MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Sixty-seventh Session
June 10, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:35 p.m., Thursday, June 10, 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. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Scott Scherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Gene T. Porter (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Gene Segerblom, District No. 22
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mr. John R. Crossley/Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Thomas Wilson/Chairman, Nevada Commission on Ethics
Ms. Kateri Cavin/Deputy Attorney General for Ethics Commission, State of Nevada
Mr. Jerry Higgins/State Board of Engineers
Mr. Tom Stephens/Manager, State Public Works Board
Mr. Joseph Guild/Nevada State Board of Architecture
Kathryn Ferguson/Registrar of Voters, Clark County
Mr. Robert Elliott, Management Analyst, Clark County Election Department
Ms. Veronica Perez/Assistant Registrar of Voters for Clark County
Ms. Marlene Henderson/Registrar of Voters, Washoe County
Mr. Tom Greeley, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities
Ms. Michelle Bero, NACO
AB 603: Coordinates provision concerning contracts between public officer or employee and public agency.
The chair recognized Mr. Sader who stated AB 603 was a joint effort with Mr. Thomas Wilson, Chairman, Nevada Commission on Ethics, to deal with the issue of conflicts and prohibitions for those involved in government service, part time or full time. Mr. Sader assisted in drafting AB 603, and sought input from Mr. Wilson and his counsel.
Mr. Thomas Wilson, Chairman, Nevada Commission on Ethics, a proponent of AB 603, concurred with Mr. Sader's statement. He voiced concern the bill would not do something they wanted it to do or would not omit something they wanted it to omit. Mr. Wilson provided history of the genesis of the bill, adding many public employees who served on various boards or commissions or who might be faculty members could be excluded from doing their livelihood which sometimes involved contracts with the state or other public entity. They were compromised by the law which had not been enforced.
Mr. Sader outlined AB 603 starting with Page 1 and noted the language was repeated in substance in various forms in other places in the bill.
Referring to Section 1, Mr. Wilson pointed out in subsections 3 and 4, the exceptions to the prohibition were qualified by the member or the employee not taking part in the development of the contracts, plans or specifications and not personally being involved in opening, considering or accepting offers. Additionally, he pointed out, the qualification was not in subsection 2.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Sader and Mr. Wilson concerning the omission of the qualification language, "if he has not taken part in developing the contract plans or specifications and he will not be personally involved in opening, considering or accepting offers," in Section 1, subsection 2.
Mr. Sader concluded the remainder of the language in AB 603 subsequent sections largely repeated one or more of the concepts contained in Section 1. Section 3 was the only other section which dealt with boards and commissions.
Mr. Sader offered the law arguably prohibited any member of any occupational board or commission from doing work with the state because he was a public official. Mr. Sader did not believe that was intended since in many of the occupations a major aspect of the work available to them was government work. The law needed to be changed to allow people to serve on boards and commissions without being accused of conflicts of interest.
Mr. Wilson said the law was old and had broad and general application to any public employee and had caused panic through the state among every member of a profession, such as architects, engineers, contractors, chiropractors and physicians, which was regulated by a professional board and which occasionally did business with the state.
Mrs. Williams noted Nevada was a small state and needed to be able to call on the expertise of people of Nevada to serve on boards and to allow ancillary faculty from various professions to serve with universities and community colleges.
Discussion ensued among Mrs. Evans, Mr. Sader and Mr. Wilson regarding AB 603 as it applied to a former Nevada legislator who wanted to enter a bid for a contract with the university system. The issue was under Section 1, subsection 4, line 19, "the sources of supply are limited."
Mr. Sader stated NRS 218.605 specifically involved legislators, and he referred to the statute which also included the wording, "if the sources of supply of the item are limited." In addition, Mr. Sader said there was an overlying prohibition that if the legislator had become a contractor, under any contract order for supplies, paid for in whole or part by money appropriated by the legislature of which he was a member, he could do it.
Ms. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General for Ethics Commission, State of Nevada, stated in NRS 281 there was a specific section which dealt with sole source in a small county.
Mr. Jerry Higgins, State Board of Engineers, proponent of AB 603, stated all board members were active professionals who bid on public works contracts and were concerned they could not continue bidding. If active professionals on public works contracts could not serve on the board, the people on the board would be retired or inactive and not be uptodate with their profession which would not be in the interests of the state.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Higgins if members of the board might have wanted to teach as ancillary faculty at the School of Engineering at the University and had not because of the possibility of the conflict.
It had not occurred to his knowledge, Mr. Higgins said, but it was in the interest of the state to have active people on the board.
