MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
May 15, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:43 p.m., on Thursday, May 15, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Grady
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
Michael Stewart, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club
Mike Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Gordon DePaoli, Walker Irrigation District
Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State’s Office
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder
Barbara Reed, Clerk Treasurer, Douglas County
Dean Heller, Secretary of State
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We will come to order. [Roll called] We have a quorum. We’ll take up Senate Bill 406. Senator Schneider is in another hearing so he’s asked Mr. Stewart to present the bill.
Senate Bill 406: Directs Legislative Commission to consider creating document to be used by governmental agencies in determining whether to procure goods and services from public or private sources. (BDR 17-412)
Michael Stewart, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Senator Schneider asked me to present this bill on his behalf. As members of the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, and all LCB employees, we are non-partisan staff and therefore we cannot advocate the passage or defeat of any bill. I am here to simply introduce the bill on Senator Schneider’s behalf.
During the 2002 legislative interim, the Legislative Commission appointed an interim study to examine competition between local governments and private enterprises. I was honored to work as the Committee Policy Analyst for this interim study. Throughout the interim, the subcommittee held extensive discussions regarding effective government and sensible delivery of public services. Numerous topics were discussed during the course of the study and, in particular, the subcommittee examined potential competition in service generally provided to the public by state and local government agencies that might also be supplied in some manner by the private sector.
Representatives of the private sector typically related concerns about possible advantages government might have in providing such services, particularly with regard to taxation and regulation. Meanwhile, representatives from state and local government service providers noted they are responsible for meeting carefully defined public needs that are not generally met by the private sector. [Michael Stewart, continues.] The measure before you this afternoon, Senate Bill 406, addresses the issue of procurement of government services in providing an evaluation tool for state and local governments to use when making decisions regarding the delivery of government services.
The first portion of the bill contains a legislative declaration that encourages state and local governmental entities to procure goods and services from privately owned businesses to the extent that it is practicable and in the best interest of the state. The declaration also notes that if private procurement is not available, or is not a suitable option, the government agency shall make all reasonable efforts to provide the goods or services through sensible and cost- effective public channels.
In addition, S.B. 406 provides that the Legislative Commission shall consider and study the creation of and, as it deems necessary, create or cause to be created a guidebook, handbook, manual, or other document that may be used by a state or local governmental agency when making purchasing decisions. This guidebook or document would determine whether the interest of the residents of this state would be best served by the governmental agency procuring goods or services from privately owned business, companies, or corporations, or through public instead of private channels of procurement.
This guidebook or document, if it were created, must include the legislative intent that is set forth at the top of page 2 of the bill. It must be disseminated to each governmental agency in the state, and may be published and made available in any format that the Legislative Commission chooses. Several states offer guidebooks and evaluation tools for use by state and/or local governments when deciding whether or not to outsource or privatize a public service. For your reference, I have supplied a few examples of these guidebooks (Exhibit C), from the states of Colorado, Texas, and Virginia.
In general, the criteria and guidelines set forth in these books and pamphlets are similar to those listed in the guidebook from the state of Colorado, which sets forth criteria based on market strength, political resistance, quality of service, employee impacts, legal issues, level of risk, impact on resources, and quality control issues. The subcommittee to study competition between local governments and private enterprises spent considerable time evaluating the impacts of competition on the provision of public services.
Senate Bill 406 sets forth a method by which state and local government may evaluate these services to determine the best way to deliver them in the most cost-effective, efficient, and sensible manner. I will attempt to answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So we’ll just have a guide that will be available so companies know what they can and cannot bid on? Is that pretty much it?
Michael Stewart:
The Committee looked at it in terms of a guidebook for use by government. When a new service is created through legislation, for example, a state agency or a local government can evaluate that service and determine the best way to procure that service and how to get it. These other states have done it whereby the state auditor’s office, for example, in Colorado, and I think Texas, there auditor’s office does it. They would take a look at the service and use some of these evaluative tools in the books, then determine what the best way is to get the service out to the public.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Was there a fiscal note?
Michael Stewart:
I don’t recall seeing a fiscal note.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I believe this [bill] is exempt, but let’s double check.
Michael Stewart:
I think whenever it says that Commission has the authority to do something, they might leave that in as a possibility that there might be some impact.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Are we looking at whether this is a good idea, or are we just assuming it’s a good idea and this is how to make it happen?
Michael Stewart:
This is presented as a consideration for the Committee in terms of a policy choice. It gives the Legislative Commission the authority, if they like; it says that they shall study, at least look at the issue, and then it gives them the option, if they choose, to create a handbook or guidebook for guidelines for procurement of government services. The subcommittee was pretty intrigued by the idea. It has some of its roots from a committee that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani sat on in 1991. This guidebook from Colorado was referenced as a tool for the interim study to look at. I think that was on the privatization of government. This study had more to do with competition issues in general.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Exactly. In the 1991 session, we looked at the whole issue of privatizing. We made recommendations that most of our state programs should have competition from the public agencies themselves. If anybody ever chose to move into a privatized area, what factors should be looked at? I can’t remember all of the recommendations that came out of that.
Michael Stewart:
These guidelines are set forth in some of these booklets about looking at market strength and impact on employees. Is it going to cost more or less to…?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Sometimes cost-saving may be there, but the efficiency or the impact may not be. It isn’t always just saving dollars when you look at privatization.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I hope that when we look at privatization, we look at the loss of benefits for the people who work for private companies and the fact that those people now use social services. Does all that get looked at?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
They never adopted the recommendations. They still exist, but were never put in policy. For future, it’s not something bad to look at, so as we consider, like when we looked at DMV this year, or the printing office, they use that as a guideline, but it doesn’t exist in statute any place.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I know there are discussions among the folks looking at the problems at NASA, right now, and that some of those problems are caused by the fact that there is not enough oversight over technical things that have been privatized and that may have caused some of the problems that have happened recently, so, I mean, for me, the first part of this, which says, “Each government agency exercising and performing its powers, duties, and functions on behalf of the residents of the state is encouraged to procure goods and service from privately owned business.” I’m not sure that I think that’s a good idea.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
This one, like I said, is exempt, and we can talk about the verbiage, and so forth.
Assemblyman Beers:
Doesn’t this [manual] involve production of a book? Is it going to be printed by the state printer?
Michael Stewart:
It could. It says that the Legislative Commission can disseminate whatever they create in any manner they choose. That could be interpreted to be electronic, as well. That’s probably what the intent was there. The language says, “The Legislative Commission shall consider in the study of the creation of, and as it deems necessary or advisable to create or cause to be created, a booklet.” It seems to be pretty wide open in terms of how they can interpret that.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We can double check with Senator Schneider too. We did pull up the fiscal note and it does say zero impact. [Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.B. 406]. We’ll go to our work session document (Exhibit D). The first item on our agenda is A.C.R. 21.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 21: Declares that preservation of Walker Lake’s freshwater ecosystem is in public interest. (BDR R-1302)
I received an amendment from the Walker Irrigation District, which appeared to be similar to what we received the other evening. I didn’t notice any changes in it. Mr. Johnson, has there been any further discussion or resolution?
Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club:
We have had fairly extensive discussion with numerous parties on this issue. At this time we are still in disagreement on whether to process a resolution or not, whether this would interfere in the process, and at what level we would anticipate modifications. You have before you the outline of a proposed amendment (Exhibit E) from the advocates of A.C.R. 21 that was presented in verbal form at your last meeting. You have a written proposal from the Walker River Irrigation District (Exhibit F), and we have an additional prepared amendment that we put together in response from the Irrigation District. I think there’s still a significant disagreement about the approach. We have recognized the differences in our particular approaches and we requested this resolution [due to] significant anxiety about the status of Walker Lake and the water that it was not receiving. I am still uncertain, and I do not have a position to recommend at this time.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We got the one [handout]. It looks like what Mike Turnipseed went through the other evening. Then we were delivered something (Exhibit F) with Mr. Ferraro’s name on it, which is exactly what the attorney gave to us.
Joe Johnson:
This proposal has some significant new language. We presented that other language in response to the Irrigation Districts proposal, in recognizing that we had understated their concerns about the effects.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Right, you picked up a majority of the: “whereases” and you noted California and Nevada, as appropriate, regarding the impacts. This is an exempt bill, so I may let us mull some things over. We don’t have to take action this evening. I’d rather do it right if we’re going to do it.
Joe Johnson:
I think that would be recommended. We still are in a point of concern about the possible effects this resolution would have on the process.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m not. I’ll listen to everybody, but I’m almost to the point of thinking no wonder no one’s ever resolved anything, because you can’t even agree that it’s a beautiful piece of property that we’d like to save and everybody’s in an uproar over some fairly, in my opinion, innocuous words. I understand about the “in public interest” part. I think what Mike [Turnipseed] and the Committee brought forth gave us some good solid language to look at. I also understand from the attorney side that you have to look at the balance that’s there. I want time to think about how the language really works, but I do think we should process something. We’ll give everybody time to look through it.
Mike Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] I’m also the leader of the state of Nevada’s team at the negotiating table. Obviously, our position is we would rather not have any resolution at all, as I stated two days ago. I think it will undo some of the trust that we’ve built in the mediation session. We have contacted the mediator and she doesn’t think it’s a good idea, although she would not write a letter to the Chair stating so.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’d be happy to call her if you’d like. [Mr. Turnipseed indicated he would]. Secondly, what impact do you think a resolution would have? We pass hundreds, most of them worthless, in this body. They don’t mean anything. Give me a little bit more. Why is this going to mean something other than saying that Nevada happens to think that this is a precious resource?
Mike Turnipseed:
We all agree it is [a precious resource] and we’re going to get there. Part of the frustration of the proponents of the bill is they haven’t been at the table so they don’t know all of the discussions that have gone on. I stated downstairs that this is not going to be a long, drawn-out process. Call me naïve, call me the eternal optimist. I wanted to have substantial completion on a settlement package by the election of 2004. That’s not very much time from now. It took a year just for them to assemble the federal negotiating team.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think if you were the only one on it, we’d have settled it.
Mike Turnipseed:
We’ve built a fair amount of trust in the negotiations and as I mentioned, suppose, as a reaction, the California Legislature says “pass the resolution that says to hell with Walker Lake. We’re going to take more water over Conway Summit and send it over to Pomona Lake.” By exchange that means they could take more water down to the California aqueduct down to Los Angeles. We all know how short southern California is. Given that, if the Chair wishes to pass something, I think we prefer Gordon DePaoli’s version of the resolution that talks about the benefits, economically, ecologically, and recreation-wise, of the whole system, top to bottom.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We will definitely take that into consideration.
Gordon DePaoli:
After the hearing the other night, I looked at the marked-up amendment that had been handed to you. After that review, I came to the conclusion that it was going to be impossible to reach an accord on language, which combined the intent of the original resolution, or that amendment, with the intent of the amendment that I had proposed. The reasons I think that is the case are really very simple. The resolution, as introduced, the marked-up amendment, and the amendment that you’ve been given this afternoon, are intended to include separate statements on the importance of Walker Lake, on a level of protection for Walker Lake, and on a particular method for achieving that level of protection.
On the other hand, the intent that I had with the statement and the proposed amendment that I presented was to set forth the issues on the entire system, recognize the importance of the entire system from top to bottom, and ask for support for the process that we have worked so hard to put together to resolve those issues. It was not intended to direct that process or to be a statement of importance with respect to any one part of the system. The two approaches are incompatible.
[Mr. Gordon DePaoli continues.] The approach of singling out Walker Lake, whether it’s in the original resolution, or it’s in these proposed amendments, is not helpful to the mediation process. I think I can make the point of why that is. Consider that you aren’t considering A.C.R. 21, but you’re considering “A.C.R. Blank,” which Walker River Irrigation District, one of the participants in the process, brought to you without telling anyone else in the process that they were going to do it, even though they knew they were. They brought A.C.R. Blank to you and they asked you in A.C.R. Blank to declare that the preservation of 80,000 acres of irrigated agriculture in the Smith and Mason Valleys is of importance to the citizens of the state of Nevada; to include a number of findings by the Legislature as to why all that is important; and to declare that all reasonable actions be taken to ensure that 80,000 acres of irrigated agriculture are preserved in the Smith and Mason Valleys. I expect that all of us would agree that that would not have been helpful to the mediation process. That process, particularly one that has a short fuse is based, to a large extent, on the trust of the participants in the process in one another. This kind of thing has a tendency to cause concerns over that trust. My conclusion is that for that process, the best thing to do would be to either not have a resolution, or have the resolution which I proposed, which was a recognition of all of the issues, of the importance of the entire system, and support to have that process resolve those issues.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We will be sensitive to the matter. I won’t go off on my soapbox then that 70-some-odd percent of the state water goes to agriculture, yet less than 2 percent of the domestic product is a result from that. That’s a whole other matter that we can bring up at another time. I think my numbers are a little off. It’s 77 percent, Mike, is that about right? Yeah. Okay, we won’t take this up today. That gives us a little more time to let me read through everything, go back through, and check off what was where before. I haven’t had time to do an analysis. Let the Committee think about it, then we’ll repost. Thank you for being here, I appreciate it. The next bill we will take up will be Senate Bill 147. It is behind tab A for the Committee.
Senate Bill 147 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to Commission on Ethics. (BDR 23-500)
Michelle Van Geel:
Senate Bill 147 was heard in the Committee on May 8, [2003]. It makes various changes relating to the Commission on Ethics, including electronic filing to the Commission, revising certain deadlines related to investigations and eliminating the authority of the Commission to impose a civil penalty against a person who submits a false accusation or information in bad faith or with a vexatious purpose. Under Tab A (Exhibit D) is Stacy Jennings’ proposed amendment to the bill.
[Ms. Michelle Van Geel continues.] In addition, there was discussion at the previous meeting about adding language regarding the financial disclosure statements. Currently it says—and this is also discussed at the bottom of the first page of Stacy’s amendment—“Anybody who receives compensation,” and you had discussed putting in some qualifying language, $6,000 was one example, that’s up to negotiation, just so not everybody had to file that. Then, the third amendment you had discussed to amend the language from Assembly Bill 127 into this provision, as it was indefinitely postponed in the Senate.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So for the Committee’s consideration are the amendments suggested by Stacy, then we are suggesting that we put our bill back into this bill, since it complies statutorily and is germane, to see if we get another bite at the apple, eliminating negative campaigning. Ms. Jennings, let’s make sure we got your amendments correctly.
Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics:
I was just looking at the report that we ran, and if you put in the $6,000 threshold, it should cut the list of annual filers down to about 350 from the 1,600, which would be significant. The one thing I wanted to mention was, on your number 2, the $6,000 income [portion]. If you look at the amendment that I proposed under Tab A, we would have changed NRS 281.561 to say, “except as otherwise provided if a candidate for public office will be entitled to receive compensation for serving in the office that he is seeking, or if a public officer is entitled to receive compensation.” I don’t think that in number 2 you need the and/or candidates because you are going to get the candidates who are going to be entitled to receive compensation. I think what you need to be clear about is, are you applying the $6,000 threshold to just appointed officers, or is it elected and appointed officers? I just want to make sure that we’re really clear on that, if you want all elected to file and then just appoint in excess of $6,000, or if you want all of those people who make in excess of $6,000.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What’s the feeling of the Committee? Probably all elected and then appointed and then compensated?
Assemblyman Beers:
Is the issue somebody who’s running for a legislative seat that has compensation that they would be entitled to? Is that what we’re talking about? I wouldn’t think it would happen for legislative races. We all get elected in November, so should an unsuccessful candidate be filing this at the close of that year?
Stacy Jennings:
Currently, if they’re a candidate, they do have to file within ten days of the close of filing date for public office if they’re entitled to receive compensation, which we’re clarifying.
Assemblyman Beers:
But as an incumbent, I do mine at the end of the…
Stacy Jennings:
You would do yours annually.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Let’s restate it so everybody’s clear on what we’re talking about. The suggested amendment will apply to all elected officials and candidates who are entitled to receive a compensation of over $6,000, if elected, and those appointed to positions, if appointed, and will be compensated over $6,000. Am I capturing that correctly? [Ms. Jennings agreed]. [Mr. Beers said, “or is entitled to receive more than $6,000”].
Stacy Jennings:
Because you are paid in a year opposite of that in which you’re elected, so you’d have to file as a candidate in one year and as an elected official in the next year. I thought Assemblyman Beers had said “All elected [officials] entitled to receive compensation should file,” and you restated, “elected [officials] entitled to receive compensation in excess of $6,000.” I don’t think that’s what we said originally.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Bob, do you want to restate what you said?
Assemblyman Beers:
Do we want to pick up school board members, for example?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
They would have to file as candidates and they would still have to file as elected officials only if they were paid more than . . .
Assemblyman Beers:
What other elected officials are out there—regents?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Regents don’t get paid.
Stacy Jennings:
Regents don’t have to file. There’s an exception for GID members in statutes. Regents aren’t compensated. Some school boards are compensated and some aren’t. Right now, some school board members file as public officers and some only have to file when they’re candidates.
Assemblyman Beers:
Currently elected [officials] that don’t get compensated, don’t file? [Ms. Jennings indicated that was correct]. I didn’t know that.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I didn’t either. I think if you’re elected you should have to file.
Stacy Jennings:
That is what I thought you might have wanted. I think you want all elected public officers to file. You want all candidates for public office who would be entitled to receive compensation to file, and all appointed officers who make in excess of $6,000 per year to file.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
That’s what we want. I think we got it. I would be happy to entertain a motion to adopt items 1, 2, and 3.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 147.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Three was reinserting A.B. 127 back into this bill for the Senate to consider again. The next item is Senate Bill 249.
Senate Bill 249 (1st Reprint): Creates Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs. (BDR 18-766)
Michelle Van Geel:
Senate Bill 249 would create the Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs within the state Executive Branch. There are five proposed amendments here (Exhibit D). The first would make the Commission an interim commission to sunset in 2007. The second would reduce the number of members from 11 to 9. The third would add provisions to specify that the members would represent a variety of minority groups, must reflect a percentage of the general population, the members will recommended by various minority groups, and the Legislative Commission will select them. Currently as drafted, the Governor would appoint those members.
The fourth amendment would change the terms for the members to two years and allow the members to select their own chair and vice chair. Again, currently, the Governor would choose the chair and vice chair. The fifth amendment, in Section 7, subsection 3, deletes that language and then adds provisions requiring the Commission to also study the availability of employment for minorities in the state and the manner in which they are employed, the manner in which minorities can be encouraged to start and successfully manage their own business, and the availability of affordable housing for minorities.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I asked Senator Raggio if he wouldn’t mind if we did a sunset and he said it didn’t matter. I took language from a bill passed in 1991 that had the Hispanic business community studying it. I lifted some language from that that actually had the Committee being more focused, in my opinion, regarding what was going on, then also changed it so that there could be no accusation that the Governor might overly pack the group, but then have the people that were active in their community be able to suggest their names to the Commission and the Commission will appoint from there.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 249.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The next bill is Senate Bill 262.
Senate Bill 262 (1st Reprint): Requires certain abstracts of votes to be posted on certain websites or transmitted to certain public libraries. (BDR 24‑906)
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani continues.] This was Senator Neal’s [bill]. I have not had time to get with him to make sure he is okay with this, but I will double-check this with him.
Michelle Van Geel:
There was discussion at the hearing on May 1, 2003, concerning either transmitting via paper or electronically (Exhibit D). In reviewing the notes from that meeting, what I could decipher was discussed by the Committee, particularly you and Mr. Beers, was in Section 1, subsection 1, and then in Section 2, subsection 5, it mirrors language, it would be “to transmit on paper” and then change the phrase, if possible to, “and by electric means, including a CD.” I’m not sure if Mr. Beers is comfortable with that or may have an idea.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Does that capture what you were saying the other day?
Assemblyman Beers:
I can’t imagine that there would be, certainly for the next two years, a better way of transmitting it than on CD. I think we talked about the problems with going via e-mail, and that documents like the Clark County extract are pretty big and tend to consume bandwidth unnecessarily. We’d also talked about posting on a Web site and having the legal requirement consolidated to just one Web site. Perhaps, if I read that language correctly, we’re enabling Web sites.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We could say “transmit on paper and, if possible, by electronic means, which may include a Web site or production by CD,” or something along those lines.
Assemblyman Beers:
I like that better.
Assemblyman Conklin:
The cost of producing a CD is, I would bet, and Mr. Beers would probably confirm this, a fraction of the cost of producing this on paper, so I guess I’m almost wondering why we would send it on paper. I think we should send it by CD and if someone requests a paper copy, of those that we’re trying to get, then we would forward a paper copy as well. But CD is easy, it’s portable, it’s electronic, and it’s cheap.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I appreciate the fact that we’re trying to include the current level of technology, by “electronic means”, and then all of a sudden we decided it could be a Web site or a CD, but if we’re going to be that specific, then we may be hampering the bill. I think that nearly by saying by paper or by electronics we’re okay. The reason I think we still need to produce the paper is because I think you’re going to find that in some of the rural areas, they may not have the equipment yet to do that. I know that we keep on saying the schools all have these things, but I know that hasn’t quite reached the level you might think. The Web site is the greatest way you’re going to do it, but then you’re going to have somebody print it off at their site anyway. I don’t want us to get caught up in our current jargon too much. Therefore, I think we need to be flexible.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Here’s just something I jotted. Let’s go back to the bill. “The Secretary of State, the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk, and any other person who prepares an abstract of votes pursuant to this chapter shall, if available, through a Web site link, transmit by electronic means, which may include the production of a CD, or by request, paper, or post.” I don’t know, maybe I’m duplicating it. I think subsection 2 should be part of the lead, because there it says, “post on a Web site.” I think, Bob, what you were saying is that they should just have a link at the county, the library, Web site so that a person sitting at another place could then look at that. If they want to, they could get a CD of it, and if they don’t have a computer at home, probably why they’re using the library in the first place, they could print it out or get a copy of it in paper.
Assemblyman Beers:
It truly is redundant to require the Secretary of State, County Commissioners, and County Clerk, and anybody else, to post on a Web site. The joy of the Web is that you only need it in one location and you can access it from anyplace. We should hit one of those entities and make them the responsible party.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Say we pretend it’s not there. What if we said, “The County Clerk…” Do all county clerks have Web sites? Do all counties have Web sites that link to your county clerks? But then they could link back to their locals. Would you have the abstracts of all locals? At some point you would. So, what we could say is, “The Secretary of State,” on their Web site, “shall prepare abstracts or provide or assure the abstracts are provided or available.” So, “The Secretary of State, on a Web site maintained by that entity, shall make available by electronic means, which may include production of a CD, shall maintain on a Web site…”
Assemblyman Conklin:
I might just say that if we’re going to put in here that the Secretary of State shall make available on the Secretary of State’s Web site the abstracts of all election races, then you can simply say in the next section “governing bodies of elections in each county shall provide a link to the Secretary of State’s Web site.” It’s that simple. One of two things is going to happen. Either you have a Web site, and creating a link is very simple, or you don’t have a Web site, in which case if you’re a library all you have to do is put the Secretary of State’s page there. They can go into the browser and open up the Secretary of State’s page.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What I have so far is, “Secretary of State shall maintain, on a Web site, an abstract of votes, pursuant to this chapter, and…” Mr. Conklin?
Assemblyman Conklin:
“Governing body of elections in each county, if they have a Web site, shall provide a link to the Secretary of State’s page.” That’s it. It’s that simple. If they’re on the county page, they can click on a link and then be right at the Secretary of State’s page.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay, but what he wanted to do is also not only be able to look at it, but some people want to take the piece with them.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Once you’re on the Web site, you just print it from there. Then, when you got to your computer, you just go straight to the Secretary of State’s page instead of going… See, every consumer will have that option. You can either go to your county, which will connect you to the Secretary of State, or you can go straight to the Secretary of State. Either way, with this model, you’re going to wind up at the same page.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Dean [Heller], do you always get this [information] now? [He indicated he did].
Assemblyman Beers:
Do you always get it electronically? [He indicated he did not].
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We could change the effective date to after the time they have their systems, maybe make it effective July 1, 2004.
Assemblywoman McClain:
What was the terrible thing that happened that we have to mandate this now?
Assemblyman Beers:
Senator Neal knew some kids who knew who wanted to check out the voter abstract from an election. They went to the library and got a blank stare.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I can fix this whole bill. Just change “shall” to “may.”
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think it’s important to have abstracts. You have people who want to do research. We all like to look at who did what in what races, the breakdowns by age and by gender and whatever else. It’s a worthwhile tool that ought to be available. I think that’s the intent, to make sure that there’s more participation, especially if students had to do projects and they don’t have access to it.
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State’s Office:
We get all of the [abstracts] at one point. So, when they go into the county, they’re going to pull up the abstract for all the counties. Is that what you want? [Ms. Giunchigliani indicated it was not]. I think we need to clarify that because we get everything. If we’re going to need to post everything, it’s all going to be up there. Each county will link to our page, which will have all of the abstracts.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think it’s the option of either one. If you’re sitting in Clark County and all you’re interested is in Clark County, they should be able to go to that local government’s Web site and pull up their abstracts. But, say they want more than Clark County and they want to compare Clark County to Washoe, then they would go to the Secretary of State’s Office and link to those sites to be able to look at the abstracts there.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Every month I check the Secretary of State’s page for the registration numbers in my district. I’d like to be able to, and I think most people are looking for specific races and specific precincts in the abstract. I’d like to be able to go and look up Assembly District 37. There’s 40 precincts in District 37, 12 of them are mail-in, so you have no statistics on those, but here’s 28 and here’s the voter abstract in each precinct. My entire abstract is only four pages. I’m sure you have overlap because I have some precincts that I share with Senator Wiener. There’s going to be some overlap. That’s the way I think the user would like to see it, because that’s how we do our research.
Renee Parker:
I agree and think that’s a good idea. I think the way the language is being proposed, the counties are being required to post their own, so we’ve got the link and you can go to that, but, at least the way I heard it, it was saying we would post the abstract on our Web site and then we’d do the links to each of the counties, but it would be everything that we got so you’re not going to be… I think Larry Lomax could easily post it in Clark County. Dan Burk, Voter Registrar, probably can in Washoe, but some of the smaller counties, you’re not going to get that separate abstract in that county or broken out, because we’re… We can look at whether we can do it. I don’t know at this point how well we can do it. We may be able to break it out by the counties too.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I’d be pretty comfortable leaving that wording kind of loose and let the Secretary of State’s Office handle it. They know what the consumer is looking for because I think the Web site is set up pretty well now. I don’t know that we need to get that much into the details, as much as the information is made available.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Why don’t we state for the Senator where we’re trying to get on his bill. We’re trying to make it so that it’s as user-friendly as possible. Here’s some suggested language: They felt it was somewhat redundant to use the Secretary of State, Board of Commissioners, and County Clerk, so we were kind of kicking around. “The Secretary of State, shall maintain on a Web site an abstract of votes, pursuant to this chapter, and the governing body, the clerk, shall provide a link to the Secretary of State’s Web site.” That’s where we left it. This would allow for electronic means to be made available, including a CD, or, upon request, paper transaction. That’s where we were at. Because a lot of the rural areas don’t have a Web site link, we thought, if it’s acceptable, because of the new equipment that they’ll be purchasing, if we extended the effective date to July 2004, they should all have a link by that time. Then everybody is in one place for the next election.
Senator Joe Neal, Senate District No. 4, Clark County:
As you know, the purpose of the proposal is to make the information available about the voters in various precincts and a number of people who voted and so forth, and have that available for people who want to do research. The history of this proposal came to me from students who went to the library to try to do some research on the election and the information was not there. I thought it would be good to have that information available in the libraries for the public to look at those abstracts, to get a feel for how people voted in each precinct, and do whatever they want to with that information. That is the purpose. How we get it there, I don’t have a problem with that. It could be a link to the various libraries from the Secretary of State’s Office. As long as the information is by precinct and how people voted in those precincts.
Assemblyman Christensen:
These students who went to the library and weren’t able to find the information that they were looking for, do you know if it was just that particular library? Are there any libraries that do carry [this information] on a regular basis?
Senator Neal:
I don’t think there are any libraries that carry the abstract. What they carry is just a total amount of votes received by candidates. They do not show the breakdown of votes by precinct.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Students are used to using the Internet to do research; it’s an easily accessible tool, and since the Secretary of State’s Office provides that opportunity for them, that’s seems the way to go. The only problem I foresee is that libraries might not have enough computers for a class to all do the research at once, so libraries have tried to keep a printout of the abstract for them to use because they know this project is coming up every two or four years.
I think the bill is very well written and well intended. I think if we try to include the electronic link, we’re overworking the bill to a point where it’s not going to be useable. We’re micromanaging it. I think we could go through it forever without saying “library” in it. I do want kids to have the link in order to get the abstract when they need it. I think if we can do this through the Secretary of State’s Office, we could go with it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think we have been overworking it, but I do think there does need to be some tweaking and that’s what we’re trying to accommodate for the Committee.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I think this may cover it:
That way, we’ve covered everybody who’s listed here.
Assemblyman Beers:
In deference to Assemblyman Anderson’s comments, we may also be able to get there by changing, on page 1, line 6, the word “mail” to “means,” and make the same change on page 2, line 40.
Assemblyman Conklin:
So, what you’re saying is everybody is in compliance as long as it’s available, either electronically or on paper. I can live with that.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We would need to change it also on line 40 on page 2. Let me just double check. On the effective date, what would we need? That’s the only question I still have. I guess we could make it effective October and then as those small counties get their equipment they can link to it, because we’re leaving it as reading “or.”
Senator Neal:
Are you saying that the small counties have to acquire equipment?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
No, it still allows paper or… Eventually they will all be able to do a binder.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 262 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS;
· IN SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 1, AND IN SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 5, CHANGE THE WORD “MAIL” TO THE WORD “MEANS.”
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Thank you, Senator, we appreciate you being here. I think the Secretary of State’s Office is free to put it on their page. We don’t need to mandate that. [Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on Senate Bill 309.]
Senate Bill 309 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning support for participatory democracy. (BDR 18-1167)
Michelle Van Geel:
Senate Bill 309 was heard in the Committee on May 6. It makes various changes concerning support for participatory democracy. There is an amendment under Tab B (Exhibit D) from Larry Struve.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
The amendment from Larry Struve was recommended by the students who we made sure were participating. I’ll accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 309.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on Senate Bill 329.]
Senate Bill 329 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to administrative regulations. (BDR 18-730)
Michelle Van Geel:
Senate Bill 329 was heard in the Committee on April 29. It authorized the review of a temporary regulation by the Legislative Commission upon the request of a legislator. These amendments are tied in together. If you choose to do the first one, you’ll probably need to do the second one. The first amendment would be in Section 1, subsection 3; remove the language allowing the Legislative Commission to appoint a committee to examine any temporary regulation. This is to clarify that they’re not pointing at a separate committee that currently reviews those regulations. You could substitute language referencing the same committee referenced in NRS 233B.067, which is under Tab C (Exhibit D).
I spoke to Brenda Erdoes about this. She’s the one who had come up with this idea. She said the current language in the bill is not very specific, so it could be interpreted to mean a different committee than the committee to review regulations right now. If you did want to reference that committee, she then suggested part two of the amendment, which would be to name the committee to review regulations in the statute. Currently, that committee isn’t named, although it is the committee that reviews those. If you change the language in Senate Bill 329 to reference the same committee, then it’s referencing the committee and not just the people on it since those people can change in between sessions, interims, and elections.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Basically all we’re doing is saying the same committee that would govern this outside of the term would then still govern it during session, just before and just after, or normally when we wouldn’t do these things?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Correct. Senator Amodei agreed that the intent was not to appoint a whole new committee. We’re not doing away with it; we’re just naming it.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 329.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I want the assurance [because it is so important], from serving on that Commission, that we’re not doing away with that committee, because it does serve a very vital role and it allows us to expand the hearing group rather than the Commission doing that one single thing.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
This actually strengthens it, Mr. Anderson, because we actually refer, in this bill, to the standing…
THE MOTION CARRIED.
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on Senate Bill 362(Exhibit D).]
Senate Bill 362 (1st Reprint): Requires Las Vegas Monorail Company to provide certain documents to Legislative Commission and authorizes Legislative Auditor to conduct audit under certain circumstances. (BDR S-573)
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 362.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the haring on Senate Bill 449.]
Senate Bill 449 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing advisory questions appearing on ballot. (BDR 24-250)
Michelle Van Geel:
Senate Bill 449 was heard in the Committee on May 13. The measure makes various changes concerning advisory questions and information that must accompany advisory questions on the ballot. The only proposed amendment was from Alan Glover and Mary Henderson to remove the changes in the population requirements (Exhibit D). They were concerned with some of the smaller cities and counties being able to find people to serve on those committees to come up with the information for the ballot questions.
Assemblyman Conklin:
If we remove the population changes, do the counties that are under 100,000 revert to the old law? Because they still have to apply under old law, do they not? Is that the whole idea here? They don’t have to follow this process at all, currently?
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:
Under the present law, we do not have to follow this, it’s permissive.
Assemblyman Conklin:
So, right now, if I’m in a rural county with under 40,000 or 100,000, then how do the ballot questions get written?
Alan Glover:
The traditional way. Bond counsel writes them. They’re reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office and, in our case, that language is then approved by our Board of Supervisors. They have to actually place the question onto the ballot and, therefore, during that process, they review the ballot language and then approve it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
The for and against?
Alan Glover:
Yes. If it’s a local issue, normally the District Attorney draws that up. They can ask for input from different parties if they have comments or input. In some cases I’ve actually seen them have the opposition or the proponents actually write the language, which is reviewed by the District Attorney, and then is reviewed again, in some cases, by the County Commissioners. There would be an open meeting and people can give input at that time. Very seldom does that happen, however.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I can live with the changes to the larger numbers of counties, but I must admit, if it’s something the county wants, there’s a lot of potential influence in the proponent and opponent language. I’m not really comfortable with it, but I understand that’s the way it works now, and this might put an undue burden on the counties.
Alan Glover:
I share your sympathies in that area, but it’s very difficult to run these committees in trying to get people to serve.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I know these committees are a problem, but I think this should apply to everybody across the board. If nothing else, why can’t there be an assignment for the high school civics class to write the arguments?
Alan Glover:
We had talked about that. We’re fortunate here in Carson City because we have a community college. I think you might be better off having the debate class or an English class actually write these because the committees are terribly political, and we did use this last election and we got political statements. We spent a lot of time arguing over them each calling each other names, and that consumed quite a bit of time in there. If you change the law and just say the high school debate class has to write it, I could probably live with that, because I think you might have a better product.
Assemblywoman McClain:
The people who are on the committees don’t have to be qualified voters, right? It’s just somebody from the public? I think even in the rural counties with minimal population, you could find people to do it. I think it’s important that it goes across the board, and they get used to it. It’ll take a couple times. It’s part of the process. They need to be part of it.
Assemblyman Grady:
I think one of the biggest helps was the templates being used now that give people a guideline. The clerks, right about the time they’re doing this, are overloaded with everything else they’re doing. I think the templates will go a long way, hopefully to do what Ms. McClain is discussing, bring some people in to do it. It is a hard process of dragging someone in off the street and ask if they would read this and be part of the committee. I like the use of the templates and trying to encourage people to do more in this area.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I guess we probably should have discussed this more in Mr. Mortenson’s bill where we reestablished the committees and added language, because that was actually the vehicle used to create this in the first place. This is just tightening it so there’s public purpose found because of the abuses found mostly in the urban areas of the advisory questions. That’s really what generated this. I also would say that in Senate Government Affairs, yesterday, I believe they amended some of Mr. Hettrick’s language into Mr. Mortenson’s bill. What population cap did they keep there?
Barbara Reed, Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County:
I believe that it was 40,000 and I have been in communication with Assemblyman Hettrick regarding that. Last year we had four questions going before the voters. We decided that we would try the ballot question committee process thinking the same thought, that it would be beneficial. The end product was certainly not informative to the voters. I had to get on the phone and try and recruit people to serve on the opposing side.
The sustainable growth question, we had a group of people that had circulated a petition; they were very committed to that. It was hard to find anybody to step up to write the opposition to it; they said they were fearful of repercussions from the other group. I had a terrible time getting people to serve and then when we did finally get the product, I can’t even tell you how many hours the DA and I logged with those committees, and bringing in other staff, people to get them educated, and get them up to speed with it.
When we finish the writing, it then comes back to the clerk for editing. Because there were so many statements that were inaccurate, I edited a great deal. They appealed it. The District Attorney upheld everything that I had edited. The commissioners upheld it and it has gone through the courts, and as you know it’s still in the Supreme Court. One of the questions they had was why I edited it. It really was a political statement and a political brochure instead of information to the voters.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think that even in the hearing on Mr. Mortenson’s bill, we allowed for the two large urban [areas] to create a list because they had difficulty finding people. So I think we need to be sensitive to the rural needs.
Assemblyman Anderson:
This general area, it seems to me that we’ve suddenly decided that these are mandates to other governmental entities other than the ones that they’re intended for. [Since their questions are advisory in nature, and there’s no declaration, the people that end up with barely winning by, think that means they’ve tied either the hands of the county commissioner or the city or the state of Nevada into doing something.] Even though it’s not a statewide ballot, they don’t draw the line between the right to petition and the right to have an advisory question, which are placed on a ballot by a governmental body for voters to choose from. I think they need to make it clear that one body can’t tie another body’s hands as much as they would like to, and I don’t think that’s being made clear. I don’t know whether we can do that with this bill, but I think we should.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I guess the threshold question is, do you wish to raise the population requirement for Senate Bill 449? Did you make this appeal on the Senate?
Alan Glover:
No, we did not; however, I did have a brief chat with Senator O’Connell and apologized to her yesterday that we had not come down there.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I just have a real problem with setting up different rules for different sets of voters. If this whole structure doesn’t work, then maybe we ought to be looking at this committee structure in the first place. I’m not comfortable seeing the voters in Esmeralda County getting a different set of rules than the voters in Clark County.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I wish we could say that, but we do that every single day that we carve out a population.
Assemblywoman McClain:
Yes, but it’s not on voters.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
An advisory question is what we’re talking about and how the questions are brought forth and the questions are put on. I would suggest that we do the population change back to the 100,000 just for this simple reason: This is a whole other change that we did besides what we already passed regarding Mr. Mortenson’s questions, which we expanded statewide and within two years we’re going to need to revisit and see what happened with the large counties having to do that. I think some of you, from what I’m hearing, even though it wasn’t mandatory for you, at least attempted the process. I think we just need to give it time to see how the new stuff goes in. There may be other things that we’ll need to tweak besides population caps the next time around regarding how ballot questions are written.
Assemblyman Grady:
I would so move that we amend and do pass with the population caps, as suggested by the clerks and Mary Henderson.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It’s been moved by Mr. Grady to raise the population caps as suggested in your document.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 449 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
· With population caps as suggested by the clerks.
[No one seconded the motion, so Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared it failed for lack of a second.]
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 449.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I have to tell you, I was waiting for someone else to second on the first motion. I really like this bill and I like it because of the language that it proposes for ballot questions and who can act, particularly advisory questions and the fact that only elected governing bodies can bring forth ballot questions. That part of the bill I really like. This other part I just don’t have the answer for.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, your question is that you’d like that to pertain to all counties, but only the issue about how the ballot questions are written would pertain to the urban counties. Is that what you’re suggesting?
Assemblyman Conklin:
That’s what I want to make sure of. Does that make sense?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. Is there a way to do that? There’s always a way, if we want to work things out. Part of our job is compromise when we can. This would be a different change for all advisory questions to have to go to a public body. That would be different. Do you object to that applying to you, Alan? [He indicated that he did not].
Assemblyman Conklin:
This would then be sort of a double standard. We’ve got one out there that does include them and one that doesn’t?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Right. Mr. Grady, would you like to try your motion again? The maker of the new motion, would you agree to withdraw, Ms. McClain? [She did so].
Assemblyman Grady:
My motion was that we amend and do pass, removing the
provision of lowering the county population requirements from 100,000 to 40,000
and the city populations from 60,000 to 10,000, as requested by Alan Glover and
Mary Henderson.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 449.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Thank you very much. This will go to conference and then we might be able to if we get both of those, because they’ll have to come back as well. Maybe then we can clean them up so they flow a little bit better. That gives a little opportunity. The next bill before us is Senate Bill 453.
Senate Bill 453 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-560)
Michelle Van Geel:
Currently we have five amendments (Exhibit D). The first amendment, number 1, Section 7, subsection 1, page 3, line 44, removes the phrase, “The statewide,” and inserts “A,” just so it doesn’t specify that one list. Amendment number two, Section 7, subsection 2, page 4, adds language clarifying that identification requirements apply only to people who apply by mail to register to vote after January 2003. The third amendment is “revise provisions to require that provisional voting only apply to federal races as required under HAVA” (Help America Vote Act). Number 4 is Section 33 of the bill, subsection 2a, page 23, lines 27 and 28. It removes the phrase “three days,” and inserts, “five days, excluding Sundays.” Alan Glover proposed this. Then under Tab D are other amendments from Alan Glover, Larry Lomax, and Secretary of State Dean Heller.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
In Section 3, page 2, would it be okay to consider “shall establish and maintain an official statewide voter registration list, which may be Web-based in consultation with each clerk”? Isn’t that part of what we’re talking about doing, initially? I know you’re going to do some intermediary steps to get to the full statewide list. Aren’t they still talking about maybe doing a Web link, right now, which gets us statewide?
Dean Heller, Secretary of State:
Those discussions have occurred. I’m trying to look at the best way to approach it based on the federal funding that does come in. We’re trying to reserve it for the buyout of some of the machines and make sure that we can serve as much money as possible to directly impact the voters, so the statewide voter registration system does have certain phases that may or may not happen, but one, as you’re talking about, may be essential in assuring the federal funding does cover all the voting machines.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, your answer is, yes, I could insert online a registration list, which may be Web based.
Dean Heller:
Yes, as long as we have the flexibility. If the funding is in there and we can go forward then we will go forward, with the flexibility, of course, to go to a Web base.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Some of this may have to be steps, depending on how you get to it. The second question, on line 11, “must be uniform, centralized, and interactive.” Is that the HAVA language?
Dean Heller:
Yes, it is.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What does “interactive” mean?
Dean Heller:
It’s saying that they want one system that links all the counties together, that they are interactive between each other, with the Secretary of State and the 17 counties, so if issues do come up that a voter moves from one county to another, the red flag goes up. It’s our opinion and it’s the position of this office that we do not want to make some of these changes in the database. We want the clerks and the registrars to keep their lists clean. That’s the interactive part that they’re able to make the necessary changes and those changes do not come from our office.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
But does it state that anyplace? Because I think that’s been your assurance to them that they clean their own lists, but it links back to you. I couldn’t find that anyplace in here. Do we define it anywhere?
Assemblyman Beers:
That’s not how I just understood what Secretary of State said. What I would envision is not Web-based, in that it runs in a browser with an HTML interface. It is to the people at the clerk’s office. It would look transparent to what they have now, it’s just that it would be linking to a back end that the Secretary of State maintains on Secretary of State server, so that Douglas County would be accessing the same database, in fact, as Clark County. They’d just be each working on the records of their own voters in one big database. Again, the back end is the possession of the Secretary of State, but the clerks are going to have their own interface that allows them to do data entry, updates, and things like that.
Dean Heller:
That’s correct. So, they would have that authority to maintain their own databases without…
Assemblyman Beers:
And eventually it could be Web-based, but you want to run it through VPN (virtual private networks), encryption techniques, and stuff like that. It may or may not be easier to silver-net, rather than make it Web-based. That piece almost doesn’t matter.
Dean Heller:
I do believe that he does fully understand, at least the part I understood of the concept of how we want to make sure these clerks and these registrars do maintain their own databases. That is one central database located in the Secretary of State’s Office, but they are free to come and go into that particular database for their own lists.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, we could define interactive to say “interactive” means each county and city clerk will maintain and…”
Dean Heller:
That’s the only way we could do it.
Renee Parker:
Under NVRA (National Voter Registration Act), they have to maintain their own list. There’s specific language in HAVA that says they’re intentionally not superceding NVRA in any manner. They’re requiring them to continue to purge their list. So, they do maintain their own list under the current federal law. They are required to do that.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Since we’re adding a new statute, I’m just trying to make sure that if somebody wants to pick up HAVA, the clerk still maintains their own list, they clean it, Dean can’t change it, they send it. Maybe through a definition of interactive, or wherever it was appropriate, that we say what we mean and we mean what we say.
Assemblyman Beers:
I might suggest that you really can’t get there without technical language, and that therefore we might better leave the definition of interactive to code. Let Dean’s techs come up with the appropriate verbiage that gets us where we want to go.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
As long as it’s understood.
Assemblyman Conklin:
If it helps the Committee to understand, and I have some technical background, the Secretary of State passed out a chart mapping out how the statewide registration would look. I think this may answer some people’s questions. Out on the left are the counties, each with their own database. If you just got rid of the security firewall for a minute, because that’s technical and we won’t discuss it. The counties input all the data. All the data travels to HAVA, and HAVA does all the interaction part. If the top county is Lyon County and they show the same person in their database that Clark County at the bottom shows, then they communicate back and show red flags. All the interactive part happens behind the firewall once the data comes from the county and nothing changes behind that firewall. It gets kicked back to the county for clarification and changing. Then, of course, behind the firewall, you’re checking records against DMV, Social Security, and other things. That’s how the system is supposed to work. I just thought that might help clear some things up.
Renee Parker:
And attached to the chart is basically that explanation that says each county does their own [cleanup].
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
In Section 3, subsection B, page 2, line 34 and 35, “and any other information requested.” What exactly do you envision there? I was just thinking we could delete “any” and just say “and other reasonable information.”
Renee Parker:
The only thing that I can think of is if there were a conflict, if they were dealing with a purged situation and you input somebody into the system, and it showed that they were already registered in another county, and we needed to get all of the information into our file in order to justify the final decision on who ended up in the database. I think it’s just to ensure that it may go beyond just the voter registration data.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m just suggesting “and other reasonable information.” On page 3, Section 4, remind me, if we’re trying to buy new equipment to get everybody rid of paper ballots and punch cards, why do we need an education component?
Renee Parker:
Under HAVA, it requires that, because remember HAVA only requires that you put one DRE (direct record electronic) in each polling place. It doesn’t technically require us to replace all the paper ballots. So, to the extent that we still have them, in order to use them, you have to provide this voter education program. It limits the use of them, but it says if you’re still going to use them, you have to do this in order to deal with the over votes and the under votes, and comply with the components of HAVA.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So it says “they shall provide it, if they use paper ballots and punch cards.” Let’s just pretend that those paper ballots and punch cards go away. Then, this requirement goes away?
Renee Parker:
Yes, to the extent they’re not using them, this doesn’t apply.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
To the Committee, we have the amendments suggested to you on 1 through 5, plus the two little tweakings on page 2.
Alan Glover:
On proposed amendment number 4, a technical change there, I guess I didn’t communicate well enough with Michelle. The three days and insert should be four days, excluding Sundays. Here’s how it now works. In the past, in the small counties registrars’ offices have been open Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night. Under these changes in here, we would then be required to be open Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night. Four days, excluding Sunday would be Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday night.
The reasons we want to get out from being open on a Sunday are twofold. One, it appears that in a number of counties, under their labor contracts, they may have to pay double time on a Sunday, where we only pay a mere time and a half on Saturday nights. Frankly, no one would come in on a Sunday.
I’d like to make one other suggestion if the Committee would entertain it. That is, we really do not get anyone to come in the evenings, even for the last three days, to register to vote. I think we had one person last year in Carson City, and we’re 52,000 people here. As a practical matter, to help save some money but still allow people an opportunity who may work during the day and need to come in late in the evening, it would be a lot cleaner if you just said that we had to stay open until 9:00 p.m. on the last night, on Tuesday. We’re giving them ten additional days to get registered. If we could stay open one night…
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Which section are you in?
Alan Glover:
That would be in Section 33.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You’re still speaking to number 4?
Alan Glover:
And if it were just amended to say… in small counties registrar offices had to stay open until 9:00 p.m. on the last night. Nobody goes to Goldfield and registers at night. They don’t do it in Virginia City, they don’t do it in Lovelock, they don't do it in Eureka. That would help us out a lot and I still think it would allow voters an opportunity to register if they had to work during the day and couldn’t get away between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. We happen to be open on Saturdays and Sundays in Carson City, so people can come in and register all year long on the weekends with us.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, what are you asking for?
Alan Glover:
Preferably, that you amend that section to say in there that the counties, under whatever that population figure is, must remain open until 9:00 p.m. on the last night of voter registration, and take out the three day requirement altogether. Go from three days to one day, which being the last night.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So, delete that completely, and instead take similar language that they have up above, which is registration closes at 9:00 p.m. on the last night. Plus the Sunday language that you have?
Alan Glover:
I’m not sure you would need those if you were open just one night. It would be Tuesday night, we would stay open and we would certainly advertise that and try and get the word out and say, if people are working during the day, please come in between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., and we’ll get them registered to vote.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay, that’s fine. Are we okay with suggested amendment number 1? [The Committee indicated they were]. Suggested amendment number two? [Yes]. Number three? [Yes]. Number four, with Alan’s changes? [Yes]. Number five, the additional tabs, the three amendments from Mr. Lomax, Mr. Glover, and Dean Heller, in the back, and then the two little tweakings on page 2, changing “reasonable,” and then “which may be Web-based” up on line 8?
Assemblywoman McClain:
I was just trying to look up the Secretary of State’s amendment here. What does that do?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
If I’m not mistaken Dean, isn’t that because we goofed up and we fixed it over in the Senate bill. We shortened it, but we changed it by one day on the front end and we forgot to change it on the back end, which we had to pick up that Sunday?
Assemblywoman McClain:
So, you changed it from Sunday to Saturday? [Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that was correct].
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 453.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Assemblyman McCleary:
May I just indicate that my affirmative vote was under protest?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Most of ours were under protest. We’ll note that. Is there
any further business before the Committee this evening? Thank you very much. The chart was excellent, Renee, thanks. Thanks, Dean. [The meeting adjourned at
5:27 p.m.]
Corey Fox
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman