MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Sixty-seventh Session
January 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:40 p.m., Tuesday, January 26, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Chairman
Mr. Robert E. Price, Vice Chairman
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Ms. Jan Evans
Mr. Val Z. Garner
Mr. David E. Humke
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. Gene T. Porter
Mr. Robert M. Sader
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Scott Scherer(Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mr. John R. Crossley/Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robey Willis/President, Nevada Judges Association
Sheriff Paul B. McGrath/President, Nevada Sheriffs
Association
Ms. Helen Foley/representing Paula Treat for Nevada
Judges Association and Sheriffs Association
Ms. Lisa Foster/City of Sparks, Nevada
Mr. Dale A. R. Erquiaga/Deputy Secretary for Elections,
Secretary of State, State of Nevada
Mr. Kirby L. Burgess/Assistant Director, Clark County
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Scherer be marked excused from the meeting.
AB 104 Requires that candidate for nonpartisan office who receives majority of votes cast for office in primary election be declared elected.
Mr. Robey Willis, President, Nevada Judges Association, stated in the cities of Las Vegas and Carson City the candidate who received the majority votes cast for office in a primary election would "be declared the winner." He commented the wording "be declared the winner" would be a constitutional problem. Mr. Willis wanted to change the wording from "be declared the winner" to "would be the only name on the ballot" because the name must be on the general election ballot.
Mr. Willis discussed election reform and said people from areas outside of Las Vegas and Carson City were disturbed because even though candidates won the majority in the primary (a majority would mean 50 percent plus one), they would not be elected. The candidate would have to be on the ballot in the General Election.
Mr. Willis noted this would not affect the partisan offices because partisan candidates would run against someone from another party.
Paul B. McGrath, Sheriff, Carson City, and President of Nevada Sheriffs Association, gave as an example his election as Sheriff in 1990. He had three opponents and did get more than 50 percent of the votes in the primary. Sheriff McGrath was not listed on the General Ballot. It was brought to his attention the Nevada Constitution states the candidate must be declared a winner in the General Election. Sample ballots had to be re-done and Sheriff McGrath's name was the only name on the ballot. Mr. McGrath noted changes to AB 104 were needed to comply with the Constitution.
Ms. Helen Foley, representing Ms. Paula Treat, Lobbyist for the Nevada Judges Association and Sheriffs Association, said the majority of city elections were nonpartisan and only a few races in the general election were nonpartisan. She mentioned only the nonpartisan races such as family court judges were on the ballot last election. She noted a situation in Southern Nevada where there might have been ten people for a race in one of the family court races. The highest vote getter would not win in a primary. The person would have to get 50 percent of the vote plus one additional vote to go to the runoff election in the general election. She explained nonpartisan races were on all ballots. She pointed out North Las Vegas also has a procedure wherein if any of the City Council candidates received 50 percent plus one votes in a primary election, the candidate would not have to go to a runoff election.
Mr. Willis noted an example of a Justice of the Peace running in the 1990 election who actually won 68 percent in the primary against more than one opponent and had to run again in the general election.
Mrs. Foley disclosed Reno and Sparks have a problem with the language in the bill because Reno voters recently approved a new procedure whereby candidates were voted on in the primary by their district, but in the general election would have to run citywide. Mrs. Foley surmised city council representatives from Reno and Sparks would not be included in this procedure if the legislation were processed.
Mr. Willis stated he felt the legislation would work as he was in elections in Carson City on numerous occasions and had one opponent in these elections. He added a person would not run in a primary if the person had just one opponent. The candidate would go straight to the general election under the way it is in Carson City and Las Vegas.
Mr. Petrak asked Sheriff McGrath if the Sheriff's race was a nonpartisan race, and Sheriff McGrath replied affirmatively and further mentioned all Sheriffs in Nevada are nonpartisan.
Mr. Dini questioned whether Nevada had more than 13 special charter cities and added a need exists to research to see if more cities wanted to be special charter cities. He informed the committee there were two kinds of law: general law cities and special charter cities, and asked if AB 104 would cover general law cities. Mr. Willis answered it should cover everybody except for those cities such as Sparks which wanted exceptions. Mr. Willis emphasized the bill would cover all nonpartisan races in the state of Nevada.
In answer to Mr. Porter's question whether the present process in Clark County would allow the top two vote getters, regardless of the number of votes cast in the primary, to go to the general election, Ms. Foley confirmed it would.
Mr. Porter expressed the likelihood the outcome could change. He stressed the person who received 50 percent plus one vote and up in the primary would not always win the general election. Ms. Foley replied it had happened in the past. Mr. Porter then illustrated the race for judge in Las Vegas between Terry Marion and Cynthia Diane Steele where one received more than 50 percent vote in the primary and then lost in the general election.
Ms. Foley was not sure if the number was over 50 percent, but added the same situation occurred in the Miriam Shearing/Steve Huffiker race where more than two people were in the race.
Mr. Porter expressed concern about taking the 60 day period away from the voters who could then re-examine a two party field in a stronger fashion than they would examine a three or four party field. He then asked why they should not give the voters an option to support a candidate who received a lesser number of votes which could turn the election around and which had been done on several occasions.
Mr. Willis interjected it had happened. However, out of the thousands of elections held for different offices, he surmised a small number of those who had won a majority in a primary ended up losing to someone in the election. He illustrated Lyon County where someone won approximately 60 percent and an opponent won 20 percent yet the leading vote getter would still have to mount a campaign. He stressed this example seemed to be the norm, but admitted there were a few exceptions.
Mr. Porter expressed his desire for another reason other than election expediency for denying the public the right to change its mind in the 60 day window.
Sheriff McGrath commented the 60 day option was good, but so many elections were taking place where this would not happen. This process would simplify elections for the nonpartisan office.
Mr. Porter replied the Terry Marion/Diane Steele race was still fresh in his mind.
To Mr. Willis's question of how many were in the race in the T. Marion/D. Steele primary, Mr. Porter answered 3 or 4 were in the race and reiterated Cynthia Diane Steele received a huge margin in the primary but Terry Marion turned the election around. Mr. Porter stressed it was a very difficult race for both candidates because the race involved family court judgeship with many groups involved. He contended this situation did happen as it happened in this case recently in Clark County.
Ms. Foley advised Mr. Porter she would check the percentage of votes in the Steele election.
Mr. Porter emphasized he was looking for the reason the second chance should be taken away from a candidate.
Mrs. Williams mentioned some comments had been phoned into her office which related to the date the primaries took place, (immediately after Labor Day), which caused a lack of voters.
Ms. Foley replied if people knew their vote really mattered in the primary and many races would be decided in the primary, it could make a difference.
Mr. Humke gave an example of Reno's Mayor who twice lost in the first election but came back to win a majority of votes in the runoff. Although not the situation described, he stated it occurred often enough.
Ms. Foley recanted in the city of Las Vegas because people knew these decisions could be made in the primary, the people would vote in the primary. She continued the people knew if they waited to vote in the general election, the candidate might not be on the ballot. She further commented if people knew these decisions were going to be made, a greater likelihood would exist for the people to vote.
Mrs. Williams questioned when Carson City elections were held, and Mr. Willis commented Carson City elections were held the same time as the general elections. Mrs. Williams stated the City of Las Vegas elections were not at the same time as the general election which made a big difference.
Mr. Petrak illustrated election figures in the last two primary and general elections were 45 percent of voters voted in the primary election and 85 percent voted in the general election. He emphasized the great disparity in the number of votes and questioned whether the 40 percent were disenfranchised by not voting in the primary. Mr. Willis replied the voters have the right to come to the primary. If they had not been good enough citizens to vote in the primary and had shirked their duty, this lack was the responsibility of the voter.
Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, accompanied by Ms. Debbie Peebles, Sparks City Clerk, stated she wished to go on record as being opposed to AB 104 for the positions of city council. The Sparks city council discussed AB 104 and agreed they do have a problem. In addition to some of the things already discussed, such as lower voter turnout, she stated Sparks liked its system where voters in the ward nominated two candidates to go on to the general election who then would be elected citywide. She believed this system gave a chance for the individuals in the ward to nominate someone who might not have had the opportunity in a citywide race.
She continued if the bill passed as written in Sparks and Reno approximately a tenth of the voters would have elected someone to represent the whole city. She reiterated Sparks is opposed to this bill for the positions of city council.
AB 105 Revises definition of "candidate" in statutes relating to ethics in government.
Mr. Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections for Secretary of State Cheryl Lau, spoke on her behalf and apologized for her absence. He noted the Secretary of State proposed AB 105 at constituent request. He explained the bill proposed to change the definition of the word "candidate" as it was found in Chapter 281 in the Ethics chapter. He stated they respectfully requested this definition be written exactly the same as the definition of this word as it was found at NRS 294A.005 which was the campaign practices statute. He further commented on the confusion between ethics and campaign practices and the use of two different definitions of the same word.
Mr. Erquiaga commented statutes and titles could define words differently even though they were the same word. These statutes were used by many of the same people. The Reference N281 which he asked to be changed was in the Financial Disclosure Statement section of the ethics chapter. He mentioned it was where each committee member and all other candidates were required to file a Statement of Financial Disclosure with the Ethics Commission and with their filing officer. He contended attorneys were troubled by the difference in the words and wanted to know which should be applied in most instances. He said it was simply a technical correction and the Secretary of State would like the statutes to be consistent.
Mrs. Williams commented the intent of the committee was to include everyone and therefore the language was specific. She stressed the difficulty with the Judicial Branch of government who wished to have its own rules as opposed to those rules generated for all others in terms of candidates.
Ms. Lambert asked Mr. Erquiaga if he would have a problem if language were added at the bottom including the office of Justice of the Supreme Court, District Judge, Justice of the Peace, and Municipal Judge. Mr. Erquiaga replied no, and added if language was added at the end of the statute so filing declarations and acceptances were included, such language would be acceptable to the Secretary of State. He explained his office did not receive reports from members of the Judicial Branch who filed a separate report with the Supreme Court. He further stated Ms. Lambert would be correct to leave the words about the Judicial offices in the definition. He emphasized "seeking nomination" was a problem because the words were too broad.
Mrs. Williams agreed and stated Nevada is not a state where parties nominate people. She further commented she would like to see language which pertained to the Judiciary remain. She asked for the help of Bob Erickson or Mr. Crossley. She stated the law required filing with the Secretary of State and inquired if the committee could do anything to enforce the law. Mr. Crossley replied they would look into the actual requirements to see how this should be complied with.
Mrs. Williams further commented she did not mean the existing law. She stated existing law clearly states they should, as it was passed in the last session.
Mr. Price asked if some type of order was filed. Mr. Erquiaga stated the Supreme Court issued either an order from the court or when they rewrote the judicial canon with which judges comply, they created their own code of financial disclosures and their own disposition of unspent contributions. Mr. Erquiaga asked the committee to recall last year when the disposition form was enacted. The Court created its own version and directed judicial officers to file directly with the Clerk of Court rather than with a copy for ethics and a copy for either the Secretary of State or the county. Mr. Erquiaga said this was the copy his office received on the order and he would be happy to provide it to Mr. Crossley and Mr. Erickson.
Mrs. Williams declared the committee was facing the same dilemma faced last session. She questioned what this meant in terms of checks and balances in government. She commented on the time spent last discussing that judges ran for office the same as everyone else in Nevada - they campaigned, collected campaign funds, expended those funds and should be subject to the same reporting as everyone else. She asked Mr. Crossley and Mr. Erickson to research this. She added for the lawyers on the committee, she understood their dilemma. Mrs. Williams agreed with Mrs. Lambert the language should be put in with the exception of the nomination.
AB 106: Allows high school pupils in certain counties to act as trainees for position of election board officer.
Mr. Kirby L. Burgess, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County gave testimony in support of AB 106. See Exhibit D. He stated Exhibit D contained information and articles about this program in other states particularly Minnesota and Hawaii. He noted there were three proposed amendments. The first proposed amendment would delete the reference in Section 1 to counties over 400,000 as the reference seemed to indicate more than Clark County. The second proposed amendment in Section 1a would change "at least 16 years of age" to "in their Senior year of high school." The change would allow high school seniors to serve as poll workers and would clarify the intent of the bill. The third amendment would be in subsection 2 of Section 2 to remove reference to population.
Mr. Burgess stated Clark County had struggled to recruit poll workers, and this bill would provide Clark County with an excellent opportunity to supplement its election workers and would provide youngsters an opportunity to experience the voting process and become interested in voting earlier in life.
He explained strict standards would be required for these students. High academic standards would have to be met and the students would have to be sanctioned by the school principal. He explained no more than one third of the students would comprise the election board, and the students would not be in any supervisory capacity. They would be supervised by others and would be there to learn and participate. Mr. Burgess said the program has a track record and would be great for Clark County.
Mrs. Williams spoke about a radio program in Las Vegas which had been talking about this without any knowledge of the content of the bill. Her office had been receiving calls from the radio station saying the Registrar's office did not like it. Mrs. Williams said it was her understanding they do like it, and based upon Mr. Burgess' comments, Registrars in other parts of the state also like it.
Mr. Petrak suggested on Section 1 Line 6 age 17 be considered with the idea a student might be eligible to vote because his birthday would occur 30 days before the election. Mr. Petrak asked if Mr. Burgess had any thoughts along these lines, and Mr. Burgess replied this had not been addressed. He mentioned he could have his Elections Department address the issue if desired.
Mrs. Lambert added in Washoe County the seniors in high school take American Government which tied in well with this voting and inquired if this was the case in Clark County. Mr. Burgess believed so and would like to tie this in with a government class.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BOBBIE A. MIKESELL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures
January 26, 1993
Page: 1