Mr. Tom Stephens, Manager, State Public Works Board, spoke in favor of AB 603. He expressed concern regarding the suggestion to change Section 2, subsection 2 to have the same restrictions as the other subsections. He hoped the committee would not change paragraph 2 which would prohibit all the registration board members who were doing master planning or any kind of preliminary plans from doing the final designs.
Mrs. Williams asked if anyone wished to respond to Mr. Stephens' concerns.
Mr. Wilson thought there was a distinction between putting together a master plan and developing plans and specifications for a specific project. The U.N.L.V. architecture school, the Lucasi opinion, did not involve an architect doing a master plan; it involved an architect who was a member of the committee of administrators and faculty who participated directly in defining the nature of the product to be designed.
Mr. Wilson thought Mr. Sader might consider the issue of the public works board's method of selecting engineers and architects which was to select them competitively on the basis of qualifications for the job, but it was not a competitive bid per se and the statutes which governed those two professions prohibited bidding for price. They could compete based on qualifications and experience but could not bid or compete with respect to price. They were prohibited professionally from doing that, he said, and the committee might want to explore the problem.
Mr. Stephens raised the concern regarding members of registration boards who were the most likely people to work for the State Public Works Board.
Mr. Joseph Guild, representing Nevada State Board of Architecture, told the committee they supported AB 603. He understood Section 1, subsection 2 was the situation which would deal with the practice of architecture. Echoing prior statements by Mr. Higgins regarding the State Board of Engineers, Mr. Guild said all of the people on the State Board of Architecture were practicing, full-time professionals, and in the limited situation which subsection 3 covered, Mr. Guild understood a person would not only have to take part in developing the scope of work and the criteria by which the ultimate bid would be judged, but would also determine his/her own bid as a qualified bid, and that would be prohibited.
Mr. Sader suggested an amendment to AB 603 on Page 1, line 11 which would add the clause on Page 1, lines 13 through 15, "if he has not taken part in developing the contract plans or specifications and he will not be personally involved in opening, considering or accepting offers." The language would achieve the result suggested by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sader affirmed.
Mr. Sader suggested an amendment to repeat the same language on Page 2, line 45.
Continuing, Mr. Sader referenced the question raised by Mr. Stephens which dealt with interpretation of the clause, lines 13 through 15, "has not taken part in developing the contract plans or specifications." The question was, Mr. Sader said, if an architect or engineer who had been involved in a master planning process would be prohibited from bidding on services or contracts relating to specific buildings or subsequent planning process. Mr. Sader thought he would not be prohibited, and he stated, "I would prefer just to have it clearly stated on the legislative record verbatim of these committee hearings that this language is not intended to be interpreted so broadly that it would bring into its scope previous work on master planning or previous work on earlier phases of the same project." As long as it was interpreted in that fashion, Mr. Sader suggested the legislative record would indicate the intent.
Mr. Sader then commented on the subject of legislators as it applied to AB 603 and the question of limited sources of supply in Section 1 for all other public officers and in Chapter 218 for legislators. AB 603 was very important legislation, he said, and a legislative exemption could retard the progress of the bill. Chairman Williams agreed with Mr. Sader.
Mr. Sader suggested the amendments would be to add the lines as stated on Page 1, line 11 and on Page 2, line 45.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 603
WITH APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY ASSEMBLYMAN SADER.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMEN EVANS, PORTER, AND PRICE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Sader to obtain the amendment.
AB 577: Allows registered voter to vote at county office during week preceding election.
Assemblyman Gene Segerblom, District No. 22, prime sponsor of AB 577, testified she requested the legislation because of her interest in the methods used by the state of Texas in handling their voting outside of the voting booths in the election. She thought this was a way for people to vote who had not voted via absentee ballots. Mrs. Segerblom said the first result of her legislation was not exactly what she wanted, and the Registrar of Voters in Clark County, who was from Texas, had brought an amended bill to the committee (Exhibit C). Mrs. Segerblom then introduced Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, and her assistant Robert Elliott.
Ms. Ferguson highlighted advantages that could be realized by AB 577 amendments. See (Exhibit C.) She asked if a problem existed making it effective for the entire state, a population cap be considered to enable Clark County to use the method she outlined.
Ms. Ferguson stated she would like to use the system for the 1994 general election so the smaller election could be a test, and problems could be refined before the presidential election in 1996.
Mrs. Williams asked if Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Elliott would outline their suggested amendments to AB 577 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Robert Elliott, Management Analyst, Clark County Election Department, stated Ms. Ferguson had outlined what the bill was designed to do, and the amendments were the mechanics. He then recapped each section of the amendments to AB 577 with asides from Ms. Ferguson and comments and questions from committee.
Mr. Petrak recalled Texas voted on Sunday and asked if this would be a good test for Clark County to show if Sunday voting would be worthwhile. Ms. Ferguson said she had no objection.
Discussion ensued among Mr. Price, Mrs. Williams, Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Petrak concerning constitutionality of roped-off areas in the election area.
Mrs. Williams questioned Mr. Erickson who said the United States Supreme Court upheld Tennessee law which provided for approxi-mately 150 feet clear zone where legislators could not campaign.
Mr. Petrak stated people worked for him in front of the voting places, and it was challenged. He checked with the Secretary of State who said the law was 300 feet. Mr. Petrak said present law said the voting process would not be interfered with which meant beyond the door.
Ms. Veronica Perez, Assistant Registrar of Voters for Clark County, testified in favor of AB 577. She had administered five elections in which an early-voting period was utilized. It was successful and the voters were very happy with it, she conveyed. She thought it would be a great service to the 24 hour community.
Mrs. Williams called for testimony from opponents of AB 577, and asked for testimony from Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County.
Mrs. Williams asked Ms. Henderson if she had heard Ms. Ferguson suggest a population cap be placed on the legislation. If this was done, it would not affect Washoe County, Mrs. Williams said, and she asked Ms. Henderson if she would still be in opposition to AB 577. Ms. Henderson stated she would like to study the amendments before she answered.
Mrs. Williams reiterated her question "if the population cap was put in ..." Ms. Henderson then answered if a population cap was put in for Washoe County, she would not have an objection. Ms. Henderson then stated she would like to read the revised bill before commenting further on the legislation. Mrs. Henderson submitted Exhibit D to the committee, but did not testify further.
Mr. Price asked if this was permissive or mandatory, and Mrs. Williams answered permissive. He then noted it would not need a population clause since it was permissive.
There being no further testimony, Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 577, and asked Mr. Erickson to obtain amendments in regular bill form and bring back to committee.
Mrs. Williams opened the work session.
AB 505: Makes various changes to provisions regulating campaign practices.
Mrs. Evans, Chairman of AB 505 subcommittee, stated Secretary of State's office had obtained amendments which Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, would explain (Exhibit E).
Mr. Erquiaga announced the amendments to AB 505 would bring the legislation to match the exact language of AB 528. Additionally on Page 2 of the amendments (Exhibit E), the second amendment would amend Section 14, page 10, to add subsection 6, a mechanism which would allow the Secretary of State to waive the filling fee.
Mrs. Lambert questioned the $50 filing fee which she saw as an opportunity for accusations of discrimination. Mrs. Lambert then suggested a lesser amount of $15, $20 or $25 for filing fee might be appropriate.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 505
WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS SPECIFIED BY MR. ERQUIAGA.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Williams asked for discussion from the committee, and Mrs. Lambert stated she would not be able to support the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader stated he was open to more concepts.
Mrs. Lambert stated her concern was a candidate could not accept a contribution from a political action committee unless it was registered with Secretary of State, and legislators needed a method of knowing whether PACs were registered. She asked for a mechanism whereby the candidate could identify whether the PAC was registered. She also objected to the $50 fee which she said was too high.
Mrs. Williams commented every time a candidate received a check, the candidate would have to call the Secretary of State's office to verify or, she asked, would the legislator only in questionable circumstances call and verify. She thought if a number had to be placed on every check, there would be problems with the number missing from the check and with phone calls to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Humke suggested the Secretary of State could draft and promulgate regulations so that she could generate a list of PAC s with identifying information, specifically the name. He stated this would go in the packet distributed to each Registrar of Voters by Secretary of State to each candidate.
Mr. Price raised the question if someone gave a candidate valuable services, in-kind services, should the giver be registered.
Mrs. Williams stated in-kind services were covered in AB 528 where everything had to be reported.
Mr. Erquiaga stated if contributors met the definition of a PAC, they should be registered. If they accepted contributions and made expenditures to affect the outcome of an election, they would become a PAC. If they were an entity, such as Joe's Sign Company, which did not meet the definition of a political action committee, they were an individual or corporation.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Sader and Mr. Erquiaga regarding definition of PACs and registration of PACs. Mr. Sader pointed out the growing importance and strength and involvement of PACs in the political process, and public concern about special interests contributing through PACs, leading legislatures to further legislate control and disclosure in that area.
Mr. Erquiaga asked if the word willfully added in Section 1, subsection 2, before the word violates alleviated the liability problem if a candidate took a contribution from a PAC who was not registered from the Secretary of State and was unknown to the candidate at the time.
Mrs. Lambert conceded there was a valid reason to go through the problems AB 505 might create. She noted it would be difficult for candidates to find out who was registered.
Mr. Erquiaga referred to Mr. Humke's suggestion a list be provided at the time of filing which Mr. Erquiaga stated could be done in Secretary of State's office. He also stated AB 505 would increase the volume of calls to Secretary of State's office, and he discussed the office's Status Division which handled phone calls requiring a yes or no answer on whether a corporation was an active corporation. The filing fee would offset some of the cost for the phone calls, he expressed.
Mr. Sader referred to Mr. Humke's suggestion of a registration list given to candidates when they filed, and if candidates knew updates were available with the Secretary of State upon request, all mechanisms would be present for easily verifying contributions received by the candidates were covered.
Mrs. Williams asked Mrs. Lambert if she still objected to the fee.
Mrs. Lambert stated rather than have the waiver mechanism, she would lower the fee and expect everyone to pay.
Mrs. Williams thought Mr. Erquiaga was hoping to offset some of the cost to the Secretary of State's office because if they were going to hire someone and AB 505 went to Ways and Means, the bill might be defeated.
Mr. Humke discussed the filing fee and concluded by saying he agreed with the $50 filing fee.
Mr. Scherer voiced concerns the law would be unconstitutional. He thought it had potential to have a chilling effect on free speech which was political speech. He expressed concern about the waiver provision and discussed reasons for his concern.
Mr. Dini expressed the thought a PAC was limited to the amount of money he could give. However, he thought that would be an invasion of free speech based on the decision of the original campaign limitation bill in 1973 which was thrown out by the court because it limited the amount of money to spend per vote, 20 cents or 25 cents per vote, in a district. He did not think there was an argument on the registration fee for a PAC.
Mrs. Williams stated she had no problem with the waiver. She informed some groups might only have $200 to give and it would be a huge group of people without any money who generally were a 501C3 organization. She thought that could be discretionary. She did not agree with funding a position for someone to do unreasonable waivers for people who could afford to pay.
Mr. Erquiaga proclaimed the Secretary of State equated filing fees for PACs with filing fees for candidates for office. He referenced a court case which required waiving the filing fees upon demand. Secretary of State relied on the Supreme Court case and the Attorney General's opinion, he said. They created something called a Pauper's Oath which, if presented to the Secretary of State, she accepted the filing, and she insisted the counties accept it also, he declared. It was a little-used mechanism, but it was a position his office was already in. Being accused and being in tough discretionary positions went with the turf of being Secretary of State so in her opinion it was an equitable trade for having more disclosure and more enforcement of what PACs were doing.
Mrs. Williams recalled no one in those areas could be forced to pay if they objected, but a fee could be charged, and then if they objected, the fee would have to be waived.
Mr. Petrak thought PACs, even though they were limited, should be dealt with in the Secretary of State's office with a filing fee.
Mr. Humke asked Mr. Scherer if he was opposed to the filing fee in general because of free speech.
Mr. Scherer stated he had more problem with the waiver than the filing fee. He thought the waiver could invite people to ask for the waiver, and he thought it might be more common by putting it in the statute. People who did not get a waiver or the opponents of people who did not get a waiver were going to say the Secretary of State had been unfair, and Mr. Scherer thought that would be bad for the process.
Mr. Humke stated he was opposed to the waiver. He did not like that discretion, and felt it would become another campaign issue.
Mrs. Williams told the committee the truth was exactly as Mr. Erquiaga had said, there was a waiver anyway so a waiver in AB 505 did not matter.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 505 MINUS THE WAIVER.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMEN GARNER AND PORTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Crossley to obtain the amendment.
ACR 45: Limits number of requests that may be submitted to Legislative Counsel during interim for drafting and directs completion of 1,000 bill drafts before convening of 68th session of Nevada Legislature.
Mr. Petrak, chairman of the subcommittee, provided the committee with recommendations and stated the subcommittee, Mr. Garner, Mrs. Lambert and himself, met with Mr. Crossley and Mr. Malkiewich. Speaker Dini was also present. See (Exhibit F.)
Mr. Crossley then discussed the ACR 45 subcommittee report. To assist the subcommittee in reviewing the BDR situation, he prepared schedules of BDR's submitted categorized by Assembly committees and Senate committees, the Judiciary, interim studies, local governments, special groups, and the executive branch. The subcommittee, after reviewing those groups, decided two areas should be addressed: local governments and special groups. Local governments had no limitations and special groups had limitations imposed by the legislative commission through a statutory process.
Mr. Dini thought it was a good policy decision.
Mr. Sader discussed bill drafting requests and concluded by stating he would support the subcommittee's work, but, until legislators dealt with the question of committee requests after the session started, the system as a whole would not be dealt with.
This being a work session, Mrs. Williams stated the committee would not take testimony, but she asked Mr. Tom Greeley, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, if he would like to make a brief comment.
Mr. Greeley introduced Ms. Michelle Bero, NACO office. He stated Nevada League of Cities and NACO were separate organizations and requested they be split and allowed to submit bills separately. If there were joint packages, they would use part of the number allowed. Nevada League of Cities had separate issues from NACO, and Mr. Greeley asked they be allowed to have six each.
Mr. Dini said as a leader he found it appalling this session that at least 75 measures had been cross-matched and introduced by committees, which legislators did not have jurisdiction over, and referred to the Jurisdiction Committee which Mr. Dini thought was a bad way for an individual legislator to introduce his own program beyond his limits. Mr. Dini also said the average member could not do that, and the committee chairman should not take advantage of doing bills not in his jurisdiction.
Mr. Dini, Mr. Price, and Mrs. Evans discussed limits on the numbers of bills.
Mrs. Evans thought it was the work of the interim committees to screen studies.
Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Dini discussed excess number of studies and limits of studies, with Mrs. Lambert noting some studies, such as the hazardous materials study did not conform to a limit. Mr. Dini thought guidelines from the commission to the chair were needed, and committee members should be selective in what they recommended.
Mr. Humke suggested a possible solution would be to deal with the issue through committee in consultation with the Senate and agree to a limit per committee. He confirmed with the chairman that in the standing rules after a session started, each Assemblyman had five bills and each Senator ten bills. Mr. Humke expressed his frustration at that standing rule. His solution would be to cut the number from the executive branch.
Mr. Sader thought if requests were regulated they would have to be regulated through the Legislative Commission. He thought they should rethink the Legislative Commission approved interim committee reports. He analyzed the process of interim studies, committee meetings, recommendations, drafting and approval by commission and the chairman with general comments and suggestions that improvement would require rethinking of how the commission worked in reviewing the studies.
Mr. Dini agreed with Mr. Sader's comments and discussed the improvement in studies in the last few years. He thought the new commission might establish guidelines for the chairman. He was opposed to wasting money and time on large numbers of bills that would not pass.
Mr. Price discussed using standing committees which he thought was a good idea. Mrs. Williams commented standing committees could also change by people retiring or not being reelected. Mr. Price thought annual sessions would solve this.
Mr. Price discussed a possible amendment to have the name of the person who made a request to the committee be on the BDR list. He said Senator Raggio also asked the name or the organization which asked for committee introduction be on the front of the bill .
Mrs. Williams expressed doubts since committee had Senate bills introduced by committee and had to check to find the sponsor.
Mr. Scherer, returning to the interim study subject, commented on Mr. Humke's recommendation of a threshold and above that having to go to Legislative Commission. He suggested threshold could be set by the amount budgeted for the study. The studies would have more budgeting, therefore possibly more bills. Legislative Commission could establish guidelines above the threshold.
Mrs. Williams pointed out the District Attorneys Association was not included in Exhibit F, and they always had a number of bill draft requests.
Mr. Sader suggested amendments to ACR 45 with changes recommended by the subcommittee and an additional number 3 to the recommendations which would be the Legislative Commission shall set guidelines for interim study bill draft requests. Mr. Sader also recommended an amendment to give NACO and League of Cities six studies each, and he recommended an amendment that committee bill draft requests must state name of requestor.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT ACR 45 WITH SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Williams asked for further discussion.
Mr. Humke asked if there was any desire to limit executive branch agencies. Mr. Dini thought they were reduced last session and with the new system, it would have to go through the budget director.
Mr. Crossley asked if the motion included Item 1 (b) whereby if SB 48 was approved, the number of bills could be changed and the board of regents could be put in the bill. Mrs. Williams answered, "Yes."
Mr. Crossley called committee's attention that Item 2 was a separate bill and could not be incorporated into ACR 45. It had to be a separate motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMEN GARNER AND PORTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Mrs. Williams asked for committee approval for a bill draft request.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT.
ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BOBBIE MIKESELL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures
June 10, 1993
Page: 1