MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 22, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:37 p.m., Thursday, April 22, 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:

 

      Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

      Mr. John R. Crossley/Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Leola Armstrong/Common Cause, Nevada

      Mr. Thomas C. Fitzgerald

      Ms. Marlene Henderson/Registrar of Voters, Washoe County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AJR 11:     Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions.

 

Assemblyman Robert E. Price, prime sponsor of AJR 11, submitted Exhibit C, an updated version of information submitted in a previous meeting regarding annual sessions of legislatures.  He called attention to the legislative days for various states and an updated survey by the University of Nevada which showed 70 percent of the citizens of Nevada favor annual sessions. 

 

Mr. Price next submitted an analysis by the fiscal division (Exhibits D and E) of the resolution which proposed 60 day sessions during even-numbered years and 90 day sessions during odd-numbered years. 

 

He discussed the possibility of saving additional money by procedures which would be used in annual sessions, and Mrs. Williams pointed out annual sessions would result in less days than biennial sessions.  Mr. Price thought several sessions had occurred since the legislature had been in session for less than 150 days. 

 

He called attention to the fact 1998 would be the first annual session should the Assembly and the Senate approve AJR 11.  Mrs. Williams clarified his statement by reminding the committee of the procedure used in the mining amendment.

 

At the next session, Mr. Price explained, necessary statutes could be implemented for operation of annual sessions which would depend upon passage of the resolution a second time. Statutes would then be in place for the legislature to be efficiently operating in 1997 session.

 

In states where legislatures met annually, Mr. Price told the committee bills where decisions were not reached were carried over to the next session so that a written product was ready to consider again in the next year without having to redraft.  He proposed this procedure would be a mechanical advantage to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned Mr. Price regarding Exhibit E which was based on fiscal information for two 70 day sessions when AJR 11 had a 60 day session and a 90 day session.  She asked if Mr. Price was proposing an amendment.

 

In answer to Mrs. Lambert's query, Mr. Price expressed his personal preference would be two 70 day sessions, equal days in each session.  AJR 11 was drafted the way it was submitted the previous session.  He described several versions, among them a regular session and a short session for budget only.  Mr. Price felt sessions could be much shorter and if time-certain was constitutionally imposed, regardless of the number of days, the work would be done in that time.  He asked for the committee's continued support of this legislation.

 

Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner testified in support of AJR 11.  See (Exhibit F).

 

Mrs. Williams asked Lieutenant Governor Wagner if she had an opinion on 70 day sessions for each annual session. 

 

Lieutenant Governor referred to(Exhibit D) research which she had requested and which was submitted by Mr. Price.  Information in the research was based upon the way AJR 11 was drafted reading 60 days even-numbered years and 90 days odd-numbered years.  Lieutenant Governor Wagner had no certain number of days she preferred and felt the committee should make the decision on which number of days would work best.  She discussed cost for a 70 day session which was approximately $130,000 less, but she felt costs could be cut further than the numbers reflected in Exhibit D.  She felt a time limit should be imposed, but stressed she had no opinion on any number of days in any number of years.

 

Chairman Williams emphasized the committee wanted to take action and questioned Lieutenant Governor Wagner again for her opinion on whether the committee should look at 60 days and 90 days, or if 70 and 70 would be the most beneficial for the state.  Chairman Williams felt the cost was important but more important was the ability for the legislature to get the work done in the best interest of the people of Nevada.

 

At this time, Lieutenant Governor Wagner asserted her decision would not be based on the difference in cost of the 70-70 and 60-90 day sessions.  She felt the difference in savings between the two scenarios was not significant.

 

Mrs. Williams then asked the committee for comments pertaining to an escape clause being included in the event of a state emergency where the legislature would have to go beyond the 60, 70 or 90 day limit. 

 

Mr. Price discussed how other states handled emergency sessions and concluded options were available.

 

At this point in the committee's discussion, Mr. Humke addressed Mr. Price regarding budget.  Mr. Humke asked when legislature commenced the third Monday in February adding another month, would the Governor still be responsible for sending a budget to the legislative branch at the same time as at present.

 

Mr. Price replied nothing in AJR 11 would change the budget process.  However, he thought with annual sessions, a different budgeting method would evolve, and under annual sessions, more options would exist.

 

Mr. Humke then asked if Mr. Price anticipated a move to annual budgeting.

 

Mr. Price's inclination was to continue two year budgets but he felt scheduling was not major.  Continuing the discussion of the budget process, Mr. Humke stated even with reform a lot of people felt the past several sessions produced technically unsound budgets which the legislature had to alter.  He questioned if 90 days was sufficient.

 

Mr. Price answered yes, and undoubtedly the legislature would rely more on staff when there were annual sessions.  At this point, Mr. Price again discussed possibilities for the number of days in sessions, adding legislature would be forced to reform its own procedures which he felt would be easy to do.

 

Mrs. Evans addressing Mr. Price, asked if legislatures in other states could call themselves into special session.

 

Mr. Price said some could and some could not.  He did not have statistics.  Some legislatures were constitutionally allowed to call themselves into special session.  In states such as Nevada, the Governor must convene the legislature.

 

Responding to Chairman Williams' request for comments from the committee pertaining to an escape clause, Mrs. Evans questioned Mr. Price on the scenario if a situation occurred where the legislature and the executive branch were at odds over something, the legislature had to go out of business on a designated day, and the Governor refused to call them into special session.

 

Mr. Price's answer to Mrs. Evans' question was in reference to the pay of legislators which Mrs. Evans pointed out was not the basis of her scenario.  He then asked Mrs. Evans to consider every state with three exceptions had annual sessions which were accomplished by different methods.

Mr. Petrak addressed Lieutenant Governor Wagner and asked for her comments on a definite procedure for legislature accomplishments in a certain time frame rather than routines used by the legislature at present.  He also expressed his feelings that 70-70 seemed most logical.

 

Lieutenant Governor Wagner said other states tightened up the flow of the legislative process with specific guidelines, and  Nevada had attempted some of them in terms of numbers of days one had to request bills.  Other states added a bill must be drafted by, for example, the tenth day, must be introduced by the fifteenth day, must be heard by a committee by the 25th day, must be voted on by a committee by the 27th day.  The process would be changed considerably in terms of strength and the power of the committees because of those stringent guidelines, but that would be one way legislators would know exactly when business would be completed. This was rather radical, she felt, and noted not many states used this procedure.

 

She agreed with Mr. Petrak a plan would be developed to accomplish objectives within a certain period of time when a definitive day for adjournment was known.

 

Mr. Garner commented on statistics of the number of business people in the legislatures of Utah and Wyoming and how annual sessions could make a difference in the number of business people in the legislature.

 

Mrs. Williams felt the assessment was accurate because business people could not leave their businesses for extended lengths of time.

 

Mr. Price agreed an annual legislature could be a citizens legislature with a broader spectrum.

 

Ms. Leola Armstrong, Executive Director Common Cause, did not wish to testify but was present at the meeting and submitted  written testimony (Exhibit F) in support of AJR 11 which Mrs. Williams read into the record.

 

Mr. Thomas C. Fitzgerald, President, J. A. Thomas and Company, described himself as an interested Nevadan and spoke in support of AJR 11.  He strongly felt annual sessions were needed and stated his opposition to the time limits.  He thought the cost of the annual sessions as a percentage of the total budget was insignificant and was a cost overhead of doing business in Nevada.  He preferred to see a better escape clause than the Governor calling legislature into session because if on the last day a serious issue was not resolved, he questioned what would happen if the Governor disagreed with legislature.  He pointed out a state crisis could exist for 12 months until legislature convened.

 

Mr. Fitzgerald articulated his idea of limiting the number of bills each legislator could introduce.  He felt the most important decision at this point in time was to get the legislature on an annual basis.  He said his concern was not legislators' pay and he felt their pay should not be limited to a certain number of days.  He concluded his remarks by commenting the people of Nevada would support the needed amendment to the constitution.

 

Mrs. Williams, reflecting on the point Mr. Fitzgerald made on limiting the number of bills, stated limits were in existence now.  However, if the legislature met annually, bills would move along and not accumulate as they did in great numbers at present.  A bill would not wait for two years to be heard.

 

Of the bills considered for drafting, Mr. Price explained, legislators on the House side limited themselves to 10 bills and the Senators whose districts were twice as large as an Assemblyman's were limited to 20.  Other bills were from counties, agencies, administration, attorney general and those types of people.  Some steps had been taken, he conveyed, but bills were not limited.

 

Since no one else wished to testify on the bill, Mrs. Williams closed the public hearing on AJR 11.

 

At this time, Mrs. Williams informed the committee former Senator Chic Hecht had wanted to have some input on AJR 11.  She apologized and related the note with this information was unseen in her folder, and Mr. Hecht was not notified.

 

Chairman Williams then asked for committee discussion of AJR 11.  If the best way to work the budget was decided to be biennially, Mrs. Williams expressed her opinion 90 days would be needed.

 

Mr. Humke asserted the biennial budget was a constitutional item and dictated a separate constitutional amendment.  He thought the 90 day session in the odd numbered year would be important to keep in the legislation.  In order to complete the budget in 90 days, he thought certain procedures would be needed.

 

Mrs. Evans then discussed her proposals for studies, one of which concerned the Budget Division within Legislative Counsel Bureau.  She asked for feedback from the committee.  A discussion then ensued between Mrs. Evans, Mr. Crossley and Mrs. Williams regarding types of studies.

 

At this time, Mrs. Lambert asked for the sentiment of the committee on an amendment to deal with even number year sessions starting on the third Monday of January.

 

Responding to Mrs. Lambert's request, Mr. Scherer explained if legislature started in February and if legislature was set for 70 days, the filing deadline for running for office again was there.

 

Mrs. Williams asked the committee for comments.

 

Mr. Price reiterated his preference was for 70-70, but he would accept either way.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS ON AJR 11.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams asked if there was any further discussion before the vote.

 

At this time, Mr. Humke declared he was prepared to support Mrs. Lambert's suggested amendment, and if Mrs. Lambert did suggest the amendment, he would second it.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO AMEND AJR 11 TO CONVENE THE LEGISLATURE ON THE THIRD MONDAY OF JANUARY IN THE EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS.

 

      MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Williams asked the committee for discussion on the amendment to the main motion.

 

Mrs. Lambert pointed out decisions by the legislature started becoming political decisions in an election year, and those decisions were not necessarily sound public policy decisions.

 

Mr. Porter stated his preference was the third Monday of February.

 

Mr. Price declared he would support either way.

 

Chairman Williams asked for committee vote on the amendment, by saying "Aye." 

 

Chairman Williams then asked for committee vote on the amendment by show of hands.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED.  (ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER, PRICE, EVANS, GARNER AND WILLIAMS VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT).

 

Chairman Williams then asked for committee vote on the main motion.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT.  (ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT).

 

AB 104:     Requires that candidate for nonpartisan office who receives majority of votes cast for office in primary election be declared elected.

 

Mrs. Williams began the hearing on AB 104 by acknowledging Ms. Marlene Henderson's written testimony in favor of AB 104 (Exhibit H).  Mrs. Williams expounded upon information she had received since the committee had heard the bill, and she then proposed an amendment to AB 104. 

 

Mrs. Williams suggested AB 104 be amended to allow for the election in a primary of any person who had run uncontested.  If they had run uncontested, she said, they could be declared the winner if they received 51 percent of the vote.

 

Mrs. Williams then asked for committee discussion on the requested amendment which was a suggestion that was made to her.

 

Mr. Scherer reported his opposition to AB 104.  He felt voter turnout in the primary was much lower and preferred the person elected be the person who was elected in the general election where there was a better turnout which would enfranchise more people.  With regard to having only two candidates of the same party, Mr. Scherer had similar problems.  He thought that would disenfranchise all voters of the other party since Nevada has a closed primary system.  He reiterated his opposition to the legislation, and stated when Chairman Williams was ready for a motion he would move to indefinitely postpone.

 

Mr. Humke asked for clarification of the amendment noting if only one person filed, he believed a statute existed covering that circumstance. 

 

Mrs. Williams disagreed and said her understanding was in some of the judicial races, even if just one person ran, they would have to go on to the general election.  If the committee limited it to when only one person had filed, that would probably be a way of cutting down on campaign costs.  The person could be declared the winner after the primary.

 

Mr. Humke added a second point.  He voiced concerns about Mrs. Williams' suggestion and felt a need to echo Mr. Scherer's comments.  Mr. Humke stated his opposition to the bill and his uncertainty the bill could be rehabilitated.  He felt candidates had a chance in the general election. 

 

Mr. Humke stated if Chairman Williams accepted Mr. Scherer's motion, he would second Mr. Scherer's motion.

 

Ms. Marlene Henderson, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, spoke regarding AB 104.  See (Exhibit H).  She had no opinion as her original reasons for speaking had changed.

 

At this time, for the record and for information, Mrs. Williams announced, "This legislation was requested by the lower court, and we do have a notice it is in conflict with AB 166 and the charter of the city of Reno."

 

Mrs. Williams proclaimed she would like to hold AB 104 and she asked Mr. Porter to review AB 104 and make suggestions if something could be done to cut costs of campaigns.  Mrs. Williams then asked the prospective maker and seconder of the motion if that would be acceptable.  Mr. Scherer and Mr. Humke agreed to the Chairman's request.

 

AB 424:     Provides alternative locations for polling places for challenged voters.

 

Mrs. Williams opened the hearing on AB 424.

 

Mrs. Williams informed the committee AB 424 was requested by Washoe County.  She pointed out Washoe County wanted the word or placed in the bill to enable the challenged voters to vote directly at the office so that tables would not have to be set up and manned at the polling places at extra cost.  She explained this would not work in Clark County because of the size of the county and the difficulty people had in going to the election department to vote in those situations.  Mrs. Williams asked committee for comments pertaining to AB 424.

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS ON AB 424. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Price stated this seemed to be a terrible burden on the voters when people drove in to vote after work, arrived at the polls just before closing at 6:30, and were told they would have to drive to the Registrar's office to vote.

 

Ms. Marlene Henderson, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, spoke in favor of AB 424 and requested the language "either/or."  Reasons were to accommodate voters who had moved into Reno from across the mountains.  Discussion ensued between Mr. Price, Ms. Henderson and Mrs. Williams regarding challenged votes which Ms. Henderson declared occurred when someone moved and failed to notify the Registrar of Voters. 

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned Ms. Henderson regarding her reason for including the language or and concluded Ms. Henderson wanted the option of not being required to have three extra people to man the challenge booth where a booth was not necessary.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if the word "or" was inserted instead of "and," would a possibility exist for no special challenge places at the polls and for the Registrar to decide only to do it in the Registrar's office.

 

At this time, Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Porter and Mr. Garner to withdraw their motions, and she appointed a subcommittee of Mr. Scherer and Mr. Porter to study the language of AB 424.  She reported it was necessary to be very cautious when looking at the rights of people whose vote was at stake.

 

Mr. Price asked for further clarification of Ms. Henderson's request.  She responded to his question by clarifying she had some precincts which never had challenged voters, and she was required to hire three people to sit at the polling places to man a table where very few people voted.

 

Mrs. Williams noted it was important to be very careful not to make voting impossible for someone who wanted to vote.

 

AB 425:     Allows greater flexibility in taking extended adjournment during regular session of legislature.

 

Mr. John R. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel bureau, stated for the record he was neither in favor of nor opposed to AB 425.

 

Mr. Crossley then recapped and explained amendments to AB 425.

 

Mr. Scherer proposed an amendment to change Section 1, line 4 from 56th calendar day to 63rd calendar day.  He proposed if "may" was used instead of "shall," the Legislative Commission would have more flexibility to schedule the adjournment later in the session if it was thought prudent.  He felt it would be prudent because if more bills were introduced, more productive hearings would be held in Clark County.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AB 425 BY CHANGING 56th CALENDAR DAY ON LINE 4 TO 63RD CALENDAR DAY AND DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Scherer to take care of the amendment.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

April 22, 1993

Page: 1