MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 24, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:50 p.m., Thursday, June 24, 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:

 

      Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin. District No. 15

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Peter D. Krueger, Executive Director/Citizens for

      Private Enterprise, Inc., Northern Nevada Council

      Mr. Ray Bacon/Executive Director/Nevada Manufacturers

      Association

      Ms. Thelma Clark/Citizens Recall Effort

 

 

 

 

 

AB 378:     Creates advisory committee to study state regulations.

 

Assemblyman David Humke, District No. 26, prime sponsor of AB 378, testified the bill was originally in Government Affairs Committee where the bill had a moratorium on all regulations for a biennium.  The Government Affairs Committee considered that to be too harsh to deny executive branch agencies the ability to pass any regulations for a two year period.  The remainder of the bill, he said, was a kind of statutory interim study.

 

Mr. Humke felt an interim study was needed.  He told committee Ms. Carole Vilardo, who represented Nevada Taxpayers Association, was interested in AB 378 in the way an interim study might help a certain constitutional amendment which would make changes to the regulation process with regard to the degree of control the legislative branch might have over the regulations.  Mr. Humke believed the proposed constitutional amendment had passed the Assembly and would pass the other house in another session of the legislature and then go on the ballot.

 

A similar constitutional amendment failed a vote of the people four or six years ago by eight-tenths of one percent.  Mr. Humke felt the issue should be dealt with again.

 

At this time, Mr. Humke read into the record a short correspondence (Exhibit C) from Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, who could not be present for the hearing.  The correspondence from Mr. Busselman as read by Mr. Humke stated, "I'm sorry that I was not able to stay through the committee session today to express Nevada Farm Bureau's support for the proposal of an interim study of Nevada's regulatory system (as covered in AB 378).  We believe that such a legislative review should be a high priority and encourage your favorable considerations.  Best wishes.  Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, Telephone 358-3276."

 

Mr. Humke reiterated the Nevada Taxpayers Association was very interested in the topic.  Mr. Ray Bacon, Executive Director of the Nevada Manufacturer's Association, was similarly interested and gave testimony at the Government Affairs Committee that this would be a high priority for their organization, Mr. Humke conveyed.  The Citizens for Private Enterprise organization, an organization in northern Nevada, was also interested.  Four organizations representing certain business interests were very interested in AB 378 as an interim study, he asserted.

 

Mrs. Williams assumed gaming was not listed because gaming had a separate regulatory board.  She then confirmed that Mr. Humke was proposing this bill as a study.  Mr. Humke reaffirmed and added it might be easier to turn AB 378 into an ACR.

 

Mrs. Williams emphasized only six interim studies were allowed and studies would have to be prioritized.  Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Crossley for comments on the fiscal effects of AB 378.

 

Responding to Mrs. Williams' question, Mr. Crossley declared AB 378 would not be an ongoing statutory committee.  It would just be a committee for the interim, and it could be included in the list of interim studies either through a bill or through an ACR.  Mr. Crossley referred to "Proposed Assembly Interim Studies" dated June 24, 1993, (Exhibit D), and pointed out that funding for AB 378 was different since funding only provided for per diem expenses.  He called attention to AB 378, Page 2, lines 8 and 9, noting members of the committee would not receive compensation; members would only receive per diem expenses.  Therefore, AB 378 was worded differently from an ACR or a bill where legislators received a salary. 

 

Mr. Humke was not sure that was fair to legislative members or citizen members.  Mr. Crossley said normally salaries were not paid to citizen members, but sometimes expenses were paid.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 378.

 

At this time, Mr. Humke stated Mr. Peter D. Krueger of Citizens for Private Enterprise had arrived and might have testimony.

 

Mrs. Williams reopened the hearing on AB 378 to allow Mr. Krueger to testify.

 

Mr. Peter D. Krueger, representing Citizens for Private Enterprise, testified that C.P.E. seldom took positions on particular issues, but they felt AB 378 should be supported.   He also felt the advisory committee configuration would look fairly at regulations and would be in a position to offer constructive opinions and advice where needed and give legislature a fresh look at many of the regulations which had been on the books in some cases since Nevada became a state.  He urged committee to support AB 378.

 

Mr. Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified in favor of AB 378 stating they were strongly in favor of the legislation.  Regulations had been seen which were not in compliance with the statute, and this was part of the genesis of AB 378.  His association believed AB 378 was a major step in the right direction.

 

ACR 79:     Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly with respect to bill draft requests by standing committees.

 

Mr. John R. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reminded committee when work was being done on ACR 45, committee authorized a separate bill draft to amend Rule 14 of the Joint Rules to provide "...before the request was submitted to the Legislative Counsel.  A standing committee may only request the drafting of a bill or resolution that is within the jurisdiction of the standing committee," Page 1, lines 18 through 21 of ACR 79. 

 

Mr. Crossley noted the second recommendation made in the meeting was contained in ACR 79 on Page 1, lines 28 through 30, "A measure introduced by a standing committee must indicate the person or organization at whose request the measure was drafted."

 

SB 48, which amended NRS, was similar to ACR 79 but put the same thing in the law when the bill was introduced by a standing committee which was parallel to the amendment of the two rules, he continued.  Confirming Mrs. Williams' statement, Mr. Crossley said there was no conflict between SB 48 and ACR 79. 

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 79.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED TO ADOPT ACR 79.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI, PORTER, PRICE AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF 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.

 

Mr. Scott Scherer presented the committee with recommended amendments to AJR 6, (Exhibit E), and explained AJR 6 proposed to amend the constitution in two respects related to recall elections.  The first change would be to change the number of signatures needed on the petition from 25 percent of the number who actually voted at the preceding general election, which was somewhat ambiguous, to 25 percent of the number who actually voted at the election in which the target of the recall was elected.

 

The second change would be the number of days in which the time limit for holding the special election after recall had been ordered.  The change would allow county clerks 30 days in which to schedule the recall election.  Information provided showed that 20 days in Clark and Washoe Counties was not enough time to publish the notice required and to prepare for an election. 

 

Mrs. Williams confirmed with Mr. Scherer AJR 6 proposed to change the constitution.

 

At this time, Mr. Scherer discussed AB 552 which was related to AJR 6.

 

AB 552:     Makes various changes relating to recall of public officers.

 

Mr. Scott Scherer stated AB 552 dealt with recall elections, and the Secretary of State had suggested substantial amendments.  Mr. Scherer provided the committee with amendments to AB 552, (Exhibit F), which he recapped.

 

AB 552 contained a new section which would change the definition of general election for the purpose of a recall election, and this change would go along with the constitutional change.  The second new section would require the Secretary of State to prepare an informational pamphlet in sample form, which was discussed in an earlier hearing on AB 552.  Another new section to be added would amend NRS 293.560 to provide that the provision would not apply to a recall election as well as a special election.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 552.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Ms. Thelma Clerk, representing Citizens Recall Effort, at this time requested to speak.  She stated she had discussed with the Secretary of State the 60 day time limit for collecting signatures.  Ms. Clark asked for 120 days because some recalls required many signatures.  A state office recall might require 150,000 signatures, and it would be impossible to obtain 150,000 signatures in 60 days.  If extra days would not be acceptable, Ms. Clark asked for exemptions for Sundays, holidays and the day before a holiday.

Mr. Scherer discussed the time period required to obtain signatures for recall petitions and the reason for not extending the time period which was the longer the time period, the longer a recall would be hanging over someone's head.  He thought the 60 day time period was ample, but if committee preferred to see the time period changed to 70 days, he would not object.

 

Mrs. Clark stated she agreed with the 70 day time period.

 

Mr. Price questioned the reason for not obtaining signatures on Sundays and holidays, and Ms. Clark responded the people did not think it was right to knock on doors on Sunday.

 

By changing the election to where the officer was actually elected, Mrs. Lambert stated, the number of signatures required had been lowered fairly significantly, and, since the time frame was extended last session to 60 days, relief had been provided.  Mrs. Lambert, therefore, thought the 60 days should remain.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

Mr. Scherer asked Mrs. Williams if he could deliver amendments to AJR 6 (Exhibit E) and AB 552 (Exhibit F) to the bill drafter.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AJR 6.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECOND THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

AB 505:     Makes various changes to provisions regulating campaign practices.

 

Mrs. Williams submitted to the committee Amendment 861 to AB 505 (Exhibit G).  Subcommittee for AB 505 was Mrs. Evans, Mr. Petrak and Mr. Garner, she stated. 

 

Mrs. Evans declared Secretary of State did all the work on the amendment to AB 505, and the subcommittee did not have anything to do with the amendment.  Mrs. Evans reminded committee Secretary of State Lau made a second presentation to the committee, and this was the resulting amendment. "I am seeing it here as you are for the first time.  As far as comments, I do not have anything to add at this time," Mrs. Evans related.

 

At Mrs. Williams' suggestion, the committee read the amendment to AB 505.  Mrs. Williams asked if Mr. Toomin knew what action was taken by the Senate on AB 528 which makes various changes relating to campaign contributions and expenditures.  In response to Mrs. Williams' question, Mr. Toomin stated Senator O'Connell would not hear the bill.

 

Mr. Porter spoke concerning Amendment 861 to AB 505.  "All the concepts in Amendment 861 are exactly what is in the first reprint to AB 528 which is Mr. Toomin's bill.  I don't see any reason to process this twice and send it over as a bill currently is in the Senate that has the exact same concepts.  It happens to bear my colleague's name.  It happens to be signed by a lot of members of this same committee, and, if campaign reform is going to be processed,  it is incumbent upon them to process AB 528."  Mr. Porter added he would not vote to process AB 505 with the exact same concepts at the expense of credit for Mr. Toomin's work.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 505.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Williams stated, "Let the record be clear in the minutes it is because this is a duplication of a bill that has already passed through the assembly.  In fact, it is not even as tough as the bill that has passed through the Assembly, AB 528."

 

Mrs. Williams then asked for committee discussion on the motion.  There was none.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

AB 496:     Revises provisions relating to publication and dissemination of campaign material.

 

Mr. Dini, Mr. Porter and Mr. Humke were the subcommittee, Mrs. Williams pointed out.  A question existed on the fiscal note on AB 496, and she emphasized committee would have to send AB 496 to Ways and Means because it would require an investigator and the Attorney General to assist the Secretary of State.

 

Mr. Porter stated he had not met with Mr. Dini or Mr. Humke.  However, he described his concern regarding free speech implications in the bill which made it a crime for a committee sponsored by a political party or committee for political action to publish anything without the candidate approving it.  

 

Mrs. Williams stated she had a note to check on prior restraint.

 

Mr. Porter also did not like the declaration of the campaign contribution for information published on behalf of the candidate. 

 

Mr. Humke suggested an amendment on Page 1, line 5, to change "expressly approved" to some type of notification of the candidate.  In other words, the group doing the publication would only have to notify the candidate.  He thought that might take it out of the area of prior restraint.  He suggested an amendment on Page 2, to change gross misdemeanor to misdemeanor.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Humke and Mr. Porter regarding Mr. Humke's suggestion and was followed by a discussion on prior restraint.

 

Mr. Scherer thought it was appropriate to have some notification to the candidate.  "Historically the basis of free speech has been the remedy for speech that you do not like is to counter it with speech of your own."  Mr. Scherer did not see that as a prior restraint but as furthering the free flow of ideas in the legendary marketplace.

 

Mrs. Lambert reminded committee the genesis of the bill was in Mr. Hettrick's campaign where material was done in very poor taste and which attacked Mr. Hettrick.  It was done not from his opponent but from someone else. 

 

Mrs. Williams agreed it was a problem and sympathized with that situation, but she felt lawmakers should be careful what they put into the law.  However the committee changed the language, AB 496 would have to go to Ways and Means.  Laws could not be passed where backup for enforcement was not provided, Mrs. Williams explained.

 

Mr. Humke stated he thought committee should give AB 496 a chance to go to Ways and Means.

 

Mrs. Williams told Mr. Humke if he would get an amendment to AB 496, the committee would hear it again and send it on to Ways and Means.

 

Mr. Humke communicated the fiscal note dealt with local government.  Mrs. Williams affirmed she had testimony saying Attorney General would need another investigator, and the secretary of state would need further assistance.  Mrs. Williams stated she agreed with the concept but was trying to be realistic.  She asked Mr. Humke to get the amendment and committee would hear AB 496 at the next meeting. 

 

ACR 29:     Directs Legislative Commission to direct interim study of exemptions to laws governing public records and books.      

 

Mrs. Williams asked for committee discussion on ACR 29.  Mr. Porter thought ACR 29 was a worthwhile study and the approximate 400 exemptions in statute developed since 1911 should be studied. 

 

Mrs. Williams asked if it was possible without a study for Research to extricate all the exemptions in public records, and she asked if Research could do that.  Mr. Porter stated those were available now.  The study would look at policy concerns regarding which exemptions should remain and which should be repealed.  Some were quite old, he said.  The study would be which ones should be retained and which ones should be abolished.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Porter if he thought this would have to be a full blown interim committee.  Mr. Porter replied all exemptions impacted someone in some fashion, and a lot of people were affected by the issue. 

 

Mr. Garner voiced his support of ACR 29. 

 

Mr. Porter, when asked how ACR 29 would differ from the study just completed, stated the whole public records law was studied.  Time was not sufficient to hear all the exemptions and figure out the public policy reasons behind them.  The focus of the ACR 90 interim study had been narrowed to what should or should not be open, and the exemptions would be dealt with at a later date which is why that interim study recommended ACR 29 interim study.

 

Mrs. Williams asked committee to refer to "Proposed Assembly Interim Studies" dated June 24, 1993, (Exhibit D).  Mr. Crossley at this point confirmed committee was working with the correct list dated June 24, 1993.  Mrs. Williams reminded committee the Senate would select their own interim studies.

 

Mrs. Williams then asked committee for their thoughts and comments on the studies listed in Exhibit D.  Committee discussion ensued regarding studies for prioritization and final future selection of six studies.   

 

Mrs. Williams asked committee to further study Exhibit D.  She expressed the studies were all meritorious, but would have to be reduced to six.  She then recapped the studies with suggestions to the committee for alternative financing for ACR 75 and combining certain studies.

 

Mrs. Williams reiterated her request to the committee to read Exhibit D for final consideration and decision on studies at next meeting.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

June 24, 1993

Page: 1