusations.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I guess this is another question for Assemblyman Anderson, since this is a judiciary-type bill.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Luckily, we have Renee Parker and Scott Wasserman here this evening, as well.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Is it illegal for the sheriff to investigate someone?  I think inherent in this question is an assumption that it’s illegal for them to investigate you.  I thought we had some discussion in Committee about looking up the feasibility of using the overnight gun checks, because it’s cheap and fast.  I’m curious if this fellow in Carson City would have popped up on that.

 

Alan Glover:

In Maryland, you don’t lose your rights.

Assemblyman Conklin:

But his rights would have been lost here.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Is that true under the federal gun background check?

 

Scott Wasserman:

I think the point here is that obviously if it’s brought to the attention of a peace officer that a potential crime has been committed, he can investigate that.  You could put a provision in here.  I do believe, as Mr. Glover had pointed out, that the county clerks and registrars of voters would work with the district attorney or the city attorney, as the case may be, before they would [remove] somebody’s name [from candidacy].  They’re going to confirm that’s an appropriate legal thing to do at the time.  We could put a provision in there  saying that they can investigate any alleged violation of that provision and, if they find what they believe to be a violation, bring that to the district attorney’s attention and have them removed from the ballot if they are found to have, in fact, violated that section.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Are you comfortable with that language or what he’s suggesting?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I’m comfortable with what he’s suggesting, that it would fall under that category.  I don’t have any problem with the two amendments that we’ve got.  I think the bill drafter [will] fix it to make sure it’s in compliance once they’ve heard our discussion that it will have to comply, and [the clerks and registrars will] have the power to do the investigation.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We don’t want to encourage just anybody making an accusation, which already occurs in campaigns, but if, in that case, someone makes that type of an allegation, the intent is that it would not prohibit the clerks from then requesting some investigatory assistance.  That’s what we’re trying to get to.  Is the Committee comfortable with that concept?  Okay.  So the motion is to amend and do pass.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The next bill is A.B. 412.

 

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

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 412 was heard in Committee on April 8, just two days ago.  Assemblywoman McClain brought the bill to the Committee.  There are three proposed amendments.  Under Tab A, you’ll see a mock-up calendar that has the current dates, and start and end dates, for filing for candidacy in addition to the current primary date and a proposed primary date change (Exhibit C). 

 

The second amendment adds language requiring that a candidate file for office before he or she may display their campaign signs.

 

The third amendment adds language to provide an exception to the 6-month residency requirements.  Of course, you could just change the 6 months.  The two proposed language changes were either, it’s not applicable during an election following redistricting, or, a little twist on that one, it’s not applicable during an election following redistricting if the candidate moved to an adjacent district.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

We found out that we can’t [use the latter one] at all.  Scratch that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I guess what we would have to do, we would in effect—you know how they put up all those signs for, “Come to open house,” and “Buy your car,” and “Go to American Heritage,” all of that would have to be—which I don’t have a problem with—but we would have to affect everything, not just campaign [signs].

 

Assemblyman Beers:

My understanding was that in some jurisdictions in Nevada where there are restrictions on posting political signs, it’s a function of local ordinance, rather than state law.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Scott, I think Boulder City had come up, wasn’t it, that we raised in the hearing?

 

Scott Wasserman:

I think that the issue here is whether or not you can have a state regulation only applying to campaign signs.  Obviously, that would not be content-neutral and probably wouldn’t withstand a challenge.  I don’t advise the local jurisdictions on their ordinances, so they very well may be doing that.  That may explain why.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

The City of Sparks has long required that signs not go up for 90 days before the election in which you are a contestant.  However, there has been a single group of politicians who have consistently broken that rule: the judges.  I tell new people who are running for office that while 90 days is the rule, and that it is a freedom of speech issue, and the judges all know that, the public views it very narrowly, because the city continues to have the ordinance on the books.  Now they’ve tried to take it off, put it on, and move it around.  It’s never going to fit.  It’s a freedom of speech issue.  I guess if you’re going to set it in place, it can only be a policy guideline, even at the local level.  Anybody who would really challenge it would win.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Just a thought, and it’s nothing enforceable, but could we add [that] candidates, when we do our filing and so on and so forth, and we do the oath, could we volunteer to not place our signs up?  You know how we have that one section?  It’s not enforceable, so I don’t know if that would make any difference.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

On the change of the primary date, isn’t it really going to cut into voter participation to have things in August?  Everyone’s on vacation.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let’s go to that next.  I think we’ve dispensed with the displaying of campaign signs.  Although I think we should lobby our local governments to maybe explore something, but that’s a different story.

 

Regarding what Ms. Pierce is talking about, backing up the primary date, Scott, could you comment on that?  I neglected to bring it up in the original hearing.

 

Scott Wasserman:

The issue is not just backing up the primary.  It’s the part that goes along with that, which is to back up the filing dates.  I think the clerks would tell you that you need to back up those filing dates in order to be able to maintain the calendar they use.  When you back up the filing dates for a minor political party beyond where they are now, you run into constitutional issues of denying access to the ballot for the minor political parties.  Two years ago when the Committee was looking at that issue, we had reviewed the latest court rulings, and we are pretty much as far back as we could push it, so I don’t know if that’s changed since that time, but that’s where we were at the last time we looked at this issue.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would caution against doing anything to affect the minor parties.  They were very gracious to work with me three sessions ago, and I would not want to jeopardize [that], because they do theirs by convention, and then they have to submit their names.  I think that would be a consideration that we should maintain there.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

How far back does this push it?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

This pushes it a month back.  Could we do two weeks, though?  Two weeks is the end of the summer.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

You’re running into school dates and the tax issue that the clerks have brought up, because some of them wear two hats.  Do you want to talk about the 6‑month residency issue?

 

Assemblyman Grady:

I’d like to ask Assemblywoman McClain a question.  Did you talk to the local governments?  Because the ones I talked to were not in favor of their charter changes.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

No, I didn’t.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Henderson was one of them that was not in favor.  They had not talked to their people, and they were very concerned with charter changes without bringing it up to their people.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll move on to A.B. 421.  This is Ms. Weber’s bill.

 

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

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 421 was also heard on Tuesday, two days ago.  Ms. Weber brought this bill to the Committee.  It requires that candidates for certain nonpartisan offices who are unopposed be declared elected to office.  Ms. Weber brought language to the Committee that was mock-up legislation for the new bill.  It’s under Tab B (Exhibit C).

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Scott, I think there was one bit of language that got dropped.  Do you want to talk about that?

 

Scott Wasserman:

Our office had intended to include that sentence in there, so I bring it to your attention.  On the provision that says, “Where no more than the number of candidates [to] be elected have filed for nomination for any nonpartisan office, that the names of those candidates must appear on the ballot for the primary election,” the next sentence says, “If a candidate receives one or more votes at the primary election, he must be declared elected to the office and his name must not be placed on the ballot for the general election.”  We need to provide for the contingency of that person not receiving any votes, although that seems pretty unlikely, particularly if he or she forgot to go out and vote.  Just to cover that, we would add a sentence that says, “If a candidate does not receive one or more votes at the primary election, his name must be placed on the ballot for the general election.”  You might want to do that instead.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That was on page 2, paragraph (b).

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We had some discussion in Committee, and it made me think why would we do this, if we had so few, why would we do it in the primary?  Why wouldn’t we just hold it over and do it in the general?  Is there a specific reason?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It’s a nonpartisan race.  Valerie, why don’t you speak to your bill?  I’m sorry.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

Would you repeat the question?  I didn’t quite hear all of it.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I’m sorry, Ms. Weber.  There was discussion in Committee that one person had suggested, in this particular case, why don’t we just hold that over.  They won’t be in the primary ballot at all, and hold those two persons or one person on the general ballot, because at least you’re giving more people the opportunity to vote.  Most people view the general election as “the” election.  The reason I was thinking about it, let’s suppose that two Democrats file for my seat next time but no Republicans do.  Highly unlikely, but let’s just suppose.  We won’t have a primary.  It will automatically go to the general election, and they’ll show both Democrats on the general ballot.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

But that shouldn’t be.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

That’s an opinion, but that’s the way it is now.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Right.  But we are the exception, rather than the rule, as compared to most states.  I’ll go back to my argument that the primary is for the purposes of party selection.  When you have two parties that go in, some states actually prohibit more than one person from a party on the general ballot.  In Nevada we force them into a general election instead of resolving who should be elected and selected.  You can continue to debate the issue of whether voters are “disenfranchised.”  If they were disenfranchised, that was because nobody else bothered to get into the race in the first place from any other party.  You can’t force that part of it.  I think at least in Ms. Weber’s bill, we decided we’d deal with the party issue at a later date.  She is focused solely on the nonpartisan part, correct?

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

That’s correct.  We just wanted to acknowledge that there were cases where even in district court in Clark County, there have been unopposed judges who have run for years and years, and to move them to unclog the ballot was the goal of this particular legislation.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

That concerns me a little bit.  I didn’t say this last time, I guess.  I can picture where these people just sort of never appear on a ballot.  It stops being in the consciousness of people that these are elected.  If we don’t like them, we can get rid of them, because it is an elected office.  I sort of like them being there.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

Unless I’m misunderstanding, the goal of the bill is to have the name appear on the primary ballot.  They’re not elected without their name appearing on the ballot.  That was the way the original language was that was stricken, and it was re-amended.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It has to appear in both areas, both in the general as well as the primary.  But it saves in the long run, from what Mr. Lomax was talking about, especially because of the ballot questions that we put on in the general.  They’ll be noted so people know you did run.  You were elected in the primary.  Remember, in the primary, even nonpartisans, [candidates are] done if they get 51 percent.  This way, at least it stays with where we are, but it also makes sure their name is at least listed on the general ballot.

 

Scott Wasserman:

Under the bill right now, by the amendment that is proposed, if you have only one person running for a nonpartisan office, his name appears on the primary election ballot.  If he receives one vote, then he’s declared elected to the office, and his name is not placed on the ballot for the general election.  Currently, he would just go directly to the general election.  Right now, you’d skip the primary and go to the general election.  This would just move it to the primary.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’re switching which ballot they’re on.  That’s what we’re doing.  That’s probably the simpler way of saying it.  Thank you, Scott.  Are there any questions from the Committee?  [There were none]  Is there a motion?  She’s rewritten A.B. 421 completely, if you look at Tab B, with the amendment that Scott read, if you wish to engage in that.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 421.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The next bill is A.B. 422.

 

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

 

Michelle Van Geel:

I think this is everybody’s favorite bill.  Assembly Bill 422 was heard on Tuesday.  Mr. Beers brought it to the Committee.  It would exempt the state of Nevada from the provisions of federal law requiring daylight savings time (Exhibit C).  One item that was discussed would be to recommend to the U.S. Congress that the state of Nevada be changed to Mountain Standard Time.  The state would then not recognize daylight savings time.  We would be the same as being on daylight savings time, Pacific Time.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I think we should consider my amendment that we talked about the other day.  We’ll just take Nevada, and we’ll make it Pacific Mountain Time, and we’ll turn our clocks half an hour each fall and spring.  Then everybody’s happy.  Nobody goes to school in the dark, and nobody has to suffer from syndromes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

That sounds like a perfectly negotiated legislative solution if I ever heard one.  Assemblyman Conklin came up with another idea yesterday, which was a concept that kind of legitimizes this idea.  In the summer, California tourists would gain an hour on their drive back home, and perhaps hang out and play games a little longer.  Helps the economy.  Helps tourism.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Okay, if we were to do this without changing it to the Mountain Time zone, somebody was explaining to me that the reason Arizona is different is because it’s closer to the west side, that’s why it’s on Mountain.  We’re closer to the east side, and that’s why we’d be on Pacific.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

If we went to daylight savings time year-round, we would be in conflict with the federal law.  Federal law grants the ability to exempt [that state] from observing daylight savings time, and two states and some counties in Indiana have done so.  For that reason, we entertained putting ourselves in a Mountain Time zone to get to the goal of where we wanted to go.  The problem is that Arizona sits at the western edge of its time zone, and so it’s later there at sundown than it is at the eastern edge of its time zone.  That’s the problem we have working against us here in Nevada, particularly in Las Vegas.  Reno is actually directly north of San Diego.  Las Vegas is further east.  We end up with the sun going down earlier in Las Vegas than it does in Carson City because of that east/west shift.  There’s that element to think about as well.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

As a Committee, I believe we’ve been offered something.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

If I might add, if I’m going to be forced to support HAVA (Help America Vote Act), I think we ought to at least seriously consider this proposal. 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Bob, is part of this also that we would have to request another resolution to ask to go under Mountain Standard if that was the case?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

That was your idea, I think.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let me have Michelle respond to that.

 

Michelle Van Geel:

I had a conversation yesterday with Bob Erickson, and he suggested this would be the way to go about that.  We’d have to have a resolution asking Congress—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Not only exempt us, but to switch.

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Correct.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We couldn’t do it in the same resolution?

 

Scott Wasserman:

To do it statutorily?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

No.  Could we do both issues in one resolution to Congress?

 

Scott Wasserman:

To ask them to put you in Mountain Standard Time and then exempt yourself?  No, I think it takes a statutory change to exempt yourself, and then if you want to urge Congress to take action, you’d have a resolution that the Committee can still request.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We could still request that, then.  Okay.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

With the two points that you brought up that this resolution, if we were put into the Mountain Time and then exempt—What did you call that?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Exempt.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Then we would be the same as Arizona year round, because they’re exempt, and they’re in Mountain Time.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

As long as we’re contemplating that resolution to the federal government, perhaps we should toss in the repeal of HAVA. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What’s the feeling?  The bill would change our statute to exempt [Nevada], and then we could request an additional resolution.  Idaho is split.  We can request the resolution later.  What’s the feeling of the Committee about exempting ourselves from daylight savings?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO PASS A.B. 422.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll come back and deal with the resolution idea later.  Maybe we’ll get some maps of time zones and take a look at how that would affect us.  The next bill before us is A.B. 487.

 

Assembly Bill 487:  Enlarges membership of Legislative Committee on Public Lands. (BDR 17-1272)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 487 was heard in Committee on April 1.  Assemblyman Collins presented the bill to the Committee.  It would add a representative of the general public to the membership of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands (Exhibit C).  There were two amendments proposed for the bill.  One would amend Section 1, subsection 1, to delete lines 12 and 13 which read, “The member who is a representative of the general public must not hold any elective office.”  The second amendment would add language to sunset the Legislative Committee on Public Lands in four years.

Assemblyman Conklin:

I can’t say that I was convinced of the representative part, although I can go along with it.  I would recommend that we sunset in two years.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Why do we want to sunset this?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’re actually discussing at some point in the Committee sunsetting all standing committees, because we have 26 that have been meeting in perpetuity for no really good reason.  Since this came forward, at least it forces the next Legislature to review it and see it if it’s still necessary to doing the work of the government in between time.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

We’re talking about sunsetting the committee, not the new person on the committee?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  We would add that the member would not hold [elective office]—delete the reference, because they could be on a small county mosquito abatement board or something.  I’m recommending to delete the reference that says they can’t hold a public office, any other elected office.  That would be a barrier, and we don’t have that standard for others, anyway.  It’s probably going to be a rural person, and many of them wear many different hats.  We thought that would broaden it.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 487 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:  THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUTTING TWO INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS IN THE SUNSET.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The next bill is A.B. 526.

 

Assembly Bill 526:  Makes various changes concerning contests of general elections for offices of Assemblyman and Senator. (BDR 24-1289)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 526 was heard in Committee on April 3.  The Chairwoman presented the bill to the Committee.  It authorizes a contestant in a contested election to continue investigating the contest and to amend the statement of contest until the day of organization of the Legislature (Exhibit C).

 

The bill also authorizes the parties in a contest to take depositions and provides that a contestant in a contested election is responsible for the costs under certain circumstances.

 

Amendment number 1 would be to Section 1, subsection 2(b), to add language requiring that the statement of contest be amended.  Change that to December 15.  Additionally, all documents that a contestant intends to present must be submitted by this date.  Further, a list of witnesses must be provided by that date.  Any information relating to the contest after that date may be used in the hearing but will not be added as part of the contest.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll take them one at a time.  I added some other language there from the time when I first presented the amendment.  There could be other stuff that’s found afterwards.  It doesn’t have to become part of the contest filing itself, but then it would not prevent the person who is bringing the contest from at least still being able to do other investigation [work] and still be able to use that at the hearing.  That’s a fairer approach, I think, than what was there in the first place. 

 

For example, the deadline for amending their contest as to the reason they filed the contest would be December 15.  If they are still out doing additional work, they can use it at their opportunity to argue their point before the Legislature.  So it gives a little more balance, I think.

 

Michelle Van Geel:

The second proposed amendment would add language defining the word “contestant.”  This was proposed by Mr. Beers.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Bob, did you have any more suggestions or thoughts about that?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I would have additional.  I guess I didn’t make myself clear at the hearing.  I would have additional amendments to propose to this.  I don’t remember being concerned about defining the word “contestant.” 

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We just want to make sure that the “contestant” is the person who has filed the election contest, not the “winner” until proven not winner.  I think that’s what his concern was.  It wasn’t clear.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll jump to number 3, because Michelle said it might clear it up a little bit.

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Hopefully, if we talk about number 3, it might refresh some memories, because I think they were tied in together.  Amendment number 3 would amend Section 1, subsection 2, to move the language that is currently in subsection 2(a) and reads, “Investigate issues relating to the contest” to subsection 3.  I think the concern with defining “contestant” was where that language [appears] in the current bill, it reads that the contestant is the only one available to investigate the issues.  You didn’t want that to be the case.  You wanted both parties to be able to investigate.  I think that’s where the definition of contestant was coming in.  When I spoke with Scott last week, he suggested alleviating that issue by possibly moving that language in 2(a), talking about investigating it, to the section on the back of the bill, into subsection 3, where it’s talking about any party in a contest can take the deposition.  If we move that investigative language there, that would cover both parties.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Go to page 1, 2(a).  We would take “Investigate issues relating to the contest,” completely out of there, and move it over to page 2 as a lead in to number 3?

 

Michelle Van Geel:

It could possibly read, “any party in a contest of a general election for the offices of Assemblyman or Senator may,” and then maybe—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Investigate issues and—

 

Michelle Van Geel:

—and then list it: number 1, investigate; number 2, take the depositions.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Bob, does that get you closer to what you were thinking of?  Okay.  So we could do a colon, Scott, when we draft?

Scott Wasserman:

Yes, Madam Chair.  We’d be happy to draft it that way.  I’d also point out that “contestant” clearly was intended to mean the person filing the contest.  If there would be a higher level of comfort, we could obviously put that in the provision as well – “The contestant means person filing the contest.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Is that acceptable?  Okay.  Let’s go to number 4.

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Amendment number 4 is in Section 2, subsection 6, add language such as, “must pay the cost incurred by,” on line 38 after the word “and” to clarify that the contestant must pay the costs incurred by the candidate receiving the highest number of votes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I would probably advocate deleting Sections 5 and 6, and this would be my thinking:  We saw in this last contest a significant disparity in the amount of money that the two contestants spent.  Individuals more cynical than I would probably believe that it’s going to be a cold day when a minority party member wins a contest without a confession that somebody did something wrong. 

 

As I recall back to the contest hearings that were held by this body, they seemed relatively emotionally charged.  I’d be concerned that these two clauses of this bill would put too strong of a chilling effect on whether contests should be filed or not.  Technology has made them much more definitive than they used to be, I think.  Technology did not land on the side of the complainant in this case.  With the right combination of circumstances, they could have.  I’d be real concerned that this would have too strong a chilling impact on this.  As well, the disparity in the costs run up by the two sides concerns me.  There’s not much to put a check on how much either side spends, and if I were a contested candidate of the majority party, I would probably be very comfortable spending a whole lot of money thinking that the odds were good I’d get it back.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We don’t want to [cause] a chilling effect.  Maybe if we [eliminated] those two new sections and said something that is currently the right of the Legislature, [that is] “At the discretion of the Legislature, they may choose to assess based on remedy.”  Just keep it generic and not get into contestee.  That’s our authority now.  Maybe leave it as bland as that, but at least people know that there could be a consideration.  That’s just food for thought.

Assemblyman McCleary:

There’s got to be something in there to prevent frivolous challenges.  Maybe if we had fines or something.  There’s got to be something.  I can see Mr. Beers’ point, and I could understand his argument, but there has to be something to prevent frivolous challenges coming to this body.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I would submit that the public ridicule that would accompany a frivolous charge is enough.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let me try some language from Gerard v. Gallagher, and maybe we could adopt or codify it.  “The remedy of the parties is left to the discretion of the Legislature.”

 

We’ll hold discussion for now.  Some members have got to go down and vote in Taxation.  I’ll throw the “grenade” idea out there, and then I’ll bring it up later.  It said, “The remedy of the parties is left to the discretion of the Legislature, and costs will not be allowed except by action of the Legislature.”  It’s something generic, but at least it clarifies that it is within the authority and purview.  It makes it clear that they can consider that.  Would that be something more amenable in lieu of Sections 5 and 6?  Ponder it.  We’ll come back to this one.

 

Do you want to go on and at least familiarize ourselves, and then that might help when the others come in?  Okay, A.B. 528, which is the Secretary of State’s cleanup bill.

 

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

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 528 was heard Tuesday, two days ago.  Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, presented the bill.  This is the Secretary of State’s cleanup bill.

 

Among other things, the measure proposes to make various changes to elections including explanations and arguments for ballot questions, how time periods are measured for election duties, the date by which county clerks must determine the number of registered voters in each major political party, consequences of a candidate’s death, county clerks providing minor political parties with a free copy of the list of registered voters, and the date by which certain groups must make available information concerning advertising for campaigns.

 

Under Tab C (Exhibit C) is an amendment that was brought forth by Renee Parker of the Secretary of State’s Office.  The other two amendments were number 2, Section 7, subsections 2 through 5, amend the language referring to dates so that the section of the Nevada Revised Statutes doesn’t have to be amended again if the Committee chooses to change the dates of the primary.  Delete Section 23 if the Committee processes A.B. 529.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think we landed on the primary dates, so we wouldn’t need that one.  Renee, refresh me on the ten days that we’re deleting regarding sample ballots in Section 17, ten days before the period for early voting.  We’re deleting “if feasible” and “ten days?”

 

Renee Parker:

Yes.  The purpose is to make sure that the sample ballots are sent out prior to early voting.  In working with the clerks and registrars, that ten days might be difficult due to the printing of the sample ballots, and we couldn’t come up with a good number, five days, three days.  We just wanted to get the purpose in there out before early voting.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So we’re striking all of that, “ten days before the period for early voting, if feasible, but not later than.”  Or it would just say, “before the period for early voting, but not later than ten days before an election.”

 

Renee Parker:

Right.  “Before the period for early voting, but not later than ten days.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Are there further questions from the Committee?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Renee, were you only intending to strike Section 23, or were you intending to strike everything past Section 23?

 

Renee Parker:

Section 23 deals with NRS 294A.180, which is the Disposition of Unspent Contributions Report.  In our A.B. 529, we had asked that that section be repealed if we went to one yearly report.  I was just mentioning that you were going to have a conflict amendment if you process A.B. 529 and get rid of NRS 294A.180, then you’d have to deal with a conflict here.  There were other sections dealing with the ballot questions that I asked to delete in the bill, because we didn’t want those sections in there in the first place.  With respect to [Section] 23, it was just mentioning that you may have a conflict amendment.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Which ones had you asked to be deleted?

 

Renee Parker:

I think under your Tab C it does amend the bill as a whole by deleting Sections 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, and 26 through 38.  Those were sections that were put in dealing with the ballot questions and committees and struck the population requirement.  That wasn’t our intent.  I don’t think we were clear with Legal.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I apologize.  I had it in front of me.  I didn’t realize that tab was back there.  I just had remembered it, and I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.  Thank you.  Madam Chair, would you entertain a motion?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 528, WITH THE AMENDMENTS BEING THOSE FOUND UNDER TAB C BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON PAGE 7 OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT, ITEM 3.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Actually, we don’t even need Section 23 at this point, until we decide what we’re doing with Section 29.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

So we’re going to leave Section 23 in there.  Would you like me to restate that motion?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Yes, please.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 528 WITH THE AMENDMENTS FOUND UNDER TAB C OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We have enough for this.  This one was not a controversial bill, and we can reconsider it if anybody wishes me to when they come back in.  I would make that commitment if they requested it then.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Grady, Ms. McClain and Ms. Pierce were not present for the vote.)

 

I’ll have Michelle walk through A.B. 529, but we won’t take action until the Committee gets in, because this one is probably one with more decision and discussion on it.

 

Assembly Bill 529:  Makes various changes concerning reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. (BDR 24-558)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

Assembly Bill 529 was heard in the Committee on April 1.  It’s also from the Secretary of State’s Office.  The measure requires the Secretary of State to design and provide a single form for reporting campaign contributions and expenditures.  It revises the dates for filing reports for campaign contributions and expenditures, and it requires certain candidates and public officers to file statements of financial disclosure with the Secretary of State instead of the Commission on Ethics.

 

Under Tab D (Exhibit C) is the list of proposed amendments that was brought forth from the Secretary of State’s Office.  Additionally, in Tab D, there’s a second list of amendments that was presented by Stacy Jennings with the Commission on Ethics.  Most of the amendments actually duplicate each other, except the second one.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Take a look at Section 4 on page 3.  This says, “not later than January 15 of each year that the provision of this subsection applies.”  Is this to get us to one form that captures from January 1 from one year to December 31 at the end of the next year?  Is that what the intent is, Renee?

 

Renee Parker:

With the amendment.

 

Chairman Giunchigliani:

With the amendment you capture those that aren’t currently candidates, because you’re looking for people with longer terms.

 

Renee Parker:

It takes out “the provisions of this subsection,” because that only applies—

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Are we talking about the election forms or the ethics forms?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

This is only about campaign contribution forms.  The ethics forms are separate under separate statute.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Then we’ll still be required to file during the campaign, correct?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Yes, that is correct.  Renee, do you want to come up and talk a little bit about this part?  Right now I’m segregating the audit issue and the $1,000 issue and focusing on what pieces may still be workable.  Can you talk a little bit about Section 4 and how it would work?

