MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-second Session
March 27, 2003
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Maurice E. Washington, at 3:36 p.m., on Thursday, March 27, 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 William J. Raggio
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Erickson, Research Director
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly
Bert Ramos, Hispanic Republican Caucus, la Union
Estela Cutėerrez, Chairwoman, Northern Nevada Hispanic Republican Caucus
Peter Padilla
Richard R. Ziser, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
James E. Clark, Nevada Latin Review
Patricia K. Elzy, Lobbyist, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain, doing business as Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada
Bobby Gang, Lobbyist, American Association of University Women, and Nevada Women's Lobby
Janice Martinez Gunderson
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League
Ellen Pillard
John Wallin
Carrie Sandstedt
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Chairman Washington opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 221 and invited Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9, to explain the bill. He said there was a proposed amendment to the bill.
SENATE BILL 221: Prohibits lobbyists from requesting certain services from employee of Legislative Counsel Bureau without authorization. (BDR 17‑1057)
Senator Nolan said the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) drafted the proposed amendment and he agreed to it. He said there had been discussion during the interim about some lobbyists and their roll in the legislative process. He explained at the end of last session after the rules were suspended, it was not uncommon to observe lobbyists participating above and beyond what most Legislators would consider their reasonable job toward the legislative process. He added the involvement of these lobbyists included providing language for amendments in which Legislators should have been involved, and hand carrying bills and amendments between LCB divisions. These lobbyists dominated the resources of the LCB to the extent that when he, as a Legislator, sent an intern to the bill room, the intern could not get in without his presence because the lobbyists were utilizing the facilities.
Senator Nolan explained he had discussed the problem with several staff members who indicated during the end-of-session crunch, lobbyists requested staff to draft legislation without any confirmation the requests came from Legislators. He said staff only had verbal acknowledgment from a lobbyist that the request was actually from a Legislator, when the Legislator could not be contacted.
Senator Nolan said he wanted to state for the record, this bill was not to discredit the LCB staff in any way. He said he had the utmost confidence and trust in the LCB staff, and trust in their judgment. He said when these types of incidents happened, he knew staff made the best judgment possible and when staff was in doubt, he or she sought out the Legislator to confirm the validity of a request. He said, however, in some cases the staff were unable to find the Legislator and with the time crunch, staff was stuck with the lobbyist's word the request was from a Legislator.
Senator Nolan said he felt requests outside the scope of normal LCB staff services, both to the general public and to lobbyists, should be documented and outlined in writing.
Senator Nolan said the director of the LCB had indicated some members of staff felt the bill as written restricted their ability to do their job the way it needed to be done. He said the director of the LCB proposed an amendment, Exhibit C, which he was willing to concede to, and thought this amendment could benefit the process.
Senator Nolan said the amendment stated a lobbyist shall not indicate he or she had authorization from a Legislator to request professional services from an employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau unless he or she had that authority. He said the amendment also stated a lobbyist shall not misrepresent the scope of authorization to request such services.
Senator Nolan explained if a lobbyist misused the authority granted by a Legislator, the bill would give legislative power for the LCB to take action.
Senator Wiener asked if there was an abuse, what would be an appropriate action for the LCB to take. Senator Nolan replied the director of the LCB would have the authority to suspend lobbyist credentials either temporarily or permanently.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 221.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECOND THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 221 and opened the hearing on S.B. 361 inviting Senator Titus to explain the bill to the committee.
SENATE BILL 361: Requires disclosure of name of Legislator who requests preparation of legislative measures on list of requests. (BDR 17-1220)
Senator Titus said the bill would require Legislators who request bill drafts to put their name on the request, as opposed to being listed as anonymous. She explained Assemblywoman Buckley and herself felt government that functions in the sunshine functions best. She said the bill would also make the process work more efficiently because with the 120‑day limitation, Legislators had to hit the ground running and if people knew what had been requested earlier, they would have had more prep time to get their forces together, get advocates working, and get information before session started with the 120-day clock ticking.
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8, explained all bill requests used to be confidential, and then gradually the Legislature shifted over to requiring the agency name on all agency requests. She added some Legislators voluntarily attached their names, and the leadership office's titles were on their bill requests. She said having a requestor's name on a bill draft was a good idea because coalitions could get together earlier, and people with concerns could find out about the bill draft requesters earlier. She said the bill would further Nevada’s tradition of openness. Ms. Buckley explained a person told her it was amazing to have the easy access to Legislators that was available in Nevada.
Chairman Washington ask whether Ms. Buckley had considered how new Legislators might feel about putting his or her name on a bill requested by constituents when the new Legislator was not confident of the bill contents.
Ms. Buckley said she believed the newer Legislators were putting their names on bill drafts, as they were not accustomed to doing otherwise. She said if a Legislator was not sure of a bill draft requested by a constituent, he or she could always add the line “by request” to the bill. She indicated it may encourage new Legislators to consult with more experienced Legislators. She stated she believed the bill might benefit some of the freshmen Legislators.
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 361.
Chairman Washington opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 6 and Senate Joint Resolution 8.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6: Requests Congress to vote on appointment of Miguel A. Estrada to United States Court of Appeals. (BDR R-1291)
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8: Urges United States Senate to vote on nomination of Miguel A. Estrada to United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit only after securing certain information. (BDR R-1318)
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly, said the Nevada Republican Assembly supports S.J.R. 6. He said the bill should have contained a “whereas” saying the American Bar Association rating of Miguel A. Estrada was "well qualified."
Mr. Wagner said S.J.R. 8 says Miguel Estrada refused to answer routine questions asked by the Democrats. He said the questions asked were ones Mr. Estrada could not answer because he could sit in judgment on cases presented to him on the subjects in those questions he did not answer. He said if Mr. Estrada answered the questions, he would have prejudged those cases. He said a judge already on the panel indicated if he were asked those questions, he would not have been ratified for the panel. Mr. Wagner indicated he believed there was a double standard to the questioning of candidates for the position documented in S.J.R. 6 and S.J.R. 8.
Mr. Wagner wondered who were the 100 percent of President Bush’s judicial nominees the Democrats had confirmed. He said Pricilla Owens was not confirmed, Charles Pickering was not confirmed, and there was opposition to Mr. Estrada. Mr. Wagner said he believed S.J.R. 8 was not accurate in its documentation of events.
Mr. Wagner urged the committee to reject S.J.R. 8 and pass S.J.R. 6.
Bert Ramos, Hispanic Republican Caucus, and la Union [newspaper],said he was in support of S.J.R. 6 and not in support of S.J.R. 8. He commented his colleagues would speak to the issues as stated in the resolutions. He emphasized Mr. Estrada was a highly qualified individual and would represent the country as it truly is. He said the appointment must be based on qualifications, not on political beliefs.
Mr. Ramos strongly urged the committee to pass S.J.R. 6.
Estela Cutėerrez, Chairwoman, Northern Nevada Hispanic Republican Caucus, said she was against S.J.R. 8 and supported S.J.R. 6. She said she believed the U.S. Constitution also required a simple majority of 51 votes for the confirmation of a judicial nominee, and Miguel A. Estrada had the support of 55 U.S. Senators. She said defeating a lower court nominee by filibuster had not happened in the history of the United States.
She said she was totally against S.J.R. 8 and believed Mr. Estrada had great qualifications. She emphasized he was a true American with all of the qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Peter Padilla explained he had been involved with Hispanic media, and had the opportunity to attend the Hispanic Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. He said during his struggle in business and in dealing with the Hispanic community he had always sought Hispanic leaders who today’s youth could admire. He explained the most outstanding leader the Hispanic community had to look up to was Caesar Chavez, who had done so much for the Hispanic community. He said the late Mr. Chavez succeeded in bettering the working conditions for migrant farm workers and, as a Hispanic leader, had tremendous impact throughout the country.
Mr. Padilla said the Hispanic community was constantly looking for well‑qualified people who could set good examples for young children. He said in the case of Miguel Estrada, the Hispanic community believed it saw a person who had absolutely qualified as a role model, who had struggled through his life to get to where he had been, who was an outstanding leader and a great example for today’s youth. He said Mr. Estrada’s example would show it was possible to attain greatness in this great country, and it was possible to have an impact on society. He explained he looked on the issue surrounding Mr. Estrada as not one of partisanship, but more one of humanitarianism. He said there needed to be balance in all levels of politics and at all levels of justice so all American people, including the Hispanic community, could feel as if they received a reasonable and fair consideration for any problems they might have.
Mr. Padilla said an appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would set a great example for today’s youth; as a result he was in support of S.J.R. 6 and was against S.J.R. 8.
Chairman Washington said it had been noted in The Dallas Morning News that the congressional Spanish caucus called Mr. Estrada the "golden boy" and wondered why Mr. Estrada was so titled in this way. Ms. Cutėerrez replied other than his qualifications, he had been recommended by the bar association. She said there were many issues and controversies surrounding Mr. Estrada's nomination. Even though Mr. Estrada was clearly of Latino decent, there were many individuals claiming he was not really Latino. However, she affirmed, these people were talking about a person who was highly qualified for the position, regardless of whether he was Latino or not.
Chairman Washington said it was his understanding a nomination to this court was based on a person’s qualifications as opposed to a person's political philosophy. He asked why it was so difficult to have a vote on Mr. Estrada’s confirmation and wondered whether it was because of Mr. Estrada's political philosophy, or based on his qualifications. Ms. Cutėerrez answered in her personal opinion it was what she called "piñata politics." She described Mr. Estrada as wonderful role model for many people, but all Hispanics did not support him. She said she thought this was an indication to everyone in America that those of Hispanic decent were not all the same, nor did they all have the same beliefs. Ms. Cutėerrez said Hispanics had individual opinions and many came to this country, as did her father, as migrant workers, for opportunities. We had those great opportunities stipulated in the American philosophy, she asserted, and when it came to Mr. Estrada, if you took out his Hispanic heritage and his political affiliation, you would be left with an individual who was highly qualified.
Chairman Washington said he was reading Mr. Estrada's impressive resume, and the fact he was an immigrant from Honduras. He said Mr. Estrada had great credentials from the Harvard Law School and Columbia University, and had worked his way up the ranks. Ms. Cutėerrez said she identified with Miguel Estrada because they both began school in America with English as a Second Language. She said Mr. Estrada had succeeded despite the difficulties he had to overcome. She observed Mr. Estrada was an example of a great person, and what America was all about, in that if a person worked hard, one could get to where he or she wanted to be.
Richard R. Ziser, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said he had been in Washington, D.C., recently and was amazed at the overwhelming pressure generated over the Miguel Estrada nomination, and how important it had become to everyone on Capitol Hill. He noted everyone across the nation was talking about this Presidential nomination and explained the constitutional issues involved in this nomination were very important. He indicated the concept of the filibuster and how the U.S. Senate was handling it would also be important.
Mr. Ziser said it was unfortunate this nonpartisan issue had become a very partisan issue. He said Nevada Concerned Citizens strongly supported the nomination of Mr. Estrada, and believed S.J.R. 6 would be a worthwhile bill.
James E. Clark, Nevada Latin Review, said as a retired attorney and former member of the American Bar Association, he was in favor of S.J.R. 6 and against S.J.R. 8. He pointed out Mr. Estrada came from Honduras to this country when he was 17 years old, 1 year before he attended Colombia University and had to master English prior to entering.
Mr. Clark explained S.J.R. 8 included a recital that was a little disturbing which stated the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, et cetera, opposed Mr. Estrada. He said the bill did not document anyone who supported Mr. Estrada. He said the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), The Latino Coalition, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the American Bar Association supported Mr. Estrada. Mr. Clark said the American Bar Association was generally a "left‑leaning" group, but they did support Mr. Estrada’s nomination.
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, said she believed S.J.R. 8 laid out some of the specific reasons why the Legislature should not support S.J.R. 6. She said she would like the record to reflect some general concerns all people who oppose Mr. Estrada’s nomination had about S.J.R. 6. She said she could not figure out why this bill was brought to the Legislators in the first place, and remarked she noted this for several reasons. She commented while the Republicans claimed the Democrats were intentionally delaying consideration of President Bush’s judicial nominees, the truth was when the Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate, they set a record‑breaking pace in confirming nominees. She said the Democratic‑controlled U.S. Senate confirmed 80 judicial nominees within the first 15 months of the Bush Administration, which was more than those confirmed by the Republican U.S. Senate during the first 15 months of former President Reagan’s administration, former President Bush's administration, or ex‑President Clinton’s administration. On the other hand, more than a dozen ex‑President Clinton nominees had to wait over 500 days for confirmation, nine nominees waited over 700 days, four waited over 900 days, two waited over 1000 days, and one nominee, Richard Paez, waited 1520 days.
Senator Titus said the Republicans had tried to use the "ethnic card" to drive yet another wedge between Americans. She explained Republicans argued Democrats were holding up a Hispanic appointment, but in fact, when Democrats led the judiciary committee, they approved six of President Bush’s eight Hispanic nominees.
However, Senator Titus said, the Republican record on Hispanic nominees under President Clinton was dismal; in fact, Senate Republicans blocked almost as many Hispanic nominees during the Clinton Administration as President Bush's whole nomination list. She emphasized the following list of Hispanic nominees who never received a hearing or a vote: Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Christine Arguello in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and Richard Morado in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas; Anabelle Rodriguez of Puerto Rico and Sam Paz of California received hearings, but no committee vote.
Senator Titus remarked the Legislature had many issues critical to Nevada such as medical malpractice, construction defects, budget cuts, and raising taxes; she said she wondered why the Legislature was wasting time on this resolution. Senator Titus said this issue was a federal matter, and Nevada would not impact what the U.S. Senate did in regard to the nomination. She said this was a time when all Nevadans should be working together and yet this resolution was an example of partisanship at its worst. She pointed out the nation was at war and this State was in an economic crisis. She said instead of fanning the fires of partisanship, the Legislature should be looking for common ground.
Patricia K. Elzy, Lobbyist, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, and Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain, doing business as Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, said on behalf of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, she was at the hearing to express those organizations' opposition to S.J.R. 6. She said her organizations believed the lack of information available regarding Mr. Estrada’s views and judicial philosophy raised serious concerns about whether he should be given the enormous honor and responsibility of a lifetime appointment to the nation's second most powerful federal court.
Ms. Elzy said at both his hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary and in written questions, Mr. Estrada was asked directly about his views on privacy and reproductive rights. She explained Mr. Estrada failed to answer substantive questions on fundamental legal matters. Ms. Elzy said Mr. Estrada also declined to provide the Senate with a legal memorandum he wrote while working for the U.S. Department of Justice. She said without more information about Mr. Estrada, it would be irresponsible to put him on the bench.
Ms. Elzy emphasized Planned Parenthood was the world’s largest and most trusted voluntary family planning organization; it had a long‑standing history of working to ensure the protection of reproductive rights, as well as working to advance the social, economic, and political rights of women. She explained because lower federal courts exercise enormous power in deciding cases involving women’s rights, rights to privacy, reproductive freedoms, and other basic civil rights, Planned Parenthood believed judges appointed to these courts must demonstrate a commitment to safeguarding these fundamental rights. She added judicial appointments should be considered in a thoughtful, thorough manner. Ms. Elzy said unless and until Mr. Estrada responded to legitimate questions about his judicial philosophy, his nomination must be blocked. She emphasized this nominee had not demonstrated a commitment to protect American's hard‑won civil liberties. She added Planned Parenthood joined a broad coalition of civil rights advocates for labor, women’s, and environmental organizations in opposing Mr. Estrada’s nomination to the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Elzy said there were 28 organizations listed on her presentation, Exhibit D, which were opposed to Mr. Estrada’s nomination.
Ms. Elzy said in conclusion, Planned Parenthood asked the committee to oppose S.J.R. 6.
Chairman Washington asked what type of information Planned Parenthood was seeking from Mr. Estrada. Ms. Elzy responded Planned Parenthood wanted the information she outlined in Exhibit D regarding reproductive rights, civil liberties, and women’s rights.
Chairman Washington asked whether the knowledge Planned Parenthood sought was a prerequisite for selection of an appointee for an appellate court judge, "yes or no." Ms. Elzy responded she could not reply to the question with a yes or no answer, rather the information on reproductive rights, civil liberties, and women’s rights was what Planned Parenthood would like to know about the candidate. Chairman Washington said if it was not a yes or no answer, then the information should not be brought up or requested, “yes or no.” Ms. Elzy said she believed the questions posed by the U.S. Senate committee on these issues should have been answered and some of them were not.
Bobby Gang, Lobbyist, American Association of University Women (AAUW), and Nevada Women's Lobby, said both organizations she represented opposed S.J.R. 6 and supported S.J.R. 8. She noted the American Association of University Women was a national organization of over 150,000 bipartisan members. Ms. Gang said in the State of Nevada there were ten AAUW branches, three in Clark County, three in Washoe County, and four in rural areas. She asserted it was the members' public policy to review nominations to the federal courts and urge the U.S. Congress to exhibit the highest standards of scrutiny in these nominations. She said one criterion the members looked at was support for civil rights in order to guarantee equal justice for all citizens.
Ms. Gang maintained, in regards to the nomination of Miguel Estrada, the AAUW had expressed serious concerns regarding his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She said Mr. Estrada’s interpretation of the law in current legal precedent suggested he might find it difficult to enforce critical constitutional and statutory rights in the areas of civil rights, civil liberties, workers' rights, and consumer rights. She explained the AAUW believed nominees bore the burden of establishing they met the criteria appropriately applied to nominees to these esteemed positions. In particular, the AAUW was troubled Mr. Estrada evaded answering important questions at his hearing during the 107th U.S. Congress. She said Mr. Estrada’s record indicated his positions, opinions, and legal activities in numerous areas were troublesome and raised serious questions about his commitment to equal justice and civil rights for all Americans. Ms. Gang said in addition, by refusing to adequately answer numerous questions proposed to him at his September 2002 hearing, as well as written questions following the hearing, Mr. Estrada had failed to demonstrate a commitment to the continued vigorous enforcement of critical constitutional and statutory rights in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties.
Ms. Gang asserted the little known about Mr. Estrada was troubling; for example, as a lawyer, he questioned the ability of civil rights organizations to assert constitutional violations affecting their members, which was a mainstay principle in civil rights law. She said Mr. Estrada questioned the legitimacy of challenging the constitutionality of legislation in court.
Ms. Gang explained the aforementioned concerns were some of the things AAUW had pointed out about the little known about Miguel Estrada and urged the Nevada Legislature not take a position in support of Mr. Estrada’s nomination to the federal appellate court.
Chairman Washington said Ms. Gang mentioned the fact the AAUW questioned Mr. Estrada’s commitment to civil rights, which was probably one of the allegations levied against Mr. Estrada, but he asserted, if Mr. Estrada's nomination was based on his record and what he had achieved, accomplished, and contributed to his community, the facts were powerfully in his favor. In private practice, Mr. Estrada’s primary pro bono work was done in defense of those who were on death row. Chairman Washington observed Mr. Estrada went before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn death sentences. He said Mr. Estrada had been retained to defend the constitutionality of anti‑gang ordinances, which were enacted in Chicago with strong public support of Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley. Chairman Washington continued by pointing out, despite allegations the Hispanic community did not support Mr. Estrada, the fact was Hispanic organizations and Hispanic communities overwhelmingly supported Mr. Estrada. Citing the League of United Latin American Citizens, which was the country’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Round Table, The Latino Coalition, and many other Latino organizations, Chairman Washington emphasized, in light of these facts, the accusation that Mr. Estrada did not support civil rights had no foundation.
Chairman Washington said it was his understanding a nomination to the appellate court should be based upon the nominee's knowledge and understanding of the law and not on political philosophy or views. Ms. Gang replied she did not have access to the sources of information Chairman Washington just reported. She said all of the research she had done indicated Mr. Estrada had evaded answering questions regarding his position on civil rights and civil liberties, including his actions in previous instances, and she was basing her testimony on this information
Senator Cegavske said she heard reference to questions not answered by Mr. Estrada during his nomination hearing and wondered whether Ms. Gang or Ms. Elzy had seen a list of those questions Mr. Estrada did not answer. Ms. Elzy replied she had not seen the specific questions Mr. Estrada failed to answer. Ms. Gang added she believed she had seen the list of questions and could get the Senator a copy, but could not quote the questions for Senator Cegavske.
Senator Cegavske clarified Ms. Gang had seen the questions. Ms. Gang replied she had seen the list as background information to her presentation, but had not studied the questions. She emphasized the testimony she gave was from the American Association of University Women. Senator Cegavske said she had not seen the questions and, based on Ms. Gang and Ms. Elzy’s testimonies, she wanted to make sure they had studied the issue they opposed. She said, in her opinion, it was a little disingenuous that neither Ms. Gang nor Ms. Elzy had looked at the list of questions asked of Mr. Estrada. She said she understood the testimony given was Ms. Gang and Ms. Elzy’s opinions. Ms. Gang replied her testimony was not her opinion, it was the opinion of the American Association of University Women and the Nevada Women's Lobby. She said there was a source for the questions; however, she did not have them with her.
Senator Cegavske asked Ms. Gang whether the organizations she represented had reviewed the questions Mr. Estrada did not answer and whether Ms. Gang had based her statement upon reviewing the questions. Ms. Gang replied she was representing the AAUW and her testimony was their organization's statement with regard to the nomination of Miguel Estrada.
Senator Cegavske stated Ms. Gang did not know whether the questions had been reviewed. Ms. Gang answered yes the questions had been reviewed, and the AAUW’s view was based on Mr. Estrada’s lack of answers to those questions. She emphasized the AAUW had staff in Washington, D.C., who attended all of the hearings, and those representatives had heard the questions and observed Mr. Estrada had not answered some of the questions.
Senator Raggio asked what other nominations the AAUW had taken a position on. Ms. Gang responded, over a period of many years, the AAUW had reviewed all of the nominations to federal courts.
Senator Raggio asked whether the AAUW supported Justice Scalia. Ms. Gang responded, “No, they did not and they did not support Charles Pickering, either.”
Senator Raggio asked whether the AAUW had ever supported a Republican nominee. Ms. Gang replied she believed the AAUW had supported Republican nominees and she could give the Legislators a list.
Senator Titus, quoting U.S. Senator Harry Reid, said, “Judicial candidates should answer questions.” She said she was not sure it was a specific question Mr. Estrada did not answer. She continued quoting U.S. Senator Reid:
When asked his views on civil rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, and worker’s rights, Mr. Estrada said he had no views. When asked which Supreme Court Justice he would emulate, Mr. Estrada said he could not answer. When asked for writings that might reveal his views, Mr. Estrada and the White House have refused to provide them. Other nominees have answered similar questions and they have provided these same types of documents. Mr. Estrada would not answer the Senate's questions, but promised he would faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
Would you hire him for the job? Would you hire him if you could not fire him? Would you hire him if you did not know how he stood on anything? Of course not.
Janice Martinez Gunderson explained she was testifying as a Hispanic and not in her capacity as a lobbyist. She said she had given the committee her written testimony, Exhibit E, so she did not plan to reiterate it. She explained she had been involved in several Hispanic organizations, and, in fact, had worked with previous testifiers and was currently vice-president of the Reno chapter of LULAC. She said she was not representing LULAC, she was simply testifying as a citizen and a Latina.
Ms. Gunderson said she was against S.J.R. 6 and for S.J.R. 8. She said the committee claimed Mr. Estrada had been given the LULAC endorsement and yet she knew neither the Reno chapter nor the Carson City chapter of LULAC was asked whether it endorsed Mr. Estrada, and LULAC’s national convention was not until May 2003. She said she checked the LULAC Web site and could not find any reference to Mr. Estrada; therefore, she did not know how or when Mr. Estrada received his endorsement from LULAC. She said she personally disagreed with her Latino counterparts and acknowledged not all Latinos think or feel alike.
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League, said her organization was in opposition of S.J.R. 6 and in support of S.J.R. 8. She agreed with the statement presented by Senator Titus, Planned Parenthood, and all the other testifiers who were against Mr. Estrada's nomination. She said she would have liked to address more important issues than this one.
Ms. Backlund explained the Nevada Conservation League had supreme confidence in the judgment and assessments of Nevada's U.S. Senator Harry Reid. She said he had an exemplary record on environmental issues and she believed he had done an excellent job in bringing forward the fact Miguel Estrada may be in a position to rule on some law suits this State had regarding the potential placement of a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. She emphasized a candidate who was forthright in answering all questions a U.S. Senate committee asked would best benefit the American people, and certainly those concerned with the environment.
Chairman Washington asked whether Ms. Backlund trusted the judgment of U.S. Senator John Ensign. Ms. Backlund responded on some issues she did trust Senator Ensign’s judgment; however, Senator Ensign’s environmental record was not favorable to the environment.
Ellen Pillard said she had been involved in political issues since the founding of the Ann Martin Women’s Political Caucus and was the first State chairwoman of the Nevada Women’s Political Caucus. She explained she was the current chairwoman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, but she was testifying as an individual and a longtime Nevada resident. Ms. Pillard said she did have confidence in the judgment of the people Nevadans elected and that was why she opposed S.J.R. 6 and supported S.J.R. 8. She pointed out these resolutions were to represent her as a Nevada citizen. She commented every Nevadan could not possibly sit in judgment and sometimes even those elected officials made decisions she would not make, but she voted for those officials and respected them as good, decent, hard-working people. She believed the U.S. Senate, as representatives for her and 260 million other people, was entitled to know in a general way Mr. Estrada’s legal philosophy. She said the U.S. Senate did not ask how Mr. Estrada would decide case A or case B; therefore, she supported the U.S. Senate’s right to obtain the general information requested.
John Wallin said he was neither a judiciary expert nor a Hispanic, but believed Senator Titus knew what she was talking about and she had stated some of the things he had been thinking regarding this issue. He said not long ago the Republican‑controlled Congress took the time, as this country was on the verge of war, to change the name of french fries to freedom fries. Mr. Wallin stated one could only imagine what it would take to get 435 people to rally around a resolution to change the name of a potato snack. He suggested the judgment of the Miguel Estrada nomination by this State and this particular panel was on the same level as spending time talking about whether U.S. citizens should call potato snacks french fries or freedom fries. Mr. Wallin stated, as a citizen, he was stunned the committee had time, with a billion dollars' worth of tax problems, to talk about something that was a federal matter. He said he was taken aback the committee had time to deal with this type of initiative.
Carrie Sandstedt said she applauded Senator Titus for her statements, and reiterated the Senator's testimony, if someone was applying for a job, that person should answer the questions asked of them. She said she also applauded the U.S. Senate for wanting to research the record of a candidate whom other U.S. Senators would hastily push through the confirmation process.
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said she had three other hearings she should be attending at the moment. She said it seemed a shame the Legislature was spending time on this issue when there were two taxation committees that had run overtime and did not have enough time to discuss issues in depth. She stated the Legislature was putting out bills that contained errors.
Ms. Gilbert explained it was frightening to her the committee was considering these resolutions. She said she had never been involved in joint resolutions, and believed her time would be better spent pursuing many other issues. However, her group wanted her to attend this hearing to oppose S.J.R. 6 and support S.J.R. 8 for those members of her coalition who could not attend.
Chairman Washington said resolutions, whether they were joint or concurrent, were part of the process of the Legislature. He asserted he did not believe the committee was wasting time. Chairman Washington explained he believed this matter was of importance and everyone had a right to express how he or she believed, one way or the other.
Senator Raggio said he felt it was important he address the issue since his colleague Senator Titus had voiced her opinion. He said his remarks would be on the Floor of the Senate. The Senator commented at this stage, the issue seemed to be going down party lines, as it had on the national level and in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Raggio said he had a longer memory than some of his colleagues who referenced what occurred during previous administrations. He recalled when U.S. Senator Biden chaired the Senate judiciary committee and the Democrats had control of the Senate and would not let loose of a nomination from a Republican president. He explained this issue went way back and was unfortunate. He said these kinds of nominations always seemed to split on party lines, or on liberal versus conservative. Senator Raggio said no one was fooling anyone on either side of this issue; this was all philosophical whether or not you were a liberal or a whether or not you were a conservative.
Senator Raggio addressed Mr. Wallin, regarding the committee wasting time with this issue, and said he did not believe the committee was wasting its time. Senator Raggio said he believed all Nevadans had a stake in what occurred in Washington, D.C., and our national representatives should listen to what Nevada’s Legislature had to say about such issues. Senator Raggio said he was sure other state legislatures would be doing the same thing. He conveyed this issue was not just before the Nevada Legislature; if one had been around here for any length of time, one would know the Nevada Legislature always took a position on federal issues. He added he thought it was important the Nevada Legislature made its voice heard.
Senator Raggio commented Nevada was the fastest‑growing state in the nation with the fastest‑growing Latino population. He continued, if this issue was not important to all Nevadans, it certainly was important to the Latinos around the country. He quoted the Latino Coalition as stating, “To deny Latinos, the largest minority, the opportunity to have one of our own serve on this court in our nation's capital is unforgivable.” He next quoted the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; "We endorse unanimously the nominee and urge the confirmation be moved on. As a judge he will be a credit to the federal judiciary, the President, Hispanics, and all Americans.”
Senator Raggio explained he had listened to all the detriment concerning Mr. Estrada and had not heard anyone mention anything about the person. He said he did not believe half the people who testified with a political bent in mind knew anything about this man. The Senator said Mr. Estrada was currently a partner in one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher LLC, in the Washington, D.C., office. He added Mr. Estrada was a member of the firm's appellate and constitutional law practice group, business crimes group, and investigation practice group. Senator Raggio stated the American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Estrada "well qualified," which was the highest possible rating awarded. Senator Raggio stated there were very few nominees who received that kind of rating with a unanimous vote. He said he served on the House of Delegates for the American Bar Association and remarked that rating does not come easy. He explained some of the nominees from this State, who were now serving on the federal bench, did not get unanimous ratings from the American Bar Association.
Senator Raggio continued, Mr. Estrada was born in Honduras and immigrated to the United States when he was 17 years old. He said it took courage to leave his home and come here. Senator Raggio remarked if Mr. Estrada were confirmed, he would be the first Hispanic ever to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He added it would be a singular honor, and identified this court as the second most important court in the United States.
Senator Raggio said Mr. Estrada had an extensive, appellate practice experience and was widely regarded as one of the best appellate lawyers until he got into this political situation. The Senator said Mr. Estrada had argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was more than most solicitors general had ever argued before the Court.
Senator Raggio explained Mr. Estrada graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1986 and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. The Senator said in 1983, Mr. Estrada graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University and was a Phi Beta Kappa while an undergraduate. He noted those are pretty impressive honors.
Senator Raggio said it was confirmed the national association of LULAC endorsed and supported Mr. Estrada. The Senator added Mr. Estrada was also supported by the Hispanic civil rights organization, United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic National Bar Association, The Latino Coalition, the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Mexican American Grocers Association, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, and a page full of others. Senator Raggio said Mr. Estrada was a highly qualified lawyer.
Senator Raggio quoted Rick Dovalina, ex‑national president, League of United Latin American Citizens:
On behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation's oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization, I write to express our strong support for the confirmation of Mr. Miguel A. Estrada. Few Hispanic attorneys have as strong educational credentials as Mr. Estrada.
Senator Raggio said there was many support letters, such as the one from Mr. Dovalina, supporting Mr. Estrada’s appointment to the appellate court.
Senator Raggio addressed the accusation that Mr. Estrada refused to produce a memorandum he wrote when he was assistant to the solicitor general by stating these confidential attorney/client memos were not requested from the seven previous nominees to the courts of appeals, who worked in the solicitor general’s office.
Senator Raggio said every living, former solicitor general, Democrat or Republican, signed a joint letter to the review committee stating the request for a confidential attorney/client memorandum would have a debilitating effect on the ability of the Department of Justice to represent the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Raggio explained he did not think this issue was going to be a partisan fight. He stated he believed this issue was important to the growing Latino community in the State, and was not a matter of being Republican or Democrat. He added the nomination of Mr. Estrada was a matter of having representation at a high level of the federal appellate court for the country's growing Hispanic population.
Senator Raggio quoted The Dallas Morning News, ”The congressional Hispanic Caucus has come up with and odd way to mark Hispanic Heritage Month, hoisting up an overachieving Hispanic golden boy and turning him into a piñata.˝ He further quoted The Dallas Morning News:
This week the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members are all Democrats, ran away from its own rhetoric by publicly opposing the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the court of appeals. They offered no specific evidence for his unfitness to serve. Worse, it took its stand before his confirmation hearing began, and before he had a chance to publicly utter a single syllable explaining his judicial philosophy. … Coming out in opposition early gives Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee, all of whom are Anglo, cover to launch a partisan assault on Mr. Estrada and do so without appearing racist or dismissive of his accomplishments.
Senator Raggio said this nomination was something everyone should be applauding. The President had confidence in Mr. Estrada and it was the President’s right to nominate people as it was ex-President Clinton’s right to nominate people, and all the other Presidents had that right. He said was it not strange that when there was a Republican President, everyone came out of the woodwork and it always became a philosophical battle.
Senator Raggio asked why would Planned Parenthood need to know Mr. Estrada’s position on reproductive rights, when no one else had ever been asked their position or had to take a stand. He said he thought he heard Democrats complaining when Republicans asked about reproductive rights and had heard the Democrats saying those beliefs should not be a “litmus test,” so why was it now a litmus test when the country had a Republican President. He said this issue should not be the criterion to determine who served at the federal level.
Senator Raggio said this was an issue he felt strongly about and would take this position if there was a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. He thought it was important there be diversity on the appellate court. He said the largest growing minority in this country should have one of its own on the appellate court.
Senator Raggio said all S.J.R. 6 said was the Nevada Legislature believed the U.S. Senate should have a vote on the Floor regarding this issue.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 6.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, MATHEWS, AND WIENER VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.J.R. 8.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, MATHEWS, AND WIENER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.J.R. 6 and S.J.R. 8. Chairman Washington opened the hearing on S.B. 148 and invited Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, to explain the bill.
SENATE BILL 148: Provides for joint requesters on list of requests for preparation of legislative measures. (BDR 17-286)
Ms. Erdoes explained Senator O’Connell had called during the interim to request a bill draft and to have more than one name appear on the BDR list for that bill. Mr. Erdoes said staff suggested Senator O'Connell introduce legislation allowing for more than one introductory name on a BDR. She explained many issues involving confidentiality needed clarification, and the bill was for that purpose. Ms. Erdoes said the bill made some choices the committee may want to change; however, Senator O’Connell wanted to set the issues in front of the Legislature. She noted the bill established a primary requestor, whose quota the BDR would be counted against; if either the primary requestor and a joint requestor wanted both of their names on the list, staff would comply. Ms. Erdoes said either the primary or the joint requestor could request the BDR be removed from the list.
Ms. Erdoes said the order of appearance specified in the BDR was simply the order of receipt, which helped staff print the list each week. She explained only the primary requestor could withdraw or make a change to the BDR. She said those items were set out in the bill to avoid miscommunications that might cause problems down the road.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 148.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 148.
Chairman Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie Lorraine Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: