MINUTES OF MEETING

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

Sixty-seventh Session

June 17, 1993

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 4:10 p.m., Thursday, June 17, 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. Robert M. Sader

Mr. Scott Scherer

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Sandra J. Tiffany, District No. 21

Assemblyman Lou Toomin, District No. 15

Assemblyman Vivian L. Freeman, District No. 24

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

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

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ms. Mamie Chinn Hechter/Deputy Administrator for the State Housing Division

Mr. Jon L. Sasser/Nevada Legal Services

Mr. Kirby Burgess/Clark County

Ms. Lisa Foster/City of Sparks

Mr. Danny Thompson/AFLCIO

Ms. Nancy Howard/Nevada League of Cities

Mr. Bryan Lusk/Nevada Coalition for Concerned Citizens

Ms. Janice Gunderson/Communications Workers of America, Local 9413

Mr. Dale Erquiaga/Deputy Secretary of State

Ms. Michelle Bero/Nevada Association of Counties

Mr. Bill Jost/Treasurer, Nevada Association Of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs

ACR 69: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of coordination and management of state's housing programs.

Assemblyman Sandra J. Tiffany, District No. 21, prime sponsor of ACR 69 introduced Ms. Mamie Chinn Hechter, Deputy Administrator for the State Housing Division, who addressed the committee from prepared text (Exhibit C).

Ms. Tiffany communicated her appreciation to the committee for their support for ACR 69 interim study. She felt the study was very important and said she would also support combining the study.

Mr. Jon L. Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, voiced support of ACR 69. He stated Nevada Legal Services worked closely with the Housing Division in developing the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (C.H.A.S.) Program which also administered the low-income housing trust fund which Nevada Legal Services assisted in establishing. Mr. Sasser noted money was now available for supportive housing for the mentally ill, and he commented on the Nevada Rural Housing Authority which had difficulty in obtaining funds. Mr. Sasser thought studying the coordination of these groups would be helpful, and he supported combining the study with ACR 50, an examination of landlord/tenant laws if the committee chose to do so.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 69.

AB 506: Increases required period of residence for candidates for certain public offices.

Assemblyman Lou Toomin, District No. 15, prime sponsor of AB 506, stated the legislation would require any candidate for office to live in the district for six months prior to the candidate being able to file for office. He explained the genesis of the bill and expressed importance of the legislation doing away with special interest group candidates and candidates who were not serious candidates for office.

Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Toomin obtained an opinion regarding constitutionality of AB 506. In response to Mr. Humke's inquiry, Mr. Toomin advised he spoke with Legislative Counsel Bureau who did not see a constitutional problem. He added AB 506 did not have to live or die on a municipality six month requirement. Mr. Toomin expressed he would agree if the legislation was for state office only. Mr. Toomin discussed residence requirements in areas of Nevada with 30 days being the shortest.

Mr. Humke pointed out the constitutional right to travel which was a big issue for residency for the right to aid-to-dependent-children benefits when state lines were crossed. Mr. Humke believed United States Supreme Court had declared 30 days was the minimum residency requirement, but he was not sure the requirement extended to cases such as filing for office.

At this time, Mrs. Williams stated she had a conflict notice from the Counsel Bureau that AB 506 was in conflict with AB 258 which had already passed both houses and been signed by the governor. Mr. Erickson was asked to check on the conflict, and Mrs. Williams said if AB 506 was passed, an amendment would be needed.

Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County, testified he spoke to the election staff who did not have a problem with AB 506.

Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, informed Sparks had a 30 day residency requirement, and the Council voted they would be willing to change the charter to six months residency requirement. Calling attention to the ability of the Sparks Charter Review Committee to go directly to legislature and ask for changes to the charter, she said AB 506 was not taken to the Charter Review Committee, and no public hearing was held. However, the Council was in favor of the change to the Sparks charter.

Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, stated the League of Cities had not been able to obtain a consensus of opinion.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AB 506.

AB 657: Revises provisions relating to reporting of campaign expenses.

Mrs. Williams told committee Assemblyman Ernaut had asked to indefinitely postpone AB 657 since the legislation was contained in Mr. Toomin's bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 657,

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

AJR 39: Urges Congress to oppose North American Free Trade Agreement unless certain changes are made.

Assemblyman Price deferred to Mr. Danny Thompson, representing Nevada State AFL/CIO, who spoke in favor of AJR 39 which urged congress to defeat the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in its current form, and to renegotiate the agreement with concerns expressed on Page 3 of the bill. Due to the vast difference in Mexico's wages, if NAFTA was passed in its present form, he said, a large number of jobs would leave the United States. He discussed the difference in wages in Mexico and the United States and tariffs which would eventually be dissolved. He pointed out regulations for growing beef in the United States which were not used in Mexico.

Mr. Scherer questioned United States laws regarding purity of agriculture which presently applied to exports to the United States from Mexico. In response to his question, Mr. Thompson said United States laws would be in force and effect, but Mexico's use of DDT on feed for cattle would not be known unless the meat was tested. Meat was presently visually inspected and not tested, he declared.

Mr. Thompson discussed the trilateral commission which would be set up to dissolve disputes, and he told committee laws enacted by the states would not be enforced without going through the commission. He understood a Mexican truck driver could drive across the United States without a United States driver's license under NAFTA.

Mr. Humke asked if President Clinton supported NAFTA. Mr. Thompson believed he supported NAFTA but did not know to what extent. NAFTA was negotiated by President Bush, the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada, Mr. Thompson specified.

Mr. Humke continued with the discussion by referring to the recent Western Legislative Conference where he served on the Economic Development and International Trade Committee. A speaker at the committee meeting was Debbie Leilani Shon, Assistant United States Trade Representative, Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison, Executive Office of the President, (Exhibit D), who conveyed the President's goal was that NAFTA be approved and in the book by December 31, 1993; the national leadership of AFL/CIO and other major labor organizations supported approval of NAFTA; and President Clinton would only go forward with a recommendation of approval of NAFTA to the congress when certain side agreements were negotiated and approved satisfactory to the United States government, specifically side agreements which dealt with environmental issues and labor issues.

Mr. Humke continued describing Ms. Shon's speech which included reference to the position of organized labor and certain environmental groups. He quoted Ms. Shon who said the groups agreed at the national level with the President that United States needed NAFTA, but that word had not filtered down to the local level of environmental and organized labor organizations.

Responding to Mr. Humke's statement, Mr. Thompson told committee Nevada State AFL/CIO did not support NAFTA in its current form, and until concerns were addressed either through side agreements or renegotiation of NAFTA, AFL/CIO was against the agreement.

AFL/CIO had a department dealing with NAFTA, and Mr. Thompson described use of child labor and disregard for dumping into rivers and streams which flow into the Rio Grande, named the most endangered river in the United States because of dumping.

Based on her understanding, Mrs. Williams reported items listed on Page 3 were largely suggested by President Clinton as side items needed to go forward with NAFTA.

Mr. Scherer asked if Mr. Price or Mr. Thompson had talked to the Nevada Commission on Economic Development regarding AJR 39. Mr. Thompson said he had not talked to the commission, but he had discussed AJR 39 with Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, who had planned to speak to committee in favor, and Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, who had also indicated her support of AJR 39.

Mr. Scherer related he had recently spoken with Mr. Johnson and Ms. Lusk who indicated since the new administration in Mexico had taken over, a more liberal approach toward free trade with the United States was evident in Nevada exports to Mexico, increasing 22 times. In Mr. Scherer's discussions with Mr. Johnson and Ms. Lusk, they had expressed fear a defeat of NAFTA would result in going back to the former policies which would severely limit Nevada exports and growth and manufacturing jobs associated with exports to Mexico.

Mr. Thompson told Mr. Scherer AFL/CIO was not against an agreement with Mexico, but unless the concerns in AJR 39 were met, it would be difficult for Nevada to compete.

Mr. Petrak proclaimed truly good industry would go to Mexico where people were willing to slave at a very low wage and use child labor, exporting inferior products to the United States to increase profit of some of the head offices in the United States. Mr. Petrak felt Nevada should remind federal legislators and the President to be aware of the shortcomings of NAFTA, and the only way as a legislature this could be done was through a resolution asking them to be aware of this, he reminded.

At this time, Mr. Price read a newspaper article regarding NAFTA. See (Exhibit E.)

Mr. Price highlighted remarks from Mr. Thomas R. Donahue, Secretary-Treasurer of American Federation of Labor (AFL/CIO) which said, "Unless steps are taken to ensure equalization upward, the agreement will force wages, working conditions and environmental standards to be equalized down." Mr. Price discussed the number of jobs already lost to Mexico. He also discussed dumping of waste into the Rio Grande River where, in the surrounding areas in Mexico and the United States, children were being born with birth defects.

Mr. Price then discussed the disparity of wages between the United States and Mexico, stating it would be cheaper for companies to close factories in the United States and train people in Mexico who would work for $1 or $1.50 an hour.

A trade route under NAFTA was being considered near Las Vegas, Mr. Price related. Nevada would have little or no regulation over the movement, safety, ability of drivers, and movement of trucks hauling products since conditions of the agreements and pacts superseded state laws, Mr. Price observed.

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Price if items listed on Page 3 of AJR 39 were the concerns of President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Mr. Price replied that was his understanding.

Mr. Bryan Lusk, Las Vegas, then testified for Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition for Concerned Citizens, in support of AJR 39.

Ms. Janice Gunderson, representing Communications Workers of America, Local 9413, testified in support of AJR 39, and said as a group of unions, Local 9413 met with Senator Bryan in April and questioned him regarding NAFTA and environmental and pollution questions. Senator Bryan was unable to tell the group where he stood because of the wishes of President Clinton. He was also unable to tell the group how the United States would be able to impose its will on Mexico regarding protection of the environment. Without assurance, Communications Workers of America could not support NAFTA.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AJR 39.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS ON AJR 39.

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMEN SCHERER, LAMBERT AND HUMKE VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

AB 664: Requires secretary of state to establish program for publication and distribution in certain districts of voter's pamphlet for 1994 general election.

Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, District No. 24, sponsor of AB 664, stated she often heard from constituents they would like a voter's handbook, and during interim, some of her constituents had asked her to address the handbook. She requested Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary of State, to address specifics of AB 664 after calling committee's attention to the $15,000 fiscal note.

Commenting on AB 664, Mr. Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, explained AB 664 was a "test run" of a voter pamphlet in Nevada. The Secretary of State had been approached by constituents regarding a voter pamphlet, and she had worked with Mrs. Freeman on AB 664. Mr. Erquiaga then recapped each section of the bill.

Mrs. Williams pointed out if committee acted on AB 664, the bill would have to be rereferred to Ways and Means. Committee would have to assure money was available if AB 664 passed.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 664.

AJR 6: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that petition for recall of public officer contain signatures of certain number of registered voters.

Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, stated AJR 6 was a joint effort between Nevada League of Cities and Nevada Association of Counties to clarify the number of signatures needed for a recall petition to assure a sufficient number of signers. See (Exhibit F.) She had worked with Mr. Scherer on AJR 6 amended language which she briefly described.

Mrs. Williams stated she had received many calls regarding AJR 6.

Mr. Scherer added AJR 6 was connected with AB 552 on recall. One of the requests was that committee specify what the general election was and the election at which the person was elected. If the committee was receptive to making it the election at which a representative or councilman or an elected official was elected, it would be prudent to pass AJR 6 in the amended form to begin the process of amending the Constitution.

Mr. Petrak said a recall stated the people who voted for that person and who wanted to recall were the only ones who could sign a petition to have him recalled. Ms. Howard answered currently it was just the registered voters within the district who could sign a petition. They did not have to have voted for him. She added they were trying to go back to the election in which he was elected.

Mrs. Williams explained when the bill first came out, it read, "25 percent of the registered voters in the district," and what they intended was 25 percent of the number of registered voters who voted in that person's election whenever the election was held.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Scherer and Mr. Petrak with Mr. Scherer explaining if 4,000 people voted in the election, they would need 1,000 signatures, 25 percent of the people who actually voted. AJR 6 was originally worded to require 25 percent of registered voters.

Mr. Scherer further stated he believed AJR 6 was a good change, and he was not wedded to any of the numbers. It was important to provide clarity so that people would know what they were required to do to initiate a recall, Mr. Scherer declared.

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Scherer if it said general election, which meant November. She asked what application it would have to municipal elections and other special district elections.

Mr. Scherer answered her question by explaining the amendment omitted "at the preceding general election" and replaced it with "at the election in which he was elected."

Mrs. Lambert revealed comments from the registrar in Washoe County when recalls were in process, that the 20 days from the time district court looked at the petition until the election had to be held was not sufficient time for large counties with large numbers of voters.

Ms. Michelle Bero, representing Nevada Association of Counties, informed she had talked with Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, and with Mr. Scherer regarding the time frame which Nevada Association of Counties would like to see extended. An actual date had not been set, and she asked if Mr. Scherer could add language to extend the time frame.

Mr. Scherer said language was not in AJR 6, but the time frame in the constitution was 20 days, and the language should be included in AJR 6. He thought 30 days might be more reasonable with the growth of Clark and Washoe Counties, even within 45 days of the date the petition was filed and held in conjunction with the regular election so that the county could save some money by doing it all at once rather than holding a special election.

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Scherer to obtain a properly drawn amendment to AJR 6.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AJR 6.

ACR 71: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of drug and alcohol abuse among criminal offenders.

Mr. Bob Sader, Chairman of Committee on Judiciary and sponsor of ACR 71, explained ACR 71 was a result of testimony in the Judiciary Committee which was similar to testimony in recent past sessions. Mr. Sader discussed the purpose of ACR 71 which was to develop serious programs for both deferral of criminal defendants, treatment on probation of criminal defendants and treatment within the prison system of criminal defendants. He discussed statistics of the prison system which showed over 60 percent of defendants in the prison system in Nevada were either alcohol or drug abusers or both.

He explained the rationale for proposing treatment rather than the imprisonment of offenders. Mr. Sader also discussed fiscal impact and the repetitiveness each session of discussions of alternative programs. He concluded by stating he felt there was not a more important potential interim study than ACR 71.

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Sader who would serve on the committee to develop the programs, and Mr. Sader responded all legislators. Mrs. Williams then questioned if legislators had the expertise to develop programs, especially for drug users.

Mr. Humke thought the director's office and prison staff could compose the committee with staff from LCB. They could present options, alternatives and some of the latest thinking in this field to the legislative body. Interim studies had been held where judiciary had been included.

Mrs. Williams said if Mr. Sader was looking at possible treatment modalities, she was not sure legislators were the only people who should be involved.

Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Sader stated that was not the emphasis. The question of how they were treated and modality established would be decided by experts in that field. He then discussed a program would be devised from working with the administration to change their programs to mix the requirement for incarceration with outpatient programs and restitution.

Mr. Sader said it was crucial that only legislators serve on the committee and that the perspective would be primarily fiscal. Judges, prosecutors, police and people in the criminal justice system with the exception of the governor had no motive to save money in the system since they were elected by being tough on crime, and treatment programs were perceived to be soft on crime.

Mr. Bill Jost, Treasurer, Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, testified in favor of ACR 71. NASADAP was a non-profit community-based treatment system in Nevada, and he hoped they would be able to get information to tailor the treatment system to be more effective. As a result of the study, they might discover things which would allow them to be more effective in treatment.

Mr. Jost discussed statistics of people who were incarcerated and confirmed the vast majority had some type of substance abuse problem. He discussed a program in Reno which was tailored to take released felons from the prison directly into their treatment program to reorient them to society. Ninety percent of released prisoners had a substance abuse problem to be dealt with along with readjustment into society, he added.

NASADAP felt ACR 71 was extremely important for the organization to become more effective and to have more information on what to do with the problem.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 71.

AJR 38: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to limit length of each regular session to 120 calendar days and to extend limitation on compensation of each member of legislature to such time.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33, prime sponsor of AJR 38, testified he introduced AJR 38 for a time certain to the legislative process, and he felt if there was a time certain, legislature could streamline the process. See (Exhibit G.)

Discussion ensued between Mr. Scherer and Mr. Carpenter regarding limiting sessions to 120 days and streamlining work to move the sessions quickly. Mr. Carpenter emphasized legislators should make legislative sessions better and more productive.

Mr. Price and Mr. Carpenter discussed annual sessions, with Mr. Carpenter concluding he thought legislature needed a time certain.

Mr. Bryan Lusk, Nevada Coalition for Concerned Citizens, testifying for Ms. Lucille Lusk, representative of NCCC, stated NCCC supported AJR 38. He stated AJR 38 would benefit smaller lobbyist non-profit groups who could not afford to send a full-time lobbyist to the legislature from Las Vegas. AJR 38 also specified exactly how much legislators would be paid.

Mr. Dini discussed legislative sessions and he thought one of the problems was the state had grown so much making it difficult to limit to a certain number of days. He discussed the size of bills and local governments, and he called attention to the last legislative session which had addressed reapportionment. SIIS and reorganization and the budget process had the same effect this session which took time from routine matters.

Mr. Price discussed time spent on legislature's internal procedures and introductions each day, and described procedures used in other states.

Mr. Petrak thought a definite program of time should be considered.

Mrs. Williams reminded Mr. Petrak legislature only met once every two years and the state had experienced great changes. She said special sessions would cost the taxpayers more money than keeping legislators an extra few days. It seemed flexibility was needed, she added.

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AJR 38.

SB 240: Expands authority of legislative committee on public lands to review and comment on certain policies, rules or regulations of state land registrar and administrator of division of state lands.

Mr. Price assumed the gavel from Chairman Williams who temporarily excused herself.

Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated he had been asked by Senator Dean Rhoads to present SB 240. Mr. Erickson said Senator Rhoads served as the Chairman of the permanent Legislative Committee on Public Lands. Mr. Erickson stated he himself had served in the past as staff director on the committee.

He explained SB 240 expanded authority of the Committee on Public Lands to review and comment on the policies and regulations of the Division of State Lands in addition to current authority committee had to review the policies and regulations of the various federal land managing agencies. An oversight occurred when the bill was first put together in 1979, and it came to attention the Division of State Lands had issues which arose and the committee was not able to review those policies or regulations of the Division of State Lands. The Division of State Lands and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had no objection to this particular bill, Mr. Erickson assured, and agreed to the legislative committee having oversight authority.

Mr. Dini questioned if a problem existed with operations of the state lands. He thought this was a further intrusion on the executive branch of government by the legislature, and questioned what they had done so wrong to have the policy decision made here.

Mr. Erickson did not recall there was a specific issue. Mr. Erickson said he would check if there was a specific instance, and he stated the executive branch did not oppose.

Mr. Dini advised under the reorganization a Natural Resources Board had been created and a Public Land Review Committee had been put into the Board. The duties of that Natural Resources Board could be expanded. Under reorganization, Mr. Dini did not know if SB 240 was needed.

Mr. Erickson pointed out the committee was the Legislative Oversight Committee.

Mr. Price asked if there was another bill which expanded the hearing process with regard to the administrator or the State Land Registrar. Mr. Erickson said there might be another measure, but it was not this one.

Mr. Price also asked why citizens was changed to residents.

Mr. Erickson did not know the specifics.

AJR 38: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to limit length of each regular session to 120 calendar days and to extend limitation on compensation of each member of legislature to such time.

Mrs. Williams asked for a motion on AJR 38.

ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AJR 38

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

AJR 6: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that petition for recall of public officer contain signatures of certain number of registered voters.

ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AJR 6.

ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Dini reminded committee members Mr. Scherer was to obtain an amendment to AJR 6.

ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WITHDREW THE MOTION.

AB 664: Requires secretary of state to establish program for publication and distribution in certain districts of voter's pamphlet for 1994 general election.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 664.

ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Sader suggested sending AB 664 to Ways and Means for their consideration. No action was taken regarding Mr. Sader's suggestion.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN SADER VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

AB 506: Increases required period of residence for candidates for certain public offices.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS AB 506.

ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Williams stated AB 506 needed clarification.

Mr. Erickson told Mrs. Williams the conflict was with the charter amendment for the city of Sparks, but the representative of the City of Sparks already spoke in favor of the measure. The second question that came up in committee was the case law and whether the six months was perhaps infringing on the right to travel. LCB Legal Division checked the case law which indicated up to two years would be satisfactory.

Mrs. Lambert noted AB 506 was discussed at length in Government Affairs. Mrs. Lambert preferred to make everything 30 days and stated she would be against the motion.

Mr. Sader opposed the motion. He said voters should decide if length of residence was an important issue for them, and it should be done for all candidates, he stated.

Mr. Dini discussed the example of a candidate for county commissioner who had an apartment in one location, ran in another district and lived in yet another town. Mr. Dini approved of the bill.

Mr. Price stated he opposed the bill and suggested the voters make the decision.

Mr. Petrak also gave an example, and he felt it was unfair that a short time resident could run for office.

Mr. Scherer thought six months was an appropriate time period for everyone, and Mr. Dini had no objection to six months.

ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AB 506 TO MAKE IT SIX MONTHS FOR EVERYONE.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Williams told Mr. Scherer the motion would have to be Amend and Do Pass since there was a Do Pass motion was on the floor.

ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER RETRACTED HIS MOTION.

Mrs. Williams stated the main motion was still on the floor.

Mr. Garner discussed residency requirements, and concluded by saying the real issue was one year or six months. His question was whether or not wanted to make it consistent and require all local governments to do the same.

Mrs. Williams asked for a vote of the committee by show of hands.

THE MOTION FAILED.

ASSEMBLYMEN SCHERER, LAMBERT, PRICE, SADER, EVANS AND HUMKE VOTED NO.

Mr. Garner asked Chairman Williams if she would accept another motion to make it 12 months.

Mrs. Williams would not accept another motion since she believed committee members voted no because the time was too long.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS ON SB 240.

Mrs. Williams asked if there was a second to the motion. There being none, she asked if committee would make another motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SB 240.

ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND PRICE VOTED NO.

At this time, an exhibit listing proposed Assembly interim studies was provided to the committee by Mr. Crossley who stated the Assembly had introduced two resolutions that date, ACR 74, school district in southern Nevada, and ACR 76, interim study of criminal justice system, (Exhibit H.)

Mrs. Williams asked committee for discussion of Exhibit H for elimination of interim studies.

ACR 40: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of cities which are incorporated by charter.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ACR 40.

ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SCHERER VOTED NO.

Committee discussion ensued regarding interim studies listed in Exhibit H.

ACR 50: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of summary eviction procedures.

ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ACR 50.

ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER VOTED NO.

ACR 74: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study to determine feasibility of creating additional school district in Southern Nevada.

Chairman Williams requested a motion to indefinitely postpone ACR 74.

IT WAS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ACR 74.

ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Further committee discussion ensued regarding interim studies listed in Exhibit H.

The chair recognized Mr. Humke who told the committee AB 378 proposed an interim study without appropriation.

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

BOBBIE MIKESELL

Committee Secretary

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

June 17, 1993

Page: 1