 

Renee Parker:

The intent is to capture it so there’s one form January 15 of each year, and then in the election year you have the three forms.  The third form is the January 15 form in the election year, so it substitutes as that yearly filing.  There’s also the provision changing the Commission on Ethics statutes to have the financial disclosure form filed only on January 15 of this year with this form, so that you’re not having to file the form while you’re campaigning.  In the year when you’re not campaigning, you have to file it.  It’s just that one yearly form, and when it’s an election year, you have the three forms and the financial disclosure is part of that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Is this one form the unspent contribution form, or is it a duplication of what we’ve already filed when we were running, but we still have to file?

 

Renee Parker:

You wouldn’t have to put unspent contribution, because this just deals with the contribution portion.  Then NRS 294A.200 is the expense portion, and that statute is being changed.  You wouldn’t have to deal with the disposition, because every year you would be filing those contributions and expenses.  The disposition and the in-excess-of-$10,000 forms go away, because you have that one January 15 filing.  It’s all incorporated into this form.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

If no one collects anything, because it’s an off-election year for some individuals, then what do they file?

 

Renee Parker:

Right now, if you have no contributions, and you have no expenditures, you file the form with zeroes on it.  You’re required to file saying that you had none so that it doesn’t look like you didn’t file.  We can’t determine that unless you tell us that you had none.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I don’t remember doing one in the interim other than the unspent contributions.  In an election year, we’ve got three.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Yes, but if you raise over $10,000 in that interim year, you have to file.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I haven’t seen it for any legislative or Assembly races, but I’ve seen it for constitutional office races.  They will, in off-years, raise significant dollars.  This would get around that.  I think, as Renee said, you just file it with zeroes if you didn’t have any activity.  An ongoing campaign of an incumbent is probably going to spend some money in that off year.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It’s clear what we would not have to file.  Renee, restate what would go away, again, please?

 

Renee Parker:

The old in-excess-of-$10,000 report and the disposition of unspent contributions report [would go away].  Instead of the three Cs and Es and those two reports, we knock it down to the one report in the off year, and in the election year the three, the third being the same as the yearly report.  Then you put the financial disclosure in that and have it filed at that same time, so you’re not filing the financial disclosure report with the Ethics Commission on a different date.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani

Who would get that information to the Ethics Commission?  Would your office then copy that and transmit it?

Renee Parker:

They requested that report then be filed with us and we take on the enforcement and do it similarly, so we would turn it over to the Attorney General as part of a non-filing of this form.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

We may also want to put in some language specifying that once you file a return with a zero ending balance, because you’re going out of the campaign business, that you don’t have to continually file.  I’m thinking we need to specify an exit strategy from annual filing.

 

Renee Parker:

I think that the language was if you were a candidate or an elected official that was not also a candidate, so if you weren’t either of the two, you wouldn’t have to file, especially if that was the intent.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I’m also seeing constitutional races where it took 2 or 3 years to wind down.  The individual was not a candidate again, but thought he might become one and decided ultimately to not do it.  It was only then that the last balance check was written to a charity.

 

Scott Wasserman:

I think to help clarify this issue, because I think it also goes to the proposed amendment, the second portion of the proposed amendment, which is saying, “and every elected official who is not also a candidate,” that you have to look at the definition of candidate in NRS Chapter 294A, which is different from what we normally think of as a candidate.  It includes people who file a declaration of candidacy, a person who files an acceptance of candidacy, and a person whose name appears on an official ballot.  The key here is that for the purposes of NRS Chapter 294A, a candidate includes anybody who has received contributions in excess of $100.  I don’t think this language is necessary in the second sentence of the amendment for that reason.  If you’ve received $100 in campaign contributions, you are a candidate for the purposes of this chapter.  It doesn’t matter whether you’ve changed your mind later, as Mr. Beers was using as an example here.  If you’ve received over $100, you’re a candidate, and you would have to file the statement.  The section as amended would then apply to that person as well.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’re talking about campaign distribution.  [What if] someone has money in his account and he runs for state Senate, and it’s in the off-season, and he makes a determination to run for some other office.  Non-legislative.  Can he then transfer his funds over, or does he have to notify and pay individuals back?  How does that work?  I’ve never quite understood that.  I think there have been two different interpretations.  That’s why I get confused.

 

Scott Wasserman:

There’s a provision that governs unspent campaign contributions.  I think typically what happens is the Legislator or the person in question would send a letter saying, “I’m not running for that office.  I’m going to return the campaign contributions unless you want to make that as a contribution, because I’m now running for county treasurer.”  But there is a provision that governs unspent campaign contributions.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ve had instances when people didn’t have to do that.

 

Scott Wasserman:

Just give me one second, and I’ll pull up the provision on it.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I thought one of the legal things you could do with your unspent contributions was contribute it to another candidate.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Yes, you can.  Aren’t you another candidate?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I would think you could contribute it, if I was a state Senator and decided to run for county commissioner.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Once you went down and did your $100 for that office, then you could write a check to yourself from the old account.

 

Scott Wasserman:

The unspent campaign contributions must be returned to the contributors, used in the next election or for the payment of other expenses related to public office or your campaign, contributed to the campaign of other candidates for public office, or for the payment of debts related to your campaign.  You can contribute the money to a political party, a person or group of persons advocating the passage or defeat of a question on the ballot, or any combination of those.  You can donate the money to any tax-exempt nonprofit entity, or dispose of the money in any combination.  I think that the key, as I would read it, would be to “another candidate.”  I don’t think that it would apply to presenting it back to yourself.  I think you have to give that back to the people who contributed the money to you unless they want to make it a contribution to whatever you’re now campaigning for.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Could we get the second of those six or seven things repeated?  I thought I heard a crack in the armor there.

 

Scott Wasserman:

I think you’re referring to, “you can contribute the money to the campaign of other candidates for public office,” “use the money in your next election,” or “for the payment of other expenses related to public office or your campaign.”  I’d certainly want to look at what that language was before I was inclined to say whether or not that would allow you to keep your money for your next election, but I see the language there at least leaves us with a question.  Let me look at the language.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think we had one county commissioner race where I think Lorraine Hunt actually could have used it.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Legislative intent was that you couldn’t retire on it, right?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Oh, yes.

 

Scott Wasserman:

Let me clarify.  Actually, that provision was if you are running for re-election.  If you’re not, every candidate for office who is not elected to the office and received contributions that were not spent or committed for expenditure, after the fifteenth day of the second month after his defeat, you have to return the unspent money to contributors, contribute the money to the campaigns of other candidates for public office, or use it for the payment of debts related to your campaigns.  We’ve lost some language by using it for the next election.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Actually, the law does not address your issue.  Nowhere does it specifically say what if you didn’t lose the election.  If you chose not to run, but in that same election cycle you chose to run for something else.  That’s not addressed in the statute.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think that’s what happened, and they were told they could use their own.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I heard that somewhere, too.  If they sent a letter of intent saying, “I’m going to use this fund for this.  If you have a problem, I’ll send your money back.”  That’s what I remember reading in the paper.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:

[Introduced himself.]  Can I muddy the water a little more?  We had a situation that occurred here in Carson City in that a candidate had won the election but had a substantial amount of money left over, and he died.  The question they called me about is, “What do we do with that money?”  I then put on my public administrator hat, and I said, “That is an asset of the estate and should be distributed according to the will.”  I hadn’t thought about this before, but since you brought this up, what is the provision in there for unspent campaign contributions when a candidate dies?

 

Heirs are not candidates.  They’re not subject to these laws where they have to give it back.  In this case, they gave it to a charity.  They did the right thing.  I don’t think they were legally obligated to give that back.  They could have just put it into the estate and divided it up amongst the family.  This can happen.  Before these laws were enacted, I know that Governor Sawyer had a substantial amount of money left over from one of his early campaigns, which parlayed into quite a large amount over the years.  What do you do with that money?  Is there a way to make some provision for that while you’re dealing with it, or is this an issue that could be taken up some other time?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I had never even thought about that.  I would say, for purposes of discussion, that it was intended for political use in some way, shape or form, or charitable, because we do allow that.  We might need to add some provisions and say in the event of death, the family members may choose to dispense it based on what’s in the political statute, rather than personal use, because it prohibits the personal use.  Thanks, Alan.  That’s intriguing.

 

Scott Wasserman:

There’s a provision in here that talks about what occurs if you’re in office, you’re not running for re-election, and you’re not a candidate for any other office.  By reading this section alone, it does look like you could take those campaign contributions and use them if you’re running for a different election, although I would certainly want any member of this Committee to confirm that before you do that.  You might want to confirm that with our office.

On the will, obviously you could cover that in this section, but I don’t think that you can, by will, violate a law that you otherwise would violate if you were still alive.  I don’t think you could use your will to do that.  I would say it would still have to go to one of these purposes that are listed in the statute.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Should we add some kind of language to specify that if an individual dies?  What’s the feeling of the Committee if we explore that?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I say we amend this piece of legislation, if we’re going to move forward with it, and provide a provision that states something to the effect of that should a candidate die, all remaining funds are governed by the provisions in NRS that Scott read by whoever the executor of the estate is.  I think that pretty much covers it.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll save that for discussion when the rest of the group gets back. 

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Madam Chair, if you don’t mind, I think while we’re at it, because I think it’s pretty close to the same thing, why don’t we go ahead and add an amendment in here clearly stating that if you are a currently elected public official, have campaign funds, and decide to run for a different office in the next election, you may continue with your campaign account.  Is that a possibility?  Just put it right in the legislation, and that way we don’t have to call Scott down the road.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

To me, campaign funds are campaign funds, and they can be used for a campaign.  We’ll suggest that to the Committee, that we make it clear what the intent is.

 

We had also discussed some potential penalties for not bothering to ever file or do your forms.  Michelle did some investigation.  In Florida, “The name of a candidate shall not be printed on a ballot for an election if they are convicted of violating ... their statute for campaign filing disclosure or finance forms.”

 

Kansas says, “No individual who has failed to pay their civil penalty or civil fine assessed or failed to file a report unless they’re under appeal.”  I kind of like that idea, because there are some people that may have a contest to certain forms or maybe certain information or some conscientious objections.  If they are, they shall appeal to become a candidate.  Again, their name can’t appear if they do not file the forms.

 

Kentucky says, “The nomination for election for candidates who knowingly violate their provisions shall be voided upon judicial determination of guilt.  Office shall be declared vacant, and the officeholder shall forfeit all benefits.”  There they take them right out.

 

In Montana, “The name of the candidate may not be printed on an official ballot for an election if the candidate or treasurer for a candidate fails to file a statement or report required by this chapter.” 

 

New Hampshire says, “No candidate shall be entitled to nomination or election until sworn itemized statements required to be filed by him or her on their behalf have been filed.”

 

Oregon says, “A candidate’s name shall not be placed on the general election ballot if the statements referred to in this section are not filed by the sixty-first day of the general election.”  So they put a timeline in like Renee was talking about.

 

West Virginia says, “No candidate may be nominated who has failed to file a sworn statement as required by provisions of this article and may not have their name placed on an official ballot for ensuing election unless there has been filed on behalf of such a candidate’s financial agent the financial statement relating to nominations required by this article.” 

 

There is some precedent if this Committee wished to come up with either some way for them to enforce the lack of filing other than the civil penalties, I think, is what the Secretary of State had been asking about.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Am I to understand that at least one or more of those is offering a suggestion very similar to our felony suggestion?  It’s impossible to take it off the ballot, but let’s say seven days before the primary people don’t turn in their form.  Then, on primary day, in each booth we have a piece of paper that lists everyone who did not file their report.  Is that what we’re saying?  You could have two lists: list of felonies, and list of report violators.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Luckily, that’s only happened once.  It doesn’t seem to be a huge wave.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

Are you talking about the report filing or the felony?  Are you saying it would be a long list?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It basically speaks to their eligibility.  They can’t even be eligible.  Maybe it’s because they didn’t do the forms in the prior election, and therefore they can’t seek re-election.  I don’t know.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I have a small problem, and it just now dawned on me.  What about the felon who is discovered on August 25 during early voting?  Now he’s collected several ballots, but then we start putting this flyer out.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Even those ballots would be invalidated.  Scott, you had a comment back on the earlier issue?

 

Scott Wasserman:

Yes.  I just wanted to bring us to NRS 294A.170, which makes it very clear that a candidate can use that money, but it says, “He shall make a reasonable effort to notify the persons who contributed the money to his campaign before he files his declaration of candidacy and return the unspent portion of those campaigns if so requested.”  Any contribution not returned must be used in his campaign or must be disposed of in the manner provided in the section that we were talking about before.  Going back to Mr. Conklin’s suggestion, we would repeal NRS 294A.170 and then clarify in NRS 294A.160 that you can use these, and you don’t need to send that letter or make that request if you want to go in that direction.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That makes sense.  Is that good for the Committee to consider when the group gets back?  We’ll come back to that part of it.  What else can we save within this bill that anybody has some comfort level with?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I’m intrigued with the pieces of this bill that address the nature of the form itself.  I’m not sure how to proceed, but I’d like to see our statutes take a stronger hand in describing the way the form needs to be put together.  There were a couple of celebrated instances in this last set of forms that caused some confusion.  I’m torn if we’re better off with a graphical representation or a text-based description.  I think if we go with a text-based description, we need to include that the forms cannot ask for any more information than this.  We had a situation where we repealed a piece of the reporting requirement two years ago, but it was still in their regulations.  When the time came to prepare the report, rather than change their regulations to repeal the piece that we had repealed in the statute, they went ahead and required this rather senseless report of the dated amount of all under-$100 contributions and expenses.  I think it was clear from legislative intent we all believe it provides no value to users of these reports, and does present some challenges in its gathering presentation and compliance.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Text could be a consideration.  Even if we vote, because we need to move this one tonight, we could always add it before the twenty-second and bring it to the Floor as a Floor amendment if we wish to, or bring it back to the Committee to incorporate it if we wanted everyone to look at the language.  What does the Committee think?

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I’m in support of either proposal, but I have to see what the specifics are before I could say I’m for sure with it.  That’s fair.  I want to see what’s going to be on that report before I’d say yea or nay, but I do understand where Mr. Beers is going with this piece.  If legislation says you’re to do X and Y, period, and the report has X, Y, and Z with no clarification to candidates that Z is not required, then we ought to revisit that and clear it up.

 

[Recess was called.]

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ve got a short time period.  If we can help these [people] by acting within 20 minutes or half an hour, they can get back to the Assembly Committee on Taxation and that might assist that committee in moving forward as well.  I’m going to call us back to order.

 

To the individuals who were gone, we only took action on one bill, and I stated that we could bring it back.  It was Assembly Bill 528, which was the Secretary of State’s cleanup housekeeping bill.  We took proposed conceptual amendment number 1 under Tab C (Exhibit C).

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I’d like to be recorded in the affirmative.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Grady would like to be recorded in the affirmative.  Does anyone else wish to do so?  It was A.B. 528.  It basically amends Sections 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, and 26 through 38 by deletion, because that was not even language that the sponsors had requested in the first place.  It clarifies that a signer is the person doing the circulation on a petition.  It also says that any person or entity that receives a free list under provisions of this section shall not use that list for any purpose other than election purposes.  Please add Ms. McClain and Ms. Pierce as well.

 

[The motion was reconsidered to amend and do pass A.B. 528 with the amendments found under Tab C of the work session document.]

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Let’s go back to Assembly Bill 526.  This was the issue on the contest.  We were working from a loose-leaf page.  What we suggested so far for discussion purposes, if you look at page 1, “(a) Investigate issues relating to the contest.”  Remove it from there, and relocate it on page 2 as a leader to subsection 3.  It’s A.B. 526, Section 1(a).  Take it from that section, move it over to the lead-in for subsection 3.  Then it would read, “Any part in a contest of a general election for the office of Assemblyman or Senator,” and then we’re going to bullet it:  (a) may take deposition of any witness, and (b) may investigate issues relating to the contest.  It makes it clear that either party can do either of those, and that’s what Mr. Beers’ concern was at the last hearing.

 

The second thing was to soften the language in subsection 1.  Put a time-specific, the December 15 date, but then allow additional documents that the contestant intends to present, and their list of witnesses must be submitted.  But then any other information can still be gathered and presented at the hearing, but it won’t amend the contest.  We gave them extra time to be able to amend the contest if they find new information, but then once they’ve done that by December 15, they can still use other information that they gathered, but they can’t go back in and amend it again.

 

The last item we were discussing is maybe to take out Sections 5 and 6, and I had suggested using what the Supreme Court case had said, “The remedy of the parties is left entirely to the discretion of the Legislature, and costs will not be allowed except by legislative action.”  Simple, clean, doesn’t point the finger at anybody.  Legislature makes the determination, which is our right to do, and doesn’t get into, “If the contestee did this, you do that.”  It just codifies what our authority is now.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

It seems to me that’s a good idea, other than the fact that the Legislature will never charge even when it should charge.  It seems to me we might want to be proactive, unless the Legislature forgives the debt and makes us take the debt away.  In a contest, if the Legislature felt that those charges should not be in place, then it can remove those charges rather than automatically making us put the charges in place.  Do you see what I’m saying?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I don’t think I can support that.  That sounds to me like guilty until proven innocent.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

If the Legislature heard the challenge and felt that there was obviously something of intent for the discussion, then in all probability they would remove the charges.  If, on the other hand, they felt that the charges were frivolous, they wouldn’t have to take an additional action.  It is something of a deterrent to make a charge knowing that you’re going to have to make payment at the end of the block and that you should do so with some diligence, which is exactly the message I think we’re trying to send.  It isn’t that you shouldn’t challenge an election that you consider to be improper, but that you should recognize that there’s an inherent cost in doing so.  There is some cost that the Legislature becomes involved in as a body.  We have the right to forgive those, and we have the right not to.  It is something of a deterrent to filing false claims.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I guess my concern with that is that there was certainly intimations by some members that the Assembly District 37 challenge was frivolous, which I presume were rendered moot by the indictment last week, which addressed one of the core pieces of that.  Had the Legislature the authority, I think it would have found that charge frivolous, because it’s an emotional, partisan-charged atmosphere, and then woke up this weekend and been embarrassed.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s an interesting comment, Mr. Beers.  I don’t think I was embarrassed by anything we did as an activity, and I don’t think it was politically charged at all.  I thought the hearing was quite balanced, hence the outcome.  I think we were vindicated in the matter based on the fact that the information that had been brought forward in that contest, the 12 individuals out of the 160 that were filed, were segregated and separated by Ms. England, and that the other names on that list are not ones that had been investigated.  The 148 names were on that list were not fraudulent.  We applaud, and I think everybody has applauded, the fact that what you all uncovered was turned over to the district attorney, as it properly should have been. 

 

I will still argue that the contest was not accurate, and it should not have been accepted, because the language right in the very front said that David Groover had verified all of those signatures, and that’s not true.  That, in and of itself, on its face should have the contest not accurate in the first place. 

 

We’re trying to make it clear so that if someone does [make a frivolous charge], we have that option as a legislative body.  I think that’s still the threshold.  What is frivolous would be for the Legislature to decide.  Fraud is the jurisdiction of the police, and if we find something fraudulent, that’s the proper body to be dealing with it.  I’m trying to offer something clear, because I agree with Mr. Anderson.  We want [someone to bring a case if they] believe that there’s something wrong.  But we have some obligations and some responsibilities as well, and if we do believe, as a joint group regardless of who’s in the majority, that payment should be made of some sort, then that’s the Legislature’s purview.  That’s all we should try to get to in this circumstance.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I’m going to echo your concerns and your outline of the whole thing.  In my experience for Assembly District 37, the initial contest, I would argue, was justified when it came forward.  The day it was brought.  It should have gone to the district attorney.  The problem with this election contest was that once it was brought forward, no further work was done.  Had further work been done, it would have been clear that there were nowhere near enough contestable ballots to contest this election.  I think what the bill gets at, as I look at it, is that there is an obligation on the contestee’s part not only to bring the contest forward, which we want, [but] without hesitation, if they believe there’s a wrong.  There is an obligation that once it is brought forward, to continue to build a case, because you don’t know in 7 days, or however many days it is, it’s either 7 or 14 or 10, you only know that you have what you think is a problem.  You have the obligation to find out the truth insomuch as it can be found out before the fifteenth.  It should be ample time considering the amount of work that we did in three weeks in vindicating 148 people who were called frauds.  I think that is what the bill is getting at, and for that reason, I would support this.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I have sat on three committees that have reviewed the credentials on challenged elections, and in only one case, in my opinion, would we have probably consider allowing the money to be charged.  I’m not positive that in this last one that we would have assigned the dollar cost.  We would have probably forgiven at least part of the debt because of what has just happened in Las Vegas, with the filing of an indictment.  I guess in the back of my mind I still believe that the indictment would never have been filed had we not held a hearing here in the Legislature, because I don’t believe that they would have followed through.  I think, that the second time you bring forth the exact same issue, that was frivolous, and it was done for no other purpose than to harass the two candidates that were involved.  It served no other purpose.  I think some of the discussion is an attempt to negate the validity of the election process.  I do think that the clerks need to be more vigilant in terms of making sure the elections are properly conducted.  I think that it’s a good thing.  I don’t have heartburn about it one way or the other, I guess.  I just want to put it forward for the purpose of discussion.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It sounds like we’re in agreement on the first four items.  Is there agreement to delete Sections 5 and 6?  Can we reach agreement to just use the generic phrasing from the Supreme Court case, “The remedy of the parties is entirely up to the discretion of the Legislature, and costs will not be allowed except by legislative action.” 

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I think that’s probably a good idea, and then you could also go on a case-by-case basis, too.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would accept a motion to amend and do pass.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 526.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We will skip to Assembly Bill 529.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Madam Chairwoman, did we do A.B. 528?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Yes, I’m sorry, Mr. Christensen.  We did that one.  That was the one on the technical change.  Assembly Bill 528 was amend and do pass, and that’s where you added your names, for those of you that came back from the Assembly Committee on Taxation. 

 

On A.B. 529, we were probably not going to move the audit, the $1,000 reported within 24-hour periods, and so forth.  We were concentrating first on Section 4 on page 3, getting clarification from Renee.  The intent is that there be one campaign contribution form filed each January that recaptured the previous year, but that would be in lieu of [a form for] anybody who secured more than $10,000.  There’s one form that you used to do if you raised more than $10,000 in between.  That would go away, and your unspent disposition would go away. 

 

On this one form, you would just say, “I raised zero,” or “I raised $500” in the interim.  It would include your financial disclosure form as well.  So you would no longer have the financial disclosure form from the Ethics Commission, and you would do one filing each year.  We didn’t all do this particular form before, but it’s to get rid of the other ones.  If you didn’t have anything to report, you could just put zero down.  Correct?  [Ms. Parker answered in the affirmative.]  Let’s talk about that.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Let me try to understand here.  At the end of the campaign, you file your final campaign report showing how much you have left in your expenditure report, your campaign account of unspent contributions.  Between that time period, which is clearly in the window of the next Legislature, you’re not going to be picking up any dollars until one month after the end of the Legislature.  If you expend money during legislative session and during the calendar year, where will you be reporting those expenditures of your campaign chest?  At the end of your annual cycle in that legislative year?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Then that becomes your starting balance for your new campaign?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Then you have to show whatever dollars may have been collected.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.

Assemblyman Anderson:

I’m just making sure I’m following this correctly.  If you choose not to run again for public office, then in filing that you also have to make a declaration as to what you’re going to do with any remaining balance in your campaign fund, or you’re going to have to wait until the next calendar year to do that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s about where we stopped discussion.  So you’ve caught us up to where we were at, Mr. Anderson.  We appreciate that.  I think some people may think this is more, but in the long run it may be less, because what you have to do now is take two years of whatever you spent from the last election until the first filing form of the next election and try to remember, “Oh yeah, I bought this.  I bought that.”  Now, you’ll be jotting it down yearly one time.  Then you’ve already got your running balance for the next time around, as Mr. Anderson said.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Are you also going to show any income that was received even if you’re not planning to run for office?  People will make campaign contributions in anticipation that you are going to, even if you haven’t made up your mind.  I know that’s gotten me in trouble in the past, because I don’t want to make a deposit of these funds.  I want to send them back, because I may choose not to run, and I set them aside and then all of a sudden discover them a year later.  I know it’s hard to imagine that, but it’s happened.  It’s embarrassing, but it’s happened, as Renee will clearly tell you.  As she looks at my report, she goes, “Yeah, Bernie’s done it again.”

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

I just have a question.  Just so I understand, we had a lot of discussions with our Secretary of State.  One of the chats we had dealt with filing within a 24‑hour period.  This does not have anything to do with that?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

We’re not doing that.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

So this has only to do with what we have discussed?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Right.  So far we’ve only agreed to even consider one section of this bill, and that’s the section we’re talking about, which is Section 4.

Assemblyman Christensen:

So the way that you’re seeing this is that in the long run, the process could be more easily managed.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I know for me, still a paper person, I have a file, and I just stuff everything in it.  Then I get that, and two years later I try to remember what I did with everything.  Even though now I have to do it yearly, I think in the long run it will be easier, and you get rid of two other forms, plus you consolidate one.  So I think it’s not a bad idea to try to get to that point.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I think the last question that Assemblyman Anderson left was, “You’re not running again.  Do you then declare your intent with your remaining funds on a quasi-unspent contributions piece?”  I would think that you would actually not declare your intent, but declare what you’ve done.  If you end up that year with money, then you’re going to have to do it again.  I suggested, I think after you left, that we might want to look at a mechanism to define when you can stop, which presumably is when you spend all your money down to zero.

 

I was involved in a constitutional race that went on for four years after the election as the candidates contemplated whether they were going to run again or not.  Ultimately, they decided not to.  It wasn’t until four years after we filed these reports that they wrote the last check to charity.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

What you’re telling me is that for the legislative year I would file an annual report January 1 of the following year, or whatever date that we pick.  In that, I would show whatever my expenditures had been during that year and any income I had received during that year, even if I had not chosen to be a candidate.  That would then give the Secretary of State’s Office a new ending fund balance to check back against my expenditure report.  Then moving into the very beginning of the campaign cycle year, the first campaign report should show whatever dollars were there from the beginning.  Then it would show any expenditures and additional dollars that had come in.

 

If I were a non-candidate, I would not have to file that, because I had not filed for election.  However, I would have to file either at that time or at some other time either a declaration of how to expend my unspent campaign dollars.  Right?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think yes and no, because “candidate” is when you take $100.  If somebody sends you a check, even though you haven’t decided to run, you are a candidate.  So we still need to deal with that item.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Then, even though I’ve chosen not to enter this election contest, do I have to file the long form Campaign Expenditure Report One in the campaign report?

 

Renee Parker:

We’d incorporate the disposition option into that January 15 report, so if you chose not to file and that was going to be your last report to show your disposition to comply with NRS 294A.160, you could put it on that report.  You wouldn’t be filing the three reports, because you wouldn’t have been a candidate.  If you were a candidate, and you were defeated, you’d have to file that January 15 report anyway, so the option would be in there that if you chose not to be a candidate, you weren’t filing the three reports.  The only time you would file would be that January 15 following when you decided not to be a candidate, and there would be check-boxes on the form that said, “This is my last report.  This is how I’m reporting my disposition.”

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

What happens if I choose not to be a contestant in this election cycle, but I wish to be a contestant in the next election cycle?  Will I be able to hold those campaign dollars in anticipation of an election two years after that, in terms of Mr. Beers’ buddy?  Or say it’s a 4-year program or 4-year contest such as the Senate?  How would Senators treat it?

 

Renee Parker:

Every January 15 he would file the form.  Unless you were having to report a disposition because you were either defeated or you weren’t going into the next election cycle, you’d just use that form at that time to report the disposition.  Every January 15 you would be filing once you were elected to office anyway.  So if you were a sitting Senator, you’d be filing that report every January 15.  At the time it needed to become your disposition, you’d do that portion of the January 15 report.  Every other year you wouldn’t even be looking at that portion of the report.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Is it potentially possible that somebody who ceased being a candidate would be able to continue expending money from their original campaign report to some philanthropic or some other charitable groups as long as they continued to report to the Secretary of State’s Office those expenditures, even though they were not a candidate and not planning on being a candidate, but they continued to report until all their money is gone?

 

Chairman Giunchigliani:

How long can they keep reporting?

 

Renee Parker:

I guess they could under the way it’s written.  I think they could keep doing it every January 15, so we’ll probably have to look at that to make sure the disposition kicked in at some point.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

You wouldn’t want them still continuing to accept money or sitting out for two years and never dealing with their dispositions.  If you don’t seek re-election, then we need a time specification that they must at least file a disposition and get rid of the money.

 

Renee Parker:

Right, because NRS 294A.160 currently provides for defeat with a disposition report.

 

Scott Wasserman:

“Every public officer who holds a state, district, county, city, or township office; does not run for re-election and is not a candidate for any other office; and has contributions that are not spent or committed for expenditure remaining from a previous election shall, not later than the fifteenth day of the second month after the expiration of his term of office, dispose of those contributions in the manner provided in subsection 3,” which are the ones we talked about earlier.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

One additional suggestion that we came up with as we were discussing this, because Alan decided to throw an interesting twist, is to amend, if someone dies and they have remaining funds, how their estate would disburse that.  We seem to be recommending, if it’s okay for the rest of the Committee, they would disburse it based on what is allowed under political statute.  You can give it to the party, or you can give it to charity.  What could have happened, in the case Alan brought up, in which the family said, “It’s part of our estate”?  Luckily, they gave it to a charity, but there was nothing there to say what they should do.  We were going to add that language, and we were also suggesting to delete NRS 294A.170, and then amend NRS 294A.160 to make it clear that if you have campaign funds and you choose to run for a different office, you may use those funds to run for that office.  There are two sections and they conflict with each other.  We thought we should be clear on what we intend.  Scott, do you want to clarify that for us?

 

Scott Wasserman:

In essence, what you would be doing is eliminating this middle step.  If a candidate for office files a declaration of candidacy for an office that is different from the office he previously and publicly intended to seek, or that he held immediately preceding his declaration of candidacy, he shall make a reasonable effort to notify the persons who contributed the money to his campaign before he files his declaration of candidacy and return the unspent portions of those contributions if so requested.  Any contributions not returned must be used in his campaign, or must be disposed of in a manner that we talked about earlier.  You would be eliminating the step of having to find the people who contributed the money and [sending] a letter to ask them if you can use it for this other campaign.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Are there any questions on that suggestion?  [There were none.]  Another suggestion is that we might consider as a Committee whether to either simply add text within the bill clarifying what we want the form to look like, or we could design it if we moved this bill out and amend what we wanted the form to look like into the actual statutes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

The majority of the Committee wasn’t on this Committee two years ago.  We passed some legislation during the last session that repealed a requirement that the date and amount of your under-$100 contributions and expenses be reported.  It was determined by the Legislature that that information has no usefulness for users of these reports and requires a substantial administrative burden to report and to comply with that requirement.  So we repealed that section for the law.

 

We didn’t know it at the time, but the Secretary of State had duplicated that language in regulation.  When it came time to prepare the reports for the last cycle, they included the request for that information, even though we had specifically taken it out of the governing law the session before.  There were a few other issues with the reports that caused confusion.  We may want to take a look at more completely prescribing to the Secretary of State what we want that form to look like and [contain], either in the form of an actual graphical representation in law of what we want the form to look like, or in words describing it and including at the end language that the Secretary of State may not ask for any additional information than what is laid down here.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

With respect to Mr. Beers’ comments, I’m going to say that I can support the actual form as it should be in NRS.  That way, there is no confusion on the language, and this body has control over what that form should look like, of course with the signature of the Governor, as amended.  I think two bodies looking at this separately and independently agreeing are better than the way it is now.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

To the best of my knowledge, this will be the first time we put a picture in NRS, except for the little piece of plaid that’s the state tartan.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

We do it all the time in Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We even have the form that we sign for our oath laid out.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

The only other question I have for our counsel, the form that we’re talking about is going to have dates on it, which makes it unique to each cycle as I envision it.  I guess we’re going with the one form on a one year at a time basis.  Maybe we don’t need to have the elucidation of the period ending date, because it used to be geared to X days before an election [and] was different for every two-year cycle.  I guess we don’t need to put that on there if it’s going to be an annual document.

 

Scott Wasserman:

Even if there are provisions like that, that the date needs to change, we would just put parentheses there saying to insert the appropriate date for the election cycle or whatever the language needs to be to give them the ability to change that for the circumstances.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Now I’m thinking it’s going to be tight to get this put together by—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The twenty-second.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Actually, don’t we shut down tonight?

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We could move this out as a Committee and still do a Floor amendment.  We could bring that to the Committee, and then we have until the twenty-second to get it out of the house.  That would give you two weeks to be able to work on something to bring back to us to look at, if that would be acceptable to the Committee.  We need it before that to get it to drafting.

 

Assemblyman McClain:

Whoever works on this form, could you make sure that whatever you do it adds up?

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I think I’m on the verge of getting sentenced to [creating] this form, and yes.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Add a line-item for postage.  People need to know how much money we spend on postage.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Sentenced?  You volunteered!

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I want to assure Assemblyman Grady and the rest of the body that this will be a simple form.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Well said from a CPA.  Back to Section 4.  I’m not really sure what the July date and the 12 through the 11 and all those changes were attempting to do.  Can you speak to that, Renee?

 

Renee Parker:

I think it was just putting the date in there, the January 1 preceding the primary through the 12 days before the election, making it clear that it went through that twelfth day, because it was up to the eleventh day before, and it was too confusing to figure out exactly what date it was supposed to be.  I think this was language that we stole from Assemblyman Beers’ bill last session.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Then the July 15 of the year of the general election for that office.

 

Renee Parker:

This is referencing the three reports that are due in the election year.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Right.  Are we changing those dates, then?

 

Renee Parker:

No.  Like I said, specifying that one day that it goes through that twelfth day, and it’s the 11 days before the primary.  It’s essentially the same dates.  It changes by a day or two every year on the calendar.  I’m sure Assemblyman Beers’ form will show you exactly how simple that is to calculate.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’re looking forward to that.  You’ll still have to do your three forms in the election year, and those dates will still be the same, but then you would have a recap on January 15 of each year, even though it’s an election year.  Let’s take this year.  We’re in May.  We filed on January 15, because we’d had expenditures from the previous election, so that was carried over.  We’re not raising anything, because we’re prohibited by law until 30 days after this [session], so that would be sometime in July.  Say in August you get $100, May you get $100, maybe $1,000 in that next year.  Then in January, you would report that contribution and any expenditure you made now through that.  The next year you’re running for office.  You still collect your dollars, but now you file, so then you will do your campaign report in August, October, and December.

 

Renee Parker:

Actually, our intention was to do August, October, then you’d do January 15.  That annual form would then become your third report.  I’m not sure that it’s accurately reflected in here.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

It’s not, because I didn’t read it that way.

 

Renee Parker:

That’s what the intention was.  The third report, that January 15 report, would then become the third report in the election year.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Excellent idea.  Does the Committee like that concept?  Drafting, do you understand that part?

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

The January 15 that you file in an election year would cover any kind of contributions or expenditures that you had up until that day, even though they were part of the next election cycle?  Do you see what I’m saying?  If you buy new signs in December, it would go on the fifteenth, and then you don’t have to do that again on the August one?

 

Renee Parker:

Yes.  I think the intention was actually to follow the yearly reporting, it would actually report through December 31 of the previous year, not through the fourteenth, but through that December 31.  Your next January 15 would pick up that January 1 of that year.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I probably don’t need to point out that it seems a little stranger to us on a two‑year election cycle, because we’d do one annual, then the three, then one annual, then the three.  The Assembly makes more sense, [because the Senate would have] annual, annual, annual, three; annual, annual, annual, three.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Is there anything else in here you want to lobby us for salvaging?

 

Renee Parker:

The only other provision that I wanted to point out is that we did request that all the reports be filed with our office, but as the county clerks are currently required to send them to us within 10 days, we then [would] be required to turn around and send them a copy.  Your filing officer would have a copy.  The purpose of that was for enforcement.  By the time we get that report 10 days later, you already have people into the next period of fines.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What if we just filed with both as candidates?  Then there’s no delay.  If somebody wants to check my campaign report, then I don’t want them to wait 10 days until they get it from the Secretary of State, and it saves you having to mail out anything, and the clerks won’t have to mail out anything.

 

Renee Parker:

That’s fine, if that’s what you want to do.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Good idea, Madam Chair.  My comment was going to be similar to yours.  By sending them to Carson City, then having to send them back to Clark County, the majority of the people who want to see our reports, those of us that are from Clark County, won’t be able to in time for the election.  I think we need to retain filing with our county officer, those of us who are inside of the single county, and don’t have a problem with filing a second copy with you, since I already do that.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Then we can even say that people who run statewide, I know they have to do it with the Secretary of State’s Office, but maybe they should leave a copy with their local as well, because sometimes people do want to see that at the local level, and they’ve got to wait until it gets sent back down.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

That would require that somebody like Senator Rhoads file in 15 county seats.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

The only problem, and I guess maybe it’s just my problem, but the difficulty of trying to get material sent on to the Secretary of State’s Office, I want to make sure that it goes registered mail, which means that I have to find a post office that’s open after 3, 4 o’clock in the afternoon.  My day starts in school at 6:30, 7:00 in the morning.  I’m rarely out before 4:00 in the afternoon, so it’s often a race to the post office to try to get something in the registered mailbox.  For documents of this nature, I want to make sure that I send it registered mail, because I want there to be proof.  Therefore, filing with the local clerk is an easier task, because I can assure myself. 

 

What I usually do is [take] three copies with me, ask them to time/date two of them, and take one for my own permanent record and then send one on.  That’s what I try to do, just as a convenience.  I don’t think that helps the Secretary of State’s Web site, which is what they’re really trying to promote here.  I understand that, and I have no objection to their trying to keep an accurate Web site open for people who are legitimately interested, even if it’s an opponent.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let me ask a quick question.  If we kept it the way I suggested, my responsibility is [to get it to the local clerk within the timeline], not the Secretary of State.  Could the clerk fax it to you?  Or could we fax it to you? 

 

Renee Parker:

Some of them could fax it, but in the middle of the election, I think, and especially with Mr. Lomax with the number of candidates that he has, I think it would be—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s true.  But could we fax them?

Renee Parker:

That’s what I was going to suggest.  I don’t know if this helps Mr. Anderson, but you could put that it could be received by us via facsimile, and that you’re only fined if you were late to the clerk’s office.  Like I said, the main purpose, yes, we want to get the information on our Web site, too, but the real problem that we run into with these is we get complaints constantly that we send out these letters saying, “You’ve got a $1,600 fine,” and it’s because Larry couldn’t get to all of these within the 10 days.  By the time we got them in our office, you’re running up against a $1,600 fine.  Had we gotten them in the first couple of days, those people would have [gotten] a notice that said, “You’ve got a $100 fine as of today,” and they may send their report in.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So if we make this clear, that your filing officer is still who starts your clock ticking, then you may either fax it to the Secretary of State, mail it to the Secretary of State as an individual, and I would advise if you’ve got it stamped, as you said, fax that document so that they know that you went ahead and did it as well.  If you don’t get that document, then at least you’d be able to say, “I didn’t get so and so’s,” and then you call down to the clerk’s office and request that.  The fining purposes would only apply if your clerk did not receive the paperwork on time.

 

Renee Parker:

If you’re going to require the filing in both places, I think, you have to say it’s only one.  The filing only applies to one.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

“The candidate will provide a duplicate copy to the Secretary of State by facsimile or by mail.”  How’s that?

 

Alan Glover:

My only concern in this whole discussion is that nothing has ever been done with this statute anyway.  A candidate files one place or the other, so the interpretation is the intent to file it, and therefore nothing is ever done about it.  We have a perennial candidate who always files with the Secretary of State and never files with us, and then the press comes in and says, “Well, where is it?”  “We don’t have it.”  “Well, I filed it over there.”  “Well, we told you 10 times you need to file it with us.”  Is it going to be clear on the fine here if they don’t do whatever you want, whether it’s both places, or one place and we send them up, is that a finable offense at that point?  Or they were trying to be good people, they just filed it with the wrong office and life goes on.  We need some conclusion.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Currently, the clock starts ticking if the Secretary of State’s Office doesn’t have the document you were supposed to send, correct?

 

Renee Parker:

In some cases, statewide and multi-county races, we are the filing officers, so we currently get those.  If it’s not one of those offices, then the clock starts ticking if their filing officer doesn’t receive it.  It’s who your filing officer is.  If it’s us, if we don’t get it, the clock starts ticking.  If it’s them, if they don’t get it, the clock starts ticking.  If they file with one or the other, generally we do deem it timely filed if they file it in our office.  Sometimes I have had candidates who have tried to fax it in.  I know this last election cycle we took a couple, because they were trying to fax them in to Clark County and Larry’s machine was so backed up that they faxed them into our office, and we deemed them timely filed.  Some send them to the Ethics Commission, and those we don’t deem timely filed.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Alan, if we maintain that procedure, does that still work for you?

 

Alan Glover:

It doesn’t really matter, I guess, as long as we have some definition.  Again, if this body decides that they filed in the wrong office, and they have the intent to file—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think that would still be considered timely.

 

Alan Glover:

—and they were good people, then we’d just say, “Okay.  Sorry, we don’t have it in our office.”  We usually do.  The press will come in and they’ll ask, “Well, where’s so and so’s disclosure form?”  We’ll say, “We don’t have it.  However, before you start writing a nasty article, you probably should check with somebody else.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

In the language we’ll make sure that it says that if you unfortunately file it in the wrong office, we’ll consider it timely.  Anything else?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Renee, just some language, they said by mail or facsimile.  Don’t you also want to include electronically?  I used your wonderful new program this time around.  You just might want to add that.

Renee Parker:

Right now, the programming and the language wasn’t in there, so if you filed it electronically, you still had to print it out and sign the hard copy and send it in.  So, yes, electronically within 24 hours of a contribution would be great.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would accept a motion to amend and do pass with the consolidation of the form for one time a year, with amending the language if someone dies, deleting NRS 294A.170, and clarifying the language in NRS 294A.160, going with the language in Section 4 with the date changes that are in there, and then understanding that we will probably do a further amendment on the Floor to include what we would like the form to look like.

 

Renee Parker:

Just so you know, Sections 4—

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

—parallels.  It picks up in Section 6.

 

Renee Parker:

Yes, because there’s the expenses side of it, and then it’s in the other city statutes.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So we would pick up that language in those places.  Electronic filing would be included.  Electronic, facsimile, or by mail.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

However, our amendment is not mandating electronic filing.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

No.  It is not mandating it.  It’s an option for how you want to transmit it.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 529.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Assembly Bill 541:  Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-166)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The controversial part is [shortening of the] early voting.  Other than that, I suggested to eliminate the residence addresses, which was old language that you would print next to a person’s name; add middle initial or middle name; delete the words “incumbent must appear immediately following the name.”  Instead say, “Incumbent must be listed first, and the name must be in bold” (Tab E, Exhibit C)  I think one of you had that idea rather than going through the asterisk and all that part of it.  I don’t want to get rid of early voting.  I just want to shorten it so we can have more time to register people.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I don’t want to shorten it, either.  I think the voters would just have a fit.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think sometimes we’re elected to do things whether they have a fit or not, which we do on a daily, hourly basis, unfortunately.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I’m also in agreement with my colleague.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I’ll take a motion to amend and do pass with those other amendments.  I’ll fight my battle another day.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 541.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

[The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.]

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: