MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 11, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, May 11, 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.

      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. 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:

 

      Secretary of State Cheryl Lau

      Ms. Carole Vilardo/Nevada Taxpayers Association

      Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

      Ms. Kathryn Ferguson/Registrar of Voters, Clark County

      Mr. Tom Grady/Nevada League of Cities

      Mr. Bob Hadfield/Nevada Association of Counties

      Mr. Henry Etchemendy/Nevada Association of School Boards

 

 

 

AB 531:     Limits circumstances under which special elections may be held.

 

Assemblyman Petrak, prime sponsor of AB 531, described AB 531 would avoid cost of special elections.  He discussed page 5, section 2 and proposed an amendment to page 78, section 144, line 12 to read, "This act becomes effective on January 1, 1994." 

 

Mr. Petrak then discussed Exhibit C, pointing out only a 36.6 percent voter turnout for the statewide election held May 2, 1989.  Also referring to Exhibit C, he discussed cost to counties for various elections.  In the past ten years, Nevada spent in excess of one million dollars to hold special elections throughout the state, he reported. 

 

Secretary of State Cheryl Lau testified AB 531 limited the circumstances under which a special election would be held.  Her office had reviewed AB 531 in its draft form and offered amendments for clarification included in its present form.  She especially supported emergency clause sections.  She pointed out special elections were expensive with very little voter turnout.  She conveyed AB 531 simplified the election procedure and almost guaranteed widespread participation of voters.  Secretary of State Lau concluded her statement by telling the committee she was in favor of AB 531's adoption.  She thought it was an excellent bill.

 

Chairman Williams referenced page 5, line 6 and questioned if local governing body should be used instead of board of county commissioners because some jurisdictions other than counties might have some special elections. 

 

Mr. Erickson explained the bill contained language which applied to cities, and he stressed the bill, which contained 144 sections, was believed to cover all possibilities.

 

Mr. Petrak further explained the 78 pages of AB 531 covered many situations where special elections were required.  People representing counties throughout the state and the League of Cities had reviewed each page of AB 531 with Mr. Erickson's office, and they were satisfied with resulting amendments. 

 

Mrs. Lambert declared her support of the concept of not having special elections unless emergencies required.  She questioned bond elections and referred to time frames in the constitution for recall elections.  Mr. Petrak answered her concerns by pointing out the exemptions.  Consolidation with another election was covered under NRS 350.030, page 38, line 28.  Mrs. Lambert confirmed with Mr. Petrak this would cover any bond election for any entity.

 

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in support of AB 531 and described an election held in 1983 in Clark County where seven percent of registered voters impacted 100 percent of property taxpayers because of voter turnout.  Reno last November put on its ballot a question about consoli- dating municipal elections with the general election to create a greater voter turnout, and it passed, Ms. Vilardo conveyed.  She concluded her testimony by stating from a taxpayer's point of view, AB 531 was good legislation and would save money. 

 

Mr. Dini questioned how a situation would be overcome when a time limit was involved and a bond issue could not wait until the next general election.

 

Ms. Vilardo answered his question by describing page 5, starting at line 6, an emergency provision was inserted to accommodate such requirements, and a mechanism was also inserted for cities in every section which would be applicable.   

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, declared her support of AB 531.  She strongly agreed with previous testimony regarding unnecessary cost and outcomes of special elections.  She pointed out a number of places in AB 531 where special elections were still allowed in absence of an emergency and questioned why some were eliminated and some were allowed.  She questioned page 21, Section 38, where special elections were allowed to be continued in absence of an emergency, and she noted this was allowed in 12 or 14 places.  As an example, she pointed out page 14, lines 39, 40 and 41 the statement, "An action to challenge the determination...."  Ms. Lusk questioned the adequacy of 15 days for citizenry reaction and the kind of action contemplated.  Ms. Lusk described information was not seen which would give clear notice to the people that such an action was contemplated.  Continuing her queries, she referenced page 30 and questioned the purpose of a repeat special election.

 

Mr. Erickson responded to Ms. Lusk's questions by noting the reasons she would find special elections still listed.  He gave as an example bond issues which would fall to the other provision of state law, a technique used by the bill drafter.

Mr. Erickson stated he would confirm with the bill drafter the way this was constructed.

 

Ms. Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, testified Clark County supported AB 531.  Due to reapportionment, Clark County was required to add 80 additional polling sites for elections which greatly increased cost of county elections in Clark County.  Due to budgetary constraints, Clark County would welcome not having so many elections.

 

Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, encouraged committee support of AB 531.  Mr. Grady expressed his appreciation to Mr. Petrak for allowing cities to work on draft legislation and address concerns of the cities.  He also expressed appreciation to Mr. Dini for his concerns for the cities. 

 

Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, stated an early bill draft was sent to membership who had ample time to review the legislation.  Replies concerned the proliferation of special elections and the immense cost which appeared to be borne by counties having elections and extremely low voter turnout which seemed to accompany elections.  The emergency language in AB 531 appeared to meet their needs, and he stated Nevada Association of Counties supported AB 531.

 

Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, stated the original draft of AB 531 was reviewed, and the Nevada Association of School Boards was in agreement with prior testimony regarding special elections and costs.  Nevada Association of School Boards supported AB 531, he proclaimed. 

 

With reference to Mrs. Lambert's question of where NRS 318 was located, he pointed out pages 31 through 34 referred to the general improvement district. 

 

In response to Mr. Humke's suggestion of a possible amendment to place issues on the general election ballot where voter turnout would be greater, Mr. Petrak discussed primary and general elections and felt AB 531 would save money with the advent of the primary election.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Humke, Mr. Petrak and Mrs. Williams regarding low voter turnout at primary elections where some local entities could feel due to lower voter turnout, a bond issue placed on the primary ballot would pass.  Mr. Humke gave an example of such an occurrence.  Mrs. Williams felt everyone wanted to see as many people as possible vote on issues.  Mr. Petrak felt by inserting the date of January 1, 1994, on page 78, by the first of the year the entire state should know primary elections would contain special election issues, and he felt AB 531 would be an incentive to increase participation at the primary election level.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 531.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Williams asked for discussion.

 

Mrs. Lambert restated her concern about technical language previously pointed out on page 5, lines 8 and 9 which referred to subsection 1 which did not exist. 

 

Mrs. Williams stated Mr. Erickson would check Mrs. Lambert's technical questions. 

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.

 

AB 159:     Establishes legislative committee to conduct interim study relating to disclosure of information in real estate transactions.

 

Mrs. Williams said testimony had been heard previously on AB 159 which proposed an interim study, and AB 159 would be held for study prioritization.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

May 11, 1993

Page: 1