MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Sixty-seventh Session
June 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:40 p.m., Tuesday, June 8, 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
Mrs. Jan Evans
Mr. Val Z. Garner
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Scott Scherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. Gene T. Porter
Mr. Robert E. Price
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. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities
Ms. Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney/City of Reno
Mr. Jon L. Sasser, Nevada Legal Services
Mr. Raymond Rodriguez, Directing Attorney/Carson City office of Nevada Legal Services
Mr. Ernest Nielsen, Executive Director/Washoe Legal Services
Ms. Bobbie Gang/Nevada Women's Lobby
Mr. David Morton, Executive Director/Reno Housing Authority
Ms. Gayle Brooks, Attorney/Reno Housing Authority
ACR 39: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning method of establishing Legislative Budget Office.
Mrs. Williams announced ACR 39 would be rescheduled and heard at a later time.
ACR 40: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of cities which are incorporated by charter.
Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified on behalf of Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, District No. 24, prime sponsor of ACR 40, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Erickson began the hearing on ACR 40 by explaining the rationale for proposing the interim study. Speaker Dini had called attention to various city charter amendments which had come before the legislature, and noted a number of years had passed since the legislature compared the various city charters which legislature must amend at intervals.
Previous interim studies were in November 1970, Nevada Municipal Governments, and 1972, Continuation Study of Nevada Municipal Governments, a continuation of the study which began in 1970. The study committee visited each of the cities in Nevada and met with the city council members to discuss their city charters. As a result of these meetings, recommendations were made to the 1973 legislature as to how some of the charters could be made more consistent.
Mr. Erickson informed committee ACR 40 made particular note of residency requirements for candidates for city offices and the constitutional limitations on length of those requirements.
Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, spoke in favor of ACR 40, and hoped to work with the study committee on ACR 40 if the committee requested. He stated Nevada presently had six general law cities and 12 special charter cities. The special charter cities had different needs and desires and ranged in size from the smallest cities to the largest cities. He pledged support to work with the committee if study was approved.
Ms. Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno, told committee Reno was not opposed to the study but was concerned about an endeavor to create uniformity among all city charters. NRS statute gave two methods by which city charters could be changed, she told committee. The methods were a petition process and a vote by the people to determine if the people wanted a change in charter. The change of charter would not require an act of the legislature. Charter amendments within Reno for the last ten years had been by unanimous consent of the council and after public hearing and public input or review by a charter review commission. As a result, proposed changes were usually not divisive and more fully reflected the will of the people of Reno. For that reason, Ms. Shipman stated Reno supported the interim study if committee felt the study was necessary for the purpose of determining uniformity related to qualification for electives. However, Reno preferred the study not have a requirement by the legislature for strict uniformity among all cities incorporated by charter.
Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 40.
ACR 50: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of summary eviction procedures.
Mr. Jon L. Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, introduced Mr. Raymond Rodriguez, Directing Attorney, Carson City office of Nevada Legal Services, and Mr. Ernest Nielsen, Executive Director, Washoe Legal Services. Messrs. Sasser, Rodriguez and Nielsen attended the meeting in support of ACR 50.
Mr. Sasser stated ACR 50 was a spin-off of AB 325 which was introduced in Assembly Judiciary Committee and endorsed by numerous social service agencies and Mayor Jones, Las Vegas. AB 325 would have revised some of the eviction laws in NRS 40. Nevada Legal Services believed the laws needed to be changed because of ambiguity which had led to much litigation. Mr. Sasser explained AB 325 was opposed by the Nevada Apartment Association and Homebuilders Association, and as a result of a heated hearing in Judiciary Committee, Nevada Legal Services had requested an interim study.
He continued eviction procedures legislation was difficult to deal with in the normal legislative process because it was highly technical and legal, and it was very emotionally charged.
NRS 40 had been put together over time and a lot of uncertainty existed for landlords and for tenants.
Mr. Sasser said it was his understanding Nevada Apartment Association and Nevada Homebuilders Association did not oppose the study and would not appear in opposition, but they did have some concern with wording of the resolution. Mr. Sasser further said Mr. Rodriguez would offer language which would make ACR 50 more acceptable to the group.
Mr. Raymond Rodriguez, Directing Attorney, Carson City office of Nevada Legal Services, provided the committee with proposed amendments to ACR 50 which he said were supported by Nevada Legal Services. See (Exhibit C.) He explained the amendments would make eviction procedures contained in NRS 40.253 clear to assure equal treatment throughout the state. Two cases, examples of misinterpretations which had caused litigation in the state, were part of Exhibit C and were discussed by Mr. Rodriguez. He gave other examples of landlord/tenant cases from the tenant's perspective which would justify the need for an interim study. Mr. Rodriguez concluded his testimony in support of ACR 50 by stating they were seeking to discuss the variety of cases, look at unequal applications and clarify language which would enable courts to know what they were directed to do.
Mr. Ernest Nielsen, Executive Director, Washoe Legal Services, adding to legislative intent discussion by Mr. Rodriquez, said there was no appeal, and, if an order from a justice of the peace was attacked, language in the statute declared once the judge determined there was or was not a legal defense, the decision was immune to any attack from a district court order. Mr. Nielsen declared there had been a migration away from the original legislative intent which originated in 1965.
Landlords feared if legal defense language was tightened in the statute, the landlords would have to go through the process for eviction defined in NRS 40.290. Landlords feared the eviction process would be more lengthy, and they would face more cumbersome procedures which would also increase cost for the landlords.
In concluding testimony, Mr. Neilsen said the subject was complex with many variables which required consensus development, and a study committee would be the best method to foster the resolution.
Mr. Petrak questioned the cost involved, and Mrs. Williams responded that every session Legislative Counsel Bureau set aside a certain amount of money for the purpose of studies on issues important to Nevada citizens. She stated generally 12 studies were allowed. The committees heard the studies but did not vote on the studies when heard. The studies were prioritized; six studies, as a rule, went to the Senate, and six studies went to the Assembly. The money for the studies came from a special fund set up by the Legislative Counsel Bureau and Legislative Commission for matters too complex for legislators to deal with in just a bill. She then asked Mr. Sader for his comments on behalf of the Legislative Commission.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Crossley total projected amount for next biennial studies which Mr. Crossley said was $70,000 for 12 studies. Mr. Sader then explained after legislature decided which bills would be interim studies, the Legislative Commission and leadership decided how many legislators would be on each interim committee and how many meetings they would have. Each committee would then form a budget which had to come within the parameters of what had been budgeted from the Commission. Approximately $5,500 per study would be spent.
Mr. Petrak responded with concerns related to ACR 50 and the Judiciary Committee recommended legislation, AB 325.
Mr. Sader, Chairman of Judiciary Committee, explained AB 325 to which Mr. Petrak referred, would have made significant changes in the eviction law. Most changes were perceived to be beneficial to tenants and were opposed by landlords. The testimony revealed a variety of interpretations of eviction laws by those who enforced the laws for tenants and those who were landlords and judges. Therefore, it was thought an interim committee would bring more clarity to the laws, not to show partiality to the landlord or the tenant, but to create a legislative road map clearer than the existing law.
Ms. Bobbie Gang, representing Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in favor of ACR 50. Ms. Gang referenced The Nevada Women's Agenda which a few months ago addressed 15 items, one of which was affordable housing discussed in relation to homelessness. Ms. Gang called attention to the time lapse of only six days from the day a landlord served a nonpayment-of-rent notice to a tenant to the time a sheriff could put the tenant on the street. This particular law was addressed to those families of low income or on subsidized income. Many Nevada families became temporarily or permanently homeless as a result. A restoration of a proper balance between a landlord's right to regain property and the prevention of homelessness was needed, she related. The Nevada Women's Lobby suggested legislature revise Nevada's Summary Eviction Procedures in order to provide families with time to pay their rent. An interim study would assist in alleviating problems, she declared.
Mr. David C. Morton, Executive Director, Reno Housing Authority, introduced Gayle Brooks, Attorney, Reno Housing Authority, opponents of ACR 50. He expressed strong objection to the wording of ACR 50, which he referred to as the original bill, because it was inflammatory and extremely negative toward housing authorities. Mr. Morton stated if the committee had an interim study which was not biased and did not reflect a negative standpoint regarding the present process, Reno Housing Authority would not be as opposed as they previously were. He was not sure he would support ACR 50, but would not necessarily oppose the legislation.
He stated opposition to the premise Nevada Legal Services had expressed in its approach to the eviction process and their assumption the eviction process housing authorities used was inappropriate. He felt much misinformation had been disseminated by Nevada Legal Services.
Mrs. Williams addressed Mr. Morton and confirmed Reno Housing Authority was a public agency and she could not understand his opposition regardless of the wording. If ambiguities existed within the law, and a study was set up by the Legislative Commission to make certain the law was applied evenly throughout the state, she could not understand his objection.
After Mrs. Evans confirmed Mr. Morton was referring to ACR 50 as the original bill, she stated nothing in ACR 50 appeared to her as inflammatory. Mr. Morton referred to Nevada Legal Services' testimony in the Judiciary Committee meeting on AB 325.
At this time, Mrs. Williams interrupted testimony, and asked Mr. Sader, a member of the Legislative Commission, to explain to Mr. Morton how an interim study was selected and who participated.
Mr. Sader explained the interim study would be all legislators, and the resolution would set the tone of the study including the scope. If Mr. Morton objected to the language, he was correct to object because the language would affect what the committee would do. The changes proposed apparently had input from the Apartment Owners Association, but were innocuous as ACR 50 discussed raising concerns, Mr. Sader reported.
When interim committees were set up, Mr. Sader informed Mr. Morton, they were to look at the theories behind the law and to come up with a better system of doing things if it was necessary. Mr. Morton replied that was the only concern he wanted addressed.
Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 50.
ACR 57: Directs Legislative Commission to study desirability and feasibility of amending requirement that boundaries of county school districts be coterminous with boundaries of counties of state.
No one was in attendance to present ACR 57, therefore, Chairman Williams asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ACR 57.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMEN DINI, HUMKE, PORTER AND PRICE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
SB 310: Makes various changes relating to legislative review of administrative regulations.
Mrs. Williams described an amendment to SB 310 which required a regulation be received ten working days before a meeting of the Legislative Commission.
Mr. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified SB 310 amendment on Page 1, lines 14 and 15, moved three days to ten working days.
Mr. Crossley said SB 310 was connected with regulations and the budget of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. It would be a charge against agencies which were not entirely funded by the state general fund for preparing regulations. Over 50 percent of agencies which requested regulations were funded by non-general fund, and Legislative Counsel Bureau did not have general fund money.
Discussion ensued between Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Crossley regarding the fee which Mr. Crossley said would be $85,000 spread across approximately 60 agencies. General fund agencies would not be billed if they were supported exclusively by general fund money, he said.
Mr. Sader discussed the increasing number of regulations and the amount of money and staff required which was affecting ability to draft bills and other activities of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mrs. Williams told committee Mr. Crossley would have the proper amendment drawn.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 310.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECOND THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN DINI, HUMKE, PORTER AND PRICE WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
AB 145: Makes various changes relating to elections.
Mrs. Williams told committee AB 145 was one of the election reform bills, and Secretary of State Lau's bill would cover issues not covered in AB 145. She asked Mr. Sader, of AB 145 subcommittee, to explain amendments to the committee, and he was assisted by Mr. Erickson, Legislative Counsel Bureau, with general asides from Chairman Williams.
Mrs. Williams asked for comments from committee. Mr. Scherer thought one of the amendments to three weeks from five weeks did not allow sufficient time for registrars to complete their work preceding an election. He referred to problems and concerns in the last election and also the perceptions of voter fraud. He thought if less time was given to registrars to look at the process and make certain it was done correctly, there would be more perceptions of wrong-doing.
Mrs. Williams stated the vote would be held for full committee participation.
AB 528: Makes various changes relating to campaign contributions and expenditures.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Sader, of AB 528 subcommittee, to explain amendments to the committee. Mr. Sader stated AB 528 was Assemblyman Toomin's bill, and Mr. Porter and he (Mr. Sader) had worked with Mr. Toomin on the proposed amendments to AB 528 with assistance from Mr. Erickson, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Sader then outlined the recommended amendments.
Mr. Sader stated the amendments were controversial because they dealt with expenditure and contribution thresholds for reporting. He described the principles of the amendments with intermittent explanations by Mrs. Williams and Mr. Erickson.
Mrs. Evans questioned if a conflict existed with AB 505 which was to be discussed at the next Elections and Procedures Committee meeting. Mrs. Williams noted Mr. Erquiaga had stated the proposed amendments to AB 528 had been reconciled with the proposed amendments to AB 505, and Mr. Erickson confirmed amendments for AB 505 were consistent with amendments proposed for AB 528.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 528.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECOND THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMEN DINI, HUMKE, PORTER AND PRICE WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BOBBIE MIKESELL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures
June 8, 1993
Page: 1