MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 2, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:40 p.m., Tuesday, February 2, 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. Robert M. Sader

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Gene T. Porter (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:

 

      Ms. Marlene Henderson/Registrar of Voters, Washoe County

      Ms. Barbara J. Reed/Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County

      Ms. Marlene Bunch/Clerk-Treasurer, Mineral County

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Williams notified the committee of a request for bill draft for proposed BDR language from the Ethics Commission.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO APPROVE THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mrs. Williams then turned the gavel over to the Vice Chairman, Mr. Price, and she moved to the presenter's table along with Mr. Erickson, where she gave a section by section description of AB 145.  See Exhibit C.  She noted AB 145 would not be considered until after recess and added the meeting was an opportunity for committee members to hear provisions in AB 145.

 

AB 145:     Makes various changes relating to elections.

 

Mrs. Williams stated AB 145 was the result of further reforms needed in election laws.   She declared confidence in government was important, and elections should be legitimate with no real or perceived infractions.  She commented AB 145 created accountability and tougher penalties.

 

Mrs. Williams emphasized AB 145 was sponsored by the entire committee and not by any one individual.

 

Mrs. Williams proceeded to explain Exhibit C Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4.  She remarked Sections 3 and 4 suggested NCR paper triplicate copies would be used, and voters would sign in as they walked into the polls.  Three times a day the list would be posted at which time each poll watcher could look at the list.  Under the present system, poll watchers would go to each precinct table which was disruptive to voting activity. 

 

Mrs. Williams commented Section 5 should clarify exactly what is meant so legitimate voters would not be disenfranchised.  Mrs. Lambert questioned the type of district.  Mrs. Williams commented Section 5 would need further thought.

 

Mrs. Williams clarified the intention of Section 6 was not to limit access to the absentee ballot list, therefore the wording would need to be changed.

 

Mrs. Williams explained in Section 7 current law allowed an appointed deputy registrar of voters to receive compensation of up to ten cents for each voter he registered.  This provision would be repealed and such deputies would be paid an hourly wage or predetermined salary established by the county clerk.  She noted this would outlaw bounties, prizes and incentives and provide for payment by the county clerks.

 

Mr. Dini asked if anyone knew what the fiscal note would be when the county clerks set the salary.  Mrs. Williams assumed a response would come later from the county clerks in attendance.

 

Mrs. Williams added she had received a communication from the Secretary of State suggesting Section 7 should be amended so that political parties could pay an hourly wage or a salary.

 

Mrs. Williams noted Section 8 referred to basing voter residence on a district rather than precinct, the same subject discussed under Section 5.  Mrs. Williams maintained Section 8 would require further work.

 

Mrs. Williams noted Section 9 was another method of accountability for voter registrations.

 

Mrs. Williams explained Section 10.  When the clerk confirmed the person was a legitimate voter (resident) and the registration was in order, the voter would be sent a voter I.D. card.  The stamping and dating could be considered, but if the NCR paper was used, the voter would get a copy of the entire registration and no question of voter registration or political party affiliation would exist.

 

Mrs. Williams remarked the intent of Section 11 would be to make certain returned mail would not be the basis for disqualifying a voter.  County clerks would verify the voter's identity through a legitimate means such as the DMV and power company.

 

Mr. Scherer gave an example of someone who lived at a normal residence but would not have a mailbox at the residence and would receive all of his mail at the post office box.  The U. S. Postal Service would not deliver mail to the person at his residence address because the person would not have a mailbox which met postal regulations in front of his house.

 

Mr. Price stressed a procedure would be needed to handle returned mail.

 

Mr. Petrak suggested a line on the registration which would state, "mailing address if different from above."  

 

Mrs. Williams reported a voter could not register to vote at a P. O. Box or a business.  A voter's registration would have his residence address.  A voter could put his mailing address on the form, but lists of registered voters would have a voter's residence address.

 

Mrs. Williams further explained when registered voters were taken to the polls, the residence address was required, but she believed the mailing address and residential address were on the forms.

 

Mr. Sader referred to Section 11. 9. (a) and (b) wherein registration would be canceled if the voter I. D. card was returned to county clerk for inaccurate address.  He stated dealing with returned mail would require different language.  Mrs. Williams replied the intent would be to make certain returned mail would not be the basis for disenfranchisement, and the committee should clarify language of Section 11. 9. (a) and (b).

 

Mr. Sader further noted line 43, page 7 would confirm records with a government entity such as DMV, but language in the bill would not allow the power company, gas company, disposal company or other utilities because utilities are not governmental entities.  Mrs. Williams added confirmation with utility companies should be available because not everyone has a driver's license.

 

Mr. Sader noted another problem with DMV would be when a voter moved, the voter usually did not change his address with DMV.  Mr. Sader added jury lists would be another possibility.

 

Mrs. Williams pinpointed Section 12 referred to voters who changed addresses from one precinct to another within the same district.  She believed the voters should be allowed to vote in their old precincts at least until their voter registration was changed to a new precinct by the county clerks.

 

Mrs. Williams explained Section 13 made voting consistent with registration of county voters.  She stated Section 13 would make uniform the closing of registration throughout the state.

 

Mr. Scherer suggested working on the language of Section 13. 

 

Mrs. Lambert noted Ms. Marlene Henderson, Washoe county Registrar, was present and would probably wish to comment on time frame problems associated with Section 13.  Mrs. Lambert believed preparation for an election was impossible with such a short time frame.

 

Mrs. Williams clarified committee overview of AB 145 would assure everyone understood intent more than actual written language.

 

Mrs. Williams discussed Section 14 and said if fraud occurred, fraud could be a federal violation of a person's civil rights.  A committee discussion ensued on possible Section 14 penalties for voter registration fraud.

 

Ms. Marlene Henderson, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, spoke against AB 145.  She called attention to the time constraints of AB 145 for her office.  See Exhibit D.

 

Ms. Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, also spoke regarding time constraints for verifying registrations and mailing sample ballots to registered voters preceding elections and entering information into computers.

 

Ms. Marlene Bunch, Mineral County Clerk-Treasurer, spoke against AB 145.  She stated her office work was done manually, and if time was shortened, financial hardship would be incurred because of overtime required.

 

Mrs. Williams advised after legislative recess when AB 145 was heard, the committee would have at least one teleconference hearing to Las Vegas for input from people in Las Vegas.

 

Mrs. Williams communicated her appreciation for the visitors and welcomed all suggestions, participation in testimony and letters.

 

Mrs. Williams reported the loss of a bill room attache and notified the committee of a resolution for appointment of a replacement attache which would need committee approval.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A RESOLUTION.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 P.M.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE A. MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

February 2, 1993

Page: 1