MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 5, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Monday, May 5, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Assembly District No. 14
Assemblywoman Valerie E. Weber, Assembly District No. 5
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Brian Woodson, Legislative Intern, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 125
ASSEMBLY BILL 125 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to laws governing elections. (BDR 24-294)
Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, testified in favor of A.B. 125. Mr. Lomax summarized the bill section by section. He stated it was a cleanup bill and a clerk’s bill. He said on page 2 the clerks wanted to change the candidate filing period by 1 day, from the first Monday to the second Friday in May. He said they wanted to eliminate the third Monday in May in order to give the clerks 3 extra days to prepare for the election. Mr. Lomax said all the changes on pages 2, 3, 4, and the first half of page 8, reflect the change of the day.
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, said page 8, section 5, eliminated the requirement for a word description to be filed on or before the last day of May. He said the clerks would do the maps first and then provide a copy, or an electronic file, of the maps to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The maps would show the boundaries of all the election precincts in the county.
Mr. Lomax said page 10, section 7, proposed to reduce the age of a high school student working in a polling place. He said the age would become 16. The top half of page 11 dealt with the same issue of student age. He said section 9, page 11, was an administrative change. The change allowed someone to vote on a voting machine who lived in a mailing precinct.
Senator Hardy asked Mr. Lomax if section 9 addressed the concerns of people in Moapa Valley. Mr. Lomax said he could do nothing for those voters and it was a different issue. He said he would meet with Senator Hardy following the committee meeting.
Mr. Lomax next cited page 12, section 10, subsection 4, which allowed for audio voting by handicapped people. He said he did not have enough machines to place them at all the polling places, so the paragraph authorized the clerks to centrally locate polling options at 10 to 15 places throughout the valley. He said page 22 of the bill contained wording about a sample ballot that would publish the location of the audio machines. Mr. Lomax said eventually, by 2006, all clerks would have to provide audio capability in every polling place.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Lomax about the requirements for a polling location. Mr. Lomax said the distance requirement was 10 miles, so it was not much of an issue in Las Vegas. He said one of Clark County’s bigger issues was to make voting convenient and the other big issue was to minimize the opportunity for error. He said Clark County tried to avoid multiple ballot styles in the same polling place. Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Lomax if he had considered consolidating polling places where there were few voters. Mr. Lomax replied the clerks were sensitive to her concerns, however, he said the voters were extremely sensitive to where they voted. He said redistricting in 2000 caused many complaints from voters when they were reassigned to a different polling place. Senator Tiffany remarked the early voting appeared to be increasingly popular. Mr. Lomax said early voting had leveled off for the past three consecutive elections. He said the same number vote early as vote on Election Day. He said 43 to 44 percent vote early, the same percentage vote on Election Day and the other 12 percent vote via absentee ballot. He commented in the 2002 election, Las Vegas had to delay releasing the results until 8 p.m. because the lines at the polling places at 7 p.m. kept voters until 8 p.m. Mr. Lomax said the voting machines in Las Vegas were structured to deal with the approximate 44 percent of voters on Election Day.
Mr. Lomax continued the point-by-point discussion of A.B. 125; on page 13 the language was deleted requiring a disabled voter to describe their physical disability when they requested an absentee ballot. He continued on page 13, section 12, by stating the change was essentially an administrative issue. He said the language would be changed to state early voting would take place at polling places, as well as the clerk’s office.
Mr. Lomax said page 14, section 14, deleted the reference to the requirement to print early voting records on paper. He said it was not possible to do on Election Day as the machines were in constant use. Section 15 referred to the law stating all clerks would print paper ballots to reflect all the ballots cast by voters. The new language would change the requirement to print paper ballots if there was a recount or a contested election, otherwise the result would be kept on discs locked in a vault and stored for the 22 months required to maintain election results. He said the ability to reprint paper ballots would still be available, but would only be used when an election was contested or there was a need to print the results on paper.
Mr. Lomax said page 15, section 16, lines 35 through 37 eliminated the requirement for at least one county commissioner be present for a recount of ballots. He said the clerk’s biggest problem for a recount was finding an available county commissioner to attend the recount. Mr. Lomax stated page 16 deleted the same requirement for municipal elections. Mr. Lomax said page 18, section 19, lines 31 through 37 eliminated the requirement to designate a party when registering to vote. Mr. Lomax said previously if a registration did not have a party affiliation, the clerks sent a letter stating the person was not registered due to failure to mark a party. He said the clerks would continue to send a letter, but the voter would be registered as nonpartisan and could vote in the election.
Mr. Lomax moved on to page 20, section 2, where the requirement to print the roster book had stated the book had to be printed 5 days before the election. He said the roster books were printed after early voting was over and in Clark County early voting did not end until the Saturday before the election. He said they printed the books 4 days before the election.
Mr. Lomax discussed the next changes on page 22. He said on lines 26 through 37, a reference to audio voting in the sample ballot would note the times and addresses where the locations would be.
Mr. Lomax said page 23, section 24, line 19 eliminated the word “immediately” and substituted the phrase “within 24 hours.” He said the change allowed for post certification of voting machines. He said the clerks would like to be able to do the post certification of the machines the next morning. Mr. Lomax continued on page 23, line 10, changing the word “provide” to the phrase “be capable of providing” a record printed on paper. He said lines 28 to 44 were in reference to not printing out everything on paper unless there was a need for a paper copy. He said the machines would still have to be capable of printing everything on paper, if required.
Mr. Lomax moved on to page 24, lines 8 through the remainder of the page. These lines referred to allowing 16-year-old students to work in the polling places for municipal elections. He said page 25, section 4, lines 16 to 25 referred to audio locations for disabled voters in municipal elections. He said page 26, section 30, lines 17 through 20 referred to the ability to print paper ballots, rather than automatically printing them out for municipal elections. Mr. Lomax said page 28 was the municipal requirement to put in the location of the audio voting in the sample ballots. He said section 33, lines 35 and 36 should be disregarded as a subsequent that would talk about committees writing questions for and against an issue. He said page 30, lines 35 though 37 stated committees selected to write arguments for and against questions and the rebuttals would not be subject to open meeting laws. Mr. Lomax said lines 40 through 44 on page 30 referred to town board members who had no opposition. He said those members would be considered elected and no elections would be held for that position.
Mr. Lomax said the final part of the changes occurred on page 32. The deletion of items included Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.337 and 293C.337, which had been amended last session and overlooked by the clerks. NRS 293B.280 stated testing mechanical voting machines before an election was required, but it was not possible to do so as the machines would register the test as actual votes. He said the machines were tested beforehand at the warehouse.
Senator Raggio asked why section 33 was to be disregarded. He said the committee could not assume a bill was going to pass that had not yet been heard. Mr. Lomax said to leave section 33 in the bill so as not to cause further confusion.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada, testified against sections of the bill. She said changing the number of days for candidates to file created a hardship for minor parties. She said the minor parties had to file a list of all of their candidates with the Office Secretary of State before the minor party could file for office. She said moving the date back further for filing for office created even more problems for minor parties. Ms. Hansen referred to page 3, section 2, line 28 which stated the list turned in by a minor party must not be amended after it was filed. Ms. Hansen said if minor parties were able to amend the list, it would solve many of the difficulties with regard to the deadlines required. She suggested the word be changed to “may be amended” after it was filed to the second Friday after the first Monday in May, Exhibit C. She said the law required the list must be filed before any minor candidate could file for office. She said the minor parties would like to be able to amend the list and have equal treatment with the major parties. Ms. Hansen also mentioned she was in favor of not making the ballot committees subject to the open meeting law.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 125 and opened the hearing on A.B. 233.
ASSEMBLY BILL 233: Makes various changes concerning primary city elections and general city elections. (BDR 24-336)
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said A.B. 233 came out of the annual conference held each year by the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities. She said the bill would allow enabling legislation for general law cities to change their city elections from spring to the statewide elections in the fall. The proposed bill would affect the cities of Ely, Fallon, Fernley, Lovelock, Mesquite, West Wendover, and Winnemucca. She said some of the cities wished to change and others did not, so the legislation was strictly enabling in order to allow the cities to choose how they wanted to hold their elections. She said some language became confusing on the Assembly side in section 4, subsection 2, when the term of office for council members was written. She said no term of office for an elected official would be shortened if this bill were enacted. Ms. Henderson stated the bill passed out of the Assembly unanimously.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 233 and opened the hearing on A.B. 344.
ASSEMBLY BILL 344 (1st Reprint): Provides for special election to fill vacancy in office of Representative in Congress. (BDR 24-648)
Brian Woodson, Legislative Intern, University of Las Vegas, said he would present A.B. 344. He read his presentation to the committee, Exhibit D. Mr. Woodson said the bill would allow the Governor to call for a special election to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives in Congress. He said there was no State law to provide for filling a vacancy in that office.
Ms. Hansen said she became aware of the problem of how to fill congressional seats from an article in Reader’s Digest published in November, 2002, entitled “Clear and Present Danger,” Exhibit E. She also cited an article from the Continuity of Government Commission that discussed appointments of representatives to Congress, Exhibit F. She said it was very important to have an elected representative in Congress rather than an appointed one, especially in a catastrophic circumstance. She said she supported the bill.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 344 and opened the hearing on A.B. 285.
ASSEMBLY BILL 285 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding filing of declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy. (BDR 24-705)
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Assembly District No. 14, said A.B. 285 made changes in the requirements necessary to file and run for office. She said currently no identification was required, it was not required to prove residency, and felons could file and run for office. She said the bill tightened up some of the requirements necessary for filing to run for office.
Senator Tiffany asked Assemblywoman Koivisto how a felon proved his or her rights had been restored. Mr. Glover responded to Senator Tiffany’s question. He said an actual certificate was issued stating a restoration of rights.
Mr. Glover stated for the record the clerks were in favor of A.B. 285.
Ms. Hansen said the Independent American Party of Nevada had some problems with the bill. She said she had total support for the concept of the bill. Ms. Hansen said on page 4 of the bill, the requirements for identification were against some of her party’s beliefs. She said some people did not believe in having a social security number or other forms of government identification. She said a requirement for a government identification that had to be paid for was the equivalent of a poll tax. Ms. Hansen suggested an amendment that added a sworn affidavit as an alternative for identification would cover any problems she could see with A.B. 285.
Mr. Lomax stated the language concerning the identification requirements was quoted directly from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). He said HAVA required identification and the language was taken directly from that act.
Ms. Hansen stated the United States Congress had passed the religious rights restoration act some time ago. She said any law that required a violation of their religion was subject to those acts. Senator Raggio asked Ms. Hansen to clarify the religious objection to the bill. Ms. Hansen said the social security number requirement was a violation of some religious beliefs. She said some people considered the federal law “a mark of the beast,” and noted the Social Security Acts were in Title 42, United States Code, section 666. She said a few people found a social security number was a violation of their beliefs.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 285 and opened the hearing on A.B. 375.
ASSEMBLY BILL 375 (1st Reprint): Makes minor revisions to districts from which certain members of Legislature, State Board of Education and Board of Regents of University of Nevada are elected. (BDR 17-732)
Mr. Lomax said after redistricting in 2000, Clark County discovered problems with each set of district lines that did not coordinate with the other lines. He said as a result, it created many little pockets of 15 to 20 voters who had a unique ballot style or had been forced into mailing precincts. He said the recorder requested the change in an attempt to resolve a small number of the problems created in 2000.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, presented maps showing the changes being made in the various mailing precincts. He stated the precincts had less than 200 registered voters in each precinct. Mr. Wasserman said the Assembly requested the clerks suggest precincts that would only affect 50 or less people. He said if all the changes were adopted as suggested by the county clerks and recorders, it would not affect the overall population deviation among the legislative districts. It would not cause any issues under the United States Supreme Court guidelines for redistricting. He said none of the changes affected any legislative incumbents. Mr. Wasserman said the biggest statistical change would affect 42 people from Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2 to Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1. He said statistically that represented 0.04 percent, a very small percentage. Mr. Wasserman briefly discussed each change proposed on the individual maps, Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Wasserman about the significance of the maps. Mr. Wasserman said the redrawing of certain maps would eliminate separate mailing precincts for a single block or a small area. Senator Raggio said the Assembly districts were not coterminous with the Senate districts. Mr. Wasserman said Senator Raggio was correct, however, the changes proposed would eliminate many small mailing precincts that might have fewer than five registered voters.
Senator Hardy asked Mr. Lomax if he could reiterate the problems in Moapa Valley. Mr. Lomax said redistricting was the problem in Moapa Valley. However, he said it was congressional lines causing the problem and Clark County could not do anything about those lines.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 375 and opened the hearing on A.B. 421.
ASSEMBLY BILL 421 (1st Reprint): Requires that candidates for certain nonpartisan offices who are unopposed be declared elected to office after primary election under certain circumstances. (BDR 24-847)
Assemblywoman Valerie E. Weber, Assembly District No. 5, introduced the bill. She said A.B. 421 was a practical bill that could help voters and candidates for office in several ways. Assemblywoman Weber outlined the essence of the bill for the committee, Exhibit H. The bill would require the name of an unopposed, nonpartisan candidate be placed on the primary election ballot instead of the general election ballot.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 421 and opened the hearing on A.B. 528.
ASSEMBLY BILL 528 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing elections and campaign finance. (BDR 24-559)
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said A.B. 528 was a cleanup elections bill. She handed out a summary of the section-by-section changes. The bill would bring the State into conformance with federal law changes. The bill deleted statewide voter registration that had been in the previous session’s cleanup bill.
Ms. Parker briefly outlined the bill. She said A.B. 528 dealt with Buckley v. Valejo, Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. 120 F3.d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997), a United States Supreme Count case. Assembly Bill 528 attempted to define how days were counted under election statutes due to issues brought about with the last special session, concerned contributions, and changed how to deal with the death of a candidate for primary elections. She said there were also provisions to bring minor parties on an equal footing with the major parties in certain circumstances, Exhibit I.
Chairman O’Connell stated since the committee had a section-by-section breakdown of the bill, it was not necessary for Mr. Parker to further discuss the bill.
Ms. Hansen stated the Independent American Party of Nevada agreed with the Secretary of State’s bill. She said on page 4, line 14, it was important to allow the executive committee of a minor political party to fill a vacancy created by a death because not all minor parties had a central committee in every county. She said the executive committee also amended or changed the list of candidates for minor parties. Ms. Hansen mentioned, on page 9, the statute under section 11 allowed a major political party to get a copy of the voters list for free and the bill added the executive committee of a minor party could also receive the list.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Hansen if every minor political party had an executive committee. Ms. Hansen said she was not sure about all the minor parties. Senator Raggio said he wanted to make sure all the other minor political parties had access to the list.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said the vast majority of the cleanup in the bill was needed. She needed clarification on several items in the bill. Ms. Lusk said on page 10, with regard to the free voter lists obtained by the parties, the list was not to be used for any purpose not related to an election. Ms. Lusk interpreted section 11 to say it did not prohibit sharing between a party and candidates, or candidates and candidates, as long as the list was being used for an election purpose. She said she wanted to be sure she understood section 11of the bill.
Ms. Parker said the purpose of section 11 of A.B. 528 was to clarify counties could give the list to political parties, but the list could not be taken and then resold. The entire purpose of section 11 was to prohibit the resale of the list. The list was to be used only for the purposes of the election between the party and their candidates.
Ms. Lusk inquired if there was a prevention of the use of sharing the list for issues elections. She said her questions were not about the reselling of the list, but about the scope with which the free list could be used.
Ms. Parker said the purpose was just related to elections in general. The list could be shared among the party and their candidates.
Mr. Wasserman said he would interpret that section to apply to any election, but he did not know if changing the word “an” to “any” election would change the meaning of the section.
Mr. Lomax said the law required clerks to give the voters list to the parties. He said some of the political parties were making a business out of selling the voters list. Mr. Lomax said it was not fair to the competitors who had to pay for the voters list to sell the information received from a free list.
Ms. Lusk said she also had a question on page 16, lines 32 through 37, concerning the limits of the civil penalty for late filing of reports. She said the penalty was limited to $100 for officeholders who received no compensation for their office or for candidates for such office who received no contributions and made no expenditures. Ms. Lusk wondered if the language created an inequity. She also questioned the reference to public officers who were not entitled to receive compensation. She said she understood that sentence to mean “no compensation whatsoever.”
Ms. Parker said the intent was public officers, who when elected did not receive any compensation. She stated people in such offices were still expected to file reports. She said some people in such offices had accumulated $15,000 fines and were in an office where they did not receive any compensation. Ms. Parker said the maximum fine for failure to report would be limited to $100. Ms. Parker also said it was not intended to give a blanket cover for all candidates, just for those in smaller offices.
Mr. Wasserman asked if the language could be read to only apply to a candidate for such office who did not receive contributions or had no expenditures in excess of $100. He questioned if a person was currently in office, was the fine intended to apply to that person. Ms. Parker responded it was intended to apply to current officeholders or a candidate who had no contributions or expenses. The intent was to limit the fine to $100. Mr. Wasserman said a public officer who had no expenses or no contributions in excess of $100, would be fined no more than $100. He said the language needed to be clarified for that section of the bill.
Chairman O’Connell requested Mr. Wasserman also look at the language in the rest of the bill to make it clearer.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 528 and opened the hearing on A.B. 84.
ASSEMBLY BILL 84 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning certain town advisory boards. (BDR 21-119)
Chairman O’Connell said the committee had already acted on the bill. She asked Dan Musgrove to discuss the bill again with the committee.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, said A.B. 84 was the town board bill. He said the committee had taken action to remove the staggered terms provision and reduce the terms from 4 years to 2 years. He said existing law in the bill allowed for 2-year terms to be staggered. However, Mr. Musgrove said for continuity all town board members should be put on nonstaggered 2-year terms.
Mr. Wasserman said everyone on the town boards should be on the same schedule. Chairman O’Connell said she did not wish to take an amendment to the floor without the committee being aware of the language in the bill. Mr. Wasserman said Mr. Musgrove had stated his clients preferred to eliminate the staggering of terms for the town board.
Chairman O’Connell asked the committee if they would all agree to have the town boards on a straight 2-year term. The committee had no objections to that change. Chairman O’Connell stated the committee would go with the 2-year terms.
Chairman O’Connell closed the discussion on A.B. 84 and opened the hearing on A.B. 526.
ASSEMBLY BILL 526 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning contests of general elections for offices of Assemblyman and Senator. (BDR 24‑1289)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, introduced A.B. 526. She said the bill dealt with cleanup language based on the hearing and the contest that had occurred in the Assembly this session. She said most of the contest language was already in place. She said the “contestee” might need more than 2 weeks’ time if they had found additional material. The bill extended the deadline to December 15 and allowed them to amend the affidavit. The bill provided both the contestant and the apparent winner would provide the Secretary of State with a list of witnesses to be presented at the hearing of the contest.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the second issue of the bill in section 2, subsection 5 dealt with the ability and the right to assess costs. She said the section of the bill made it very clear the charges would have to be justified and legal. She said the Legislature would have the ability to assess charges if they so chose.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 526 and opened the hearing on A.B. 541.
ASSEMBLY BILL 541 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-166)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said A.B. 541 dealt with cleanup language she had requested from the elections committee. She said the first section of the bill dealt with the problem of identical or very similar names of candidates for the same office. She said subsection 1 was current language that had been relocated to two different areas. She said a middle name or initial would be listed on the ballot for very similar names. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said in some cases where two people had the exact same name and one was an incumbent, it was decided to list the incumbent’s name first and in bold type. The language requiring a candidate to list their address was removed as it did not show or prove anything as far as the voter was concerned.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said section 6 clarified if the State Legislature were to place its own statewide measure on the ballot, the measure would be noted first. She said Ms. Lusk suggested there could be two similar issues, but only one could be voted on, and the Legislature’s measure would be noted first, and the initiative would be second. She said those changes were located in section 5, subsection 3 of the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said ex-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Pappa proposed section 4 of the bill. She had an absentee ballot not accepted because a family member had not presented it. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said an affidavit had to be signed to vote absentee in the first place, and a provision was made for the person who returned the absentee ballot on behalf of the voter to sign a form the voter had requested he or she return the ballot.
Another area of the bill dealt with the fifth Saturday after an election when the registration forms had to be turned into the clerks. She said the election officers had requested it be included within the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the clerks had also requested to have the close of registration be on a third Tuesday rather than the fifth Saturday. The change would give an extra 10 days to allow for voting.
Mr. Glover said the bill should say the fifth Sunday rather than Saturday. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that error would have to be corrected in the bill in section 10. Chairman O’Connell said the bill also needed correcting in sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the final issue in the bill picked up the language again. She said section 15 had the incorrect Saturday date that would also need to be corrected. She said section 13 was parallel language for cities and counties in regard to who could turn in the ballot. Section 16 was based on the special session time schedule. She said 15 days before special session and commencing 15 days after the final adjournment of special session would be the time schedule in which Legislators could not raise money. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said sections 17 and 19 repeat for cities and counties what the bill did for statewide elections.
Senator Raggio asked if the bill would accommodate the use of nicknames on a ballot. Assemblyman Giunchigliani said it would.
Ms. Lusk said the bill was necessary and she was concerned about the issue of allowing any person to return absentee ballots. She said it was in section 4 and section 13 of the bill. She stated her concern was the potential for intimidation would be relatively high. Ms. Lusk said someone with a special interest in an election could utilize the opportunity to distribute and require the return of absentee ballots through themselves and utilize intimidation in the process.
Ms. Hansen said her organization supported the bill, particularly those portions that extended the opportunity for voters to get registered to vote. She said her group thought the campaign laws were draconian and discouraged people from participating in the process.
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:54 p.m.
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: