MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 6, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:35 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 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

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Gene T. Porter

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mr. Robert M. Sader

 

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. Dale A. R. Erquiaga/Deputy Secretary of State for               Elections, State of Nevada

      Ms. Marlene Henderson/Registrar of Voters, Washoe County

      Ms. Nancy J. Howard/Nevada League of Cities

      Mr. Marvin Lovett/City of Las Vegas

      Ms. Bobbie Gang/American Association of University Women,      Nevada

      Ms. Janine Hansen/State President, Nevada Eagle Forum

      Dr. Eugene Pasloff/State Superintendent of Public              Instruction

 

AB 294:     Extends period for filing for political office if incumbent candidate withdraws after close of filing.

 

Mr. Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, representing Secretary of State Cheryl Lau, testified against AB 294.  Mr. Erquiaga highlighted two major concerns with AB 294.

 

Subsection 2 of Section 1 was impossible to comply with, he noted, since most rural counties did not have daily newspapers.  If publications for three days were required, three weeks would be added to the election calendar.  For calendar reasons, Mr. Erquiaga strongly urged the committee not to do this.  

 

Subsection 1 of Section 1 allowed five days for the process to be triggered, however, as Mr. Erquiaga pointed out to the committee, NRS 293.202 allowed withdrawal of candidacies for seven days following the close of filing.  Subsection 1 of Section 1 brought up the question if an incumbent withdrew on the sixth or seventh day, was this procedure not triggered or was an error made when drafting AB 294.

 

If the intent of AB 294 was concern the withdrawal of an incumbent would create a vacancy in a party nomination, Mr. Erquiaga testified statutory procedures existed to fill such a vacancy if a vacancy occurred.  The vacancy would be filled by party central committee nomination or another procedure if a member of the legislature was up for election.  Mr. Erquiaga therefore felt this legislation was not necessary.

 

Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, spoke against AB 294.  She presented the committee with prepared testimony and data sheets (Exhibit C).

 

Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, spoke in opposition to AB 294.  She stated it was unworkable for rural Nevada because of the dates for publishing notices, and she further related fiscal impact was attached for additional notices.

 

Mr. Marvin Lovett, representing the City of Las Vegas, testified against AB 294.  He commented the bill was unworkable for the City of Las Vegas.

 

Responding to Mr. Lovett, Mrs. Williams recalled the death of a candidate which occurred after the close of filing.   People would have preferred a candidate other than the one who ran, Mrs. Williams said, however, a few members of the central committee made a candidate selection.  Mrs. Williams emphasized AB 294 could address this type of situation.  Mrs. Williams acknowledged a problem existed where there were no daily newspapers and with notice dates.  Mrs. Williams contended in a catastrophic situation people needed the chance to make a selection.

 

Mr. Lovett expressed a new calendar of events was needed when incumbents withdrew or passed away.  Mr. Lovett described dates of the municipal election where close of filing was April 2 and the primary election was the first part of May.  The time frame did not allow for withdrawals, new candidates, and practical things which had to be done.  His suggestion was to change the final filing date.

 

Mrs. Williams declared statutes should be looked at as they related to how parties made selections. 

 

ACR 23:     Urges state board of education, board of regents and boards of trustees of school districts to end gender bias in educational system.  Work Session.

 

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, prime sponsor of ACR 23, was absent at the time of the meeting.  Her prepared statement and suggested amendments, (Exhibit D), were presented to the committee by Ms. Bobbie Gang.

 

At this time, Mrs. Williams read to the committee amendments to ACR 23 (Exhibit D) submitted by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.

 

Mr. Scherer asked for correction of the amendment suggested for Page 2, lines 38 and 39.  Correcting the amendment, Ms. Gang told the committee Page 2, lines 37-39 were wrong, and the change in words from "must" to "should" should occur on Page 4, lines 38 and 39 instead of Page 2, lines 37-39.

 

Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, expressed concerns about ACR 23 because parts of the bill had nothing to do specifically with gender bias.  She cited a recent problem in Clark County between cities and schools regarding information and condom distribution without parental consent or proper notification. 

 

Ms. Hansen felt Sections 29 and 31 went beyond NR statute.  She further felt Page 2, Lines 19-22, which addressed the issue of sex education, should not be included in ACR 23 which concerned gender bias issues.

 

Ms. Hansen continued the bill did not promote abstinence education.  She called attention to a research program Dr. Stan Weed of the Research Institute did for Senator Ted Kennedy's committee in the United States Senate.  The Research Committee found abstinence-based programs had a real affect on reducing teen pregnancy.

 

At this point, Mrs. Williams reminded the committee and Ms. Hansen the committee meeting was scheduled to be a work session.  She further pointed out ACR 23 was a resolution and not a statute.  The legislation merely urged people within the districts to look at those areas.  Mrs. Williams did not believe anything in ACR 23 precluded them from looking at the kinds of programs Ms. Hansen was discussing. 

 

In response to a question by Mr. Price regarding a reference on the Kennedy study, Ms Hansen responded she did not ask for a reference on the study.  Studies conducted under the auspices of Senator Kennedy's committee showed great success in reducing teen pregnancy, and Ms. Hansen felt abstinence courses should be promoted because of their success record.

 

ACR 23 would be sent to the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents, Mrs. Lambert stated.  She questioned how the State Board of Education or the Board of Regents would be able to fulfill requirements.  Mrs. Lambert referenced Sections 23 and 25 on Page 4 which related to state agencies collecting data.  Data was not sent to all state agencies, she said.  Mrs. Lambert had no problem with Section 25, but she questioned how the State Board of Education or the Board of Regents could comply.

 

Dr. Eugene Pasloff, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, responded to Mrs. Lambert's inquiry by pointing out the resolution was not binding and its content was directive in the sense it urged various public bodies to do what they could in areas where possible.  Presumably not all boards, either the State Board of Education, the Board of Regents or the local Board of Trustees, could do all of the things called for in ACR 23.

 

Dr. Pasloff informed the committee the elementary and secondary community was planning for the future an automated student record system for 17 county school districts.  The system would provide race, ethnicity, gender and age information as specifically mentioned in Section 23, and would be used primarily for analytical purposes and provided to legislators if needed.  Eventually the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents could provide part of the requirements of Section 23.

 

Dr. Pasloff discussed Page 1 of ACR 23 and specifically the first, second and third WHEREAS's.  He confirmed considerable research had been done for five decades on gender bias.  Research was done by the American Association of University Women, the National Organization of Women, and other equity concerned groups.  Dr. Pasloff stated the techniques were sound, solid research technology and followed systematic methodological procedures. 

 

Dr. Pasloff told the committee he recently participated in a math and science 32-state comparison study of course enrollment by children by gender.  In early elementary grades, boys and girls took the same number of courses and performed equally in math and science.  But by Grade 6 a change was noted and girls and young women eventually did not enroll in advanced math and advanced science classes, he said.  They developed predispositions to not liking math and science.  Enrollments in engineering and technical schools were evidence of the outcome.

 

"Gender bias remains a very important issue in Nevada," Dr. Pasloff continued.  He was not sure if it was a societal issue, whether it was something teachers did or whether it was something parents did.  "We need to resolve the issue and do what is necessary to assure children have an equal opportunity to participate in all of these subjects," Dr. Pasloff asserted.

 

Mrs. Williams noted the Supreme Court had a gender bias task force which made many findings, many of which had been acted on and many had not.

 

At this time, Mrs. Williams appointed a subcommittee composed of Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Humke and Mr. Petrak to work with Ms. Giunchigliani, prime sponsor of ACR 23. 

 

The Chair then recognized Mr. Garner who stated he was interested in gender bias, but he believed ACR 23 went far beyond issues dealing with gender bias.  Mr. Garner stressed he would like to see ACR 23 conform to the major purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

April 6, 1993

Page: 1