MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 20, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:32 a.m., on Tuesday, May 20, 2003.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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:

 

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. David Brown

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn

Mr. Marcus Conklin

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. William Horne

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Mr. Rod Sherer

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Carrie Lee, Committee Secretary

 

Chairman Anderson:

Let’s have the Assembly Committee on Judiciary come to order.  [Roll called.]  A quorum is present.  We’re going to receive another bill from the Senate; it’s currently in Ways and Means.  S.B. 106 should come out of Senate Finance along with S.B. 3, and two bills that are held up in Senate Finance, S.B. 242 and S.B. 265, are on the way.  The necessity for us to meet rests on the few pieces of legislation that are coming over.  In addition, I want the Committee to recognize that we have two major amendments that are going to be coming up that I know we want to review before they’re brought to the Floor; the first is dealing with construction defects, and the second deals with medical malpractice.  We also have the introduction of a piece of legislation that we’ve requested which I believe is still in [bill] drafting, relative to the medical screening panel, and we are sending a letter expressing our disappointment with the Department of Corrections.  Let’s turn our attention to S.B. 494, a simple piece of legislation.

 

Senate Bill 494:  Revises provisions governing issuance of writs of prohibition to conform to Nevada Constitution. (BDR 3-1340)

 

Risa Lang, Committee Counsel:

I think you all have a copy of the explanation of this bill (Exhibit C).  The reason that this bill was put forward is that there was a constitutional change that was passed several years ago that allows district courts to issue writs of prohibition.  This adds district courts to the section so that it comports with Article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, which is copied in the explanation.

 

Chairman Anderson:

So this allows the district court to tell a justice or municipal court that they don’t have the right to do something?

 

Risa Lang:

That may also be public officers, or anything else that a writ of prohibition could be issued for.

 

Chairman Anderson:

So it tells somebody that they don’t have the jurisdictional authority to carry out whatever policy they are planning on, and would provide for those rules in the Constitution of the State of Nevada to be set up by the state Legislature.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Have the district courts been doing this already?  If not, why did we pass this in the first place?  And if they are, why are they doing it without changing the statute?

 

Risa Lang:

I actually don’t know what the courts have or have not been doing; they are already authorized in the Constitution of the State of Nevada to do it and we have a statute that deals with that issue, so this makes it consistent.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I understand why we’re doing this; I have no problem with that.  I was just curious which law the courts were following, Constitution or statute.  I don’t want to see them in violation [of the law].

 

Chairman Anderson:

What this does is reassert the authority of the Legislature to set these [writs] up, since the Constitution of the State of Nevada says that it is the Legislature’s prerogative to set up the rules for these kinds of processes.  In the absence of legislative activity, then the Court would set up and get to do this on its own in following a common practice.

 

VICE CHAIRMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B 494.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Discussion?

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I’m in favor of the motion.  I was wondering if it might be simpler in the verbiage, and I’d have to ask Risa about that, if on line 2 we eliminated starting with “only by” and continue through line 4 at “person,” so that the bill would simply read that, “The writ may be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.”  That way, you’re avoiding the back and forth confusion of when was it that the district court was unable to do it and when was it that the [Nevada] Supreme Court, and you’re letting the constitutional language stand for itself without actually moving it into the statute.  The effect is simply one of form; it wouldn’t change anything as far substance.

 

Risa Lang:

I think that we could do that by putting “Supreme Court and district court” specifically in here to prevent someone from having to go look in the Constitution of the State of Nevada to see who’s authorized to do this.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I think Ms. Ohrenschall’s language is clearer, but if they mean the same thing, a simpler method would be no amendment by the Legal Division, no concurrence, less paperwork, and a Do Pass.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I’m not real clear on these writs of prohibition.  This wouldn’t take the authority of the [Nevada] Supreme Court to make the judgments on what laws are constitutional or not and put it into a lower court; that still remains at the [Nevada] Supreme Court, is that correct?  I don’t want that to go to a lower court.  It was my concern that a district court might be able to say someone was prohibited from doing this because it’s unconstitutional.

 

Risa Lang:

This doesn’t take away any authority that the [Nevada] Supreme Court has.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Anderson:

[The Chair assigned the bill to Mr. Mortenson to represent on the Floor of the Assembly.]  We have an amendment that will be coming to the Floor on S.B. 55.  I would suggest that we meet Friday to review the other amendments that are pending, and I’ll post for 9:00 a.m. meetings every day this week in the hope that we get additional amendments to review.  We’re adjourned [at 8:49 a.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                           

Carrie Lee

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

DATE: