MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-second Session
February 25, 2003
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Maurice E. Washington, at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio(Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No.10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Brenda J. Erdoes, Committee Counsel
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Laura M. Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Senator Washington opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 37 and requested Senator Wiener explain her bill.
SENATE BILL 37: Requires development of recommendations for elimination of obsolete or antiquated statutes. (BDR 17-115)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, said she wanted to urge committee support for S.B. 37. She explained S.B 37 would require the legislative counsel and the research director to work together to determine which provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) were obsolete or antiquated. Senator Wiener said each even numbered year the legislative counsel and the research director would make recommendations to the Nevada Legislative Commission about which NRS provisions should be eliminated, and based on those recommendations, the Nevada Legislative Commission could recommend a bill draft request (BDR). She explained currently the legislative counsel was required to make recommendations to the full Legislature “from time to time,” which was the wording in the NRS. However, she said, these recommendations did not necessarily move the Legislature to request a bill draft. She said going to the commission would bring it to a forum and then the bill draft would be available. Senator Wiener stated S.B. 37 would require regular biennnial reviews and subsequent recommendations. She explained having regular reviews of the NRS would show the people of Nevada that the Legislature wanted to have clean and timely statutes on the books. She said with this system in place, laws would be addressed as they became outdated and the process would help keep our statutes up to date.
Senator Washington said if there was no action to repeal term limits, S.B. 37 would also assist future Legislators who might not have the knowledge of what took place when these laws were passed.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said this bill would show the citizens of Nevada the Legislature wanted to watch what was being done and to clean up the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Laura M. Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), said she was in support of S.B. 37 that would require the development of recommendations for the elimination of obsolete and antiquated statutes. She said she wanted the committee to also consider the elimination of three other statutes that were obsolete, antiquated, and were also unconstitutional. Ms. Mijanovich said she would request the committee to consider NRS 203.115, NRS 203.117, and NRS 203.040 for repeal and pointed out these statutes were documented in her presentation, Exhibit C. She explained these statutes pertained to anarchy, criminal syndicalism, and publishing matters, which incited breach of peace. She said in the light of clear precedence from the U.S. Supreme Court, unless it was intended to cause an immediate breach of peace or violence and was likely to produce such results, those forms of speech were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. She further explained any form of punishment for such activities would be punishable under the Constitution.
Ms. Mijanovich explained the statutes in question were enacted prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. She said it was up to the committee to decide when it would consider the repeal of these antiquated and unconstitutional statutes, but on behalf of the ACLU, she wanted to urge the committee to consider immediate repeal of these statutes. Ms. Mijanovich explained these statutes might produce financial repercussions for the State in light of clear precedence from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions documented in Exhibit C.
Senator Washington told Ms. Mijanovich the committee would have the legal department look at her recommendation and if they felt the need to go forward with her suggestion then the committee would take that under consideration.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 37.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND RAWSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 37, opened the hearing on S.B. 56, and requested Senator Coffin explain the bill to the committee.
SENATE BILL 56: Requires regular session of Legislature to adjourn sine die not later than midnight on 120th calendar day of session. (BDR 17-30)
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 10, said he brought an amendment to S.B. 56, Exhibit D. He said even though it appeared clear in the Nevada constitutional amendment passed by the voters in 1998 and 2000 that the Legislature would adjourn at 12 midnight in June of 2001, it seemed plain language sometimes meant different things to different people and the Legislature did not adjourn until 1 a.m. He said he wanted to add the language in his proposed amendment to S.B. 56 in order to make the intent perfectly clear. Senator Coffin explained he wanted the session to end at 12 midnight on the 120th day of the session. He said everyone on the committee remembered the 2001 Session and the need to have a special session in order to clear up some of the mess that occurred in case the Legislature had broken a law or violated the State constitution. He said this bill as amended would bring the Legislature into conformance with the intent of the voters. Senator Coffin said rather than state Pacific daylight time, he had asked for language which would have the Legislature adjourn at 12 midnight under the “currently accepted business time.”
Senator Washington said the committee had one concern regarding possible lawsuits, because of the court decision made stating the statute documented Pacific standard time and 12 midnight on the last day of the session was actually Pacific daylight time, and inquired how Senator Coffin’s bill would affect the court’s decision. Senator Coffin replied that would be a good question for legal counsel to answer. He said he believed the bill would not affect any previous litigation.
Senator Washington asked what would happen if the bill was enacted and the Legislature went over 12 midnight. He wondered whether this bill could open a Pandora’s box of possible lawsuits. Senator Coffin said he believed the Legislature invited those lawsuits last session by violating the constitution. He said this bill would prevent the Legislature from violating the State constitution in the future and he doubted the passage of the bill would prejudice the Legislature’s position in current lawsuits.
Senator Cegavske commented the ruling from the supreme court was in the Legislature’s favor, and wondered whether that made a difference for Senator Coffin. Senator Coffin responded the Legislature prevailed on a legal technicality, however, he believed in the court of public opinion the Legislature lost its case and suffered some embarrassment. He said this bill could perhaps prevent such future embarrassments.
Senator Cegavske said she believed Senator Coffin and the committee were looking at two different sides of the issue and the committee was concerned with the legal aspects.
Senator Mathews said she believed this bill would help future legal aspects of the issue because it would set definite guidelines and since the bill was not retroactive it should not cause problems with past Legislative actions.
Ms. Lusk said she also supported S.B. 56. She explained at the end of last session when it was realized session was to continue after midnight, she took very careful notes as to what legislation was passed after midnight and after 1 a.m. She stated, to her mind, it was technically clear the session could go to 1 a.m., Pacific daylight time, but the problem was the session continued after 1 a.m. She said it was her understanding any legislation enacted after that time was void. She explained Nevada Concerned Citizens considered a lawsuit “because the time to address excesses is the first time it happens,” and the Legislature went past 1 a.m. Ms. Lusk said Nevada Concerned Citizens wrote a letter to the Governor stating it would withhold action until after the special session to see whether the issues acted on after 1 a.m. were resolved in special session.
Ms. Lusk stated it was very important those who made laws recognized the people expected them to obey those laws and if the lawmakers did not obey the laws, it caused a terrible disrespect to all lawmakers. She said the reason she favored this bill was to support and honor a common understanding of the end time. Ms. Lusk said it was her understanding that technically the sine die time was 1 a.m., which everyone should be able to identify and this bill could establish.
Senator Titus said she wondered if the constitution said technically 1 a.m., and asked what would happen if the legislation said 1 a.m. instead of 12 midnight. Senator Coffin responded he did not believe the constitutional amendment said 1 a.m. and the court only ruled there was ambiguity and actions passed until 1 a.m. would be honored as legal.
Senator Titus asked whether the Legislature revoted everything from 12 midnight or everything from 1 a.m. Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, replied the Legislature revoted everything between 12 midnight and 1 a.m. She said everything after 1 a.m. did not pass and was not enrolled.
Senator Coffin explained these kinds of legislative corrections to bills were not unusual. He said, “Not all constitutional amendments are contemplated to be perfect in terms of the rules of the House;” so as a rule, the Legislature needed to clarify a statute nearly every session relating to a constitutional amendment which was passed.
Ms. Lusk pointed out the wording was midnight, but the time said Pacific standard time, not Pacific daylight time.
Senator Titus emphasized the statute said not later than 12 midnight Pacific standard time.
Senator Washington said the committee would like to have legal check not only the constitutionality, but also the technicality of the bill. Ms. Erdoes said she would gladly check all ramifications of the bill and report back to the committee.
Senator Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 56 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 39.
ASSEMBLY BILL 39: Directs Legislative Counsel to resolve nonsubstantive conflicts between legislative acts and to give effect to multiple amendments to sections of Nevada Revised Statutes. (BDR 17-1023)
Ms. Erdoes said the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) director requested the staff review the processes they were using to ascertain whether and how those processes could become more efficient and more effective. She said the director wanted everyone to work smarter. Ms. Erdoes explained one of the things the legal staff found was part of the amendment process where the amendments were stacked, one at 12:01 p.m. one at 12:02 p.m. and so forth, was not constitutionally required as they had previously thought. She said it was required when the Legislature did not have the technology to track amendments and was needed to keep them in order at the end of session. Ms. Erdoes explained currently there was technology that tracked the amendments very well and it was the legal division’s recommendation the Legislature make the changes documented in A.B. 39, which would allow everything to become effective at the same time instead of having to stack them.
Ms. Erdoes explained this would allow the Legislature to proceed faster with its amendments and accelerate the Legislative process. She said with the current process when a bill was amended, legal often had to add sections to make sure the stacking was correct, so that the provision said this became effective 12:01 p.m., 12:02 p.m., 12:03 p.m., and so on. She stated these sections extended the time it took the staff to draft those amendments. Ms. Erdoes said this bill would save time for both the staff and the Legislature and eliminate most of the pink conflict notices. She said if this passed, the Legislators would only get a pink conflict notice when the technical conflict was substantive. She explained the Legislators would still get the substantive conflict notices because those had to be resolved before drafting could be completed; however, those that had a technical amendment, such as one bill amending subsection 1 and the other bill amending subsection 2 of the same section and no substantial conflict, would be resolved in‑house. Ms. Erdoes said:
The second thing the bill does is to go into NRS 220.170 to provide that where it says you can rebut the law as stated in Nevada Revised Statutes with the Statutes of Nevada, this says the evidence may be rebutted by proof the statute differs from NRS only in the way authorized for us to change it pursuant to NRS 220.120.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 39.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Washington explained to the committee that on February 11, 2003 the committee voted to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-175 which directed the Nevada Legislative Commission to appoint a committee to continue to review the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, and that vote now needed to be rescinded and reintroduced as BDR 17-175.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-175: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint committee to continue review of Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 17-175: Creates interim legislative committee to review Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and oversee Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and other federal, state, interregional and interstate governmental entities within State of Nevada. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 216.)
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO RESCIND A PREVIOUS MOTION TO INTRODUCE BDR R-175.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Mathews asked why the committee needed to do this. Senator Washington responded the original BDR was a request for a resolution which added members to the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, however, the interim study committee requested a bill be drafted that would make it an ongoing statutory committee.
Senator Mathews inquired whether in essence the committee had a bill now instead of a resolution. Senator Washington responded, “That is correct.”
Senator Rawson asked whether the committee had any idea what the fiscal note on this bill was. Senator Washington responded the committee had not received that information. Senator Rawson asked whether the bill would come to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations. Chairman Washington replied, “Yes, it would.” Senator Rawson said he could support the bill being drafted, but was not sure he would support adding a standing committee. Senator Washington responded that was understood by all members of the committee.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 17-175.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Wiener said it was her understanding in rescinding BDR R-175, the committee was rescinding the bill to ask for an interim study committee in order to introduce BDR 17-175, which is a bill to ask for a statutory committee such as the Legislative Committee on Health Care. Senator Washington responded, “That is correct Senator Wiener.”
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:14 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie Lorraine Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: