MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 27, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 9:10 a.m., Sunday, June 27, 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. 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:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Secretary of State Cheryl Lau

      Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SB 250:     Makes various changes to provisions governing elections.

 

Assemblyman Myrna Williams, District No. 10, and Chairman of Elections and Procedures Committee, assumed the testimonial table along with Secretary of State Cheryl Lau.  She announced SB 250 was the refinement of election reform legislation.  Mrs. Williams and Secretary of State Lau hoped to take elements of AB 145 and AB 577 and amend them into SB 250 to strengthen and further clarify election procedures in the State of Nevada. 

 

Mrs. Williams told the committee Secretary of State Cheryl Lau and Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga would explain SB 250, and at this time Mrs. Williams assumed the chair.

 

Secretary of State Lau introduced Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, and asked committee to follow Amendment No. 1070 (Exhibit C).  Mr. Rob Elliott, office of Registrar of Voters, Clark County, was expected to arrive from Las Vegas during the meeting to discuss Sections 20 through 20.9 which was the early voting program suggested by Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County.

 

Secretary of State Lau then began a recap of each section of the amendment (Exhibit C) with questions and suggestions from members of the committee.  

 

Mrs. Williams wished to expand language under Section 20.8, and Mr. Sader suggested the words "illness, disability or other good cause shown."

 

Secretary of State Lau continued with the recap of Exhibit C.

 

Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga explained Section 42.5 of Exhibit C had been moved to SB 250 from AB 145. 

 

Concerning language on Page 11 of Exhibit C, Mrs. Williams and committee expressed concerns regarding type of marking, and Secretary of State Lau suggested excluding the words on Page 11, "with a pen or indelible pencil on the alphabetical listing a line through" thereby leaving up to the counties the decision of how Voter Registrars would mark the name of each voter who voted during the previous hour.  Mr. Sader further suggested changing the word mark to the word identify.

 

Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga continued recap of Exhibit C with questions and suggestions from committee.

 

After committee discussion among Mr. Humke, Mr. Sader and Mrs. Williams, Secretary of State Lau suggested omission in the second reprint of SB 250, Page 15, Section 48, subsection 5, lines 42 through 45, and the corresponding section Page 16, lines 1 and 2, suggested by Mrs. Williams.

 

Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga continued with recap of Exhibit C on Page 12.

 

Referring to Page 17 of Exhibit C, which would require issuance of a voter registration card suggested by the Registrar of Voters, Clark County, Mr. Dini questioned if local governments would pay for registration cards, and Mr. Erquiaga replied the cost would be borne by the county.  Responding to Mr. Dini's question of fiscal impact to the county, Mrs. Williams understood cards would be issued to people who were new voters or who changed addresses, and a blanket issuance would not occur thereby negating a large expenditure. 

 

Because voter registration card issuance was being inserted into existing statute, Mr. Erquiaga declared back issuance of cards would not be required.  If a voter changed his/her name or address, the voter would be issued a new card unless the county chose to issue a registration card. 

 

Secretary of State Lau stated voter registration cards were an excellent control factor.

 

In response to questions by Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Erquiaga informed no requirement was added that a voter produce the voter registration card at the polls. 

 

Committee discussion ensued after Mrs. Lambert's suggestion of using may instead of shall on Page 17, section 6, of Exhibit C. Mrs. Williams declared if a challenge occurred, the challenge would go back to the Registrar's office for address check which was the method used by other states and was the best way to ensure the integrity of voters.

 

Mr. Dini suggested leaving the word shall on Page 17 for at least two years.

 

Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga continued with recap of Exhibit C on Page 17, Section 62.

 

Secretary of State Lau pointed out Sections 76 and 36 from SB 250 dealt with independent candidates petition.  The petition part was deleted, she told committee, and placed into a separate bill, SB 552.  The bill drafters thought this would avoid conflict notices.  The petition part of SB 552 was very important, she advised committee.

 

Mrs. Williams stated committee did not yet have SB 552, and Secretary of State Lau stated her intention was merely to give committee a background and to notify committee of the importance of the petition.

 

Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga concluded recap of Exhibit C with Pages 21, 22 and 23.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned how the charges would be determined and the rationale (Page 17, Section 56, lines 39 through 42.)

 

Responding to Mrs. Lambert's question, Mr. Erquiaga stated the legislature was charged not for the space taken on the ballot, but for the ballot card stock purchased by the state.  The state also paid for the printing of its ballot questions in the newspapers.  Counties were required to print all questions which appeared on the ballot in the newspaper, and the state reimbursed the counties for that portion which dealt with state questions.  Citizens were not charged for initiative and referenda as this was their right under the Constitution.  County school boards and general improvement districts were charged by the counties, he conveyed.

 

Mrs. Lambert then questioned cost of early voting which would start three weeks before the election just after registration closed. 

 

In response, Mr. Erquiaga communicated in-office voting began about three weeks before the election which would not change under the amendment to SB 250 from AB 577.  The difference in in-office voting would be the hours it was available.  In-office voting was not changed from existing law; it was made more accessible to the public.

 

Mr. Dini added county clerks had the option of shifting staff to avoid overtime.

 

Agreeing with Mr. Dini, Secretary of State Lau described Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, had talked with the other county clerks who would have discretion to determine how they would work on the permissive program.

 

Mr. Sader referred to Exhibit C, Section 20.25, publication requirement for early voting, and suggested the words prior to to replace the word during.  Mr. Erquiaga agreed.

 

Mr. Petrak raised the point cost savings on abolition of special elections would more than offset the cost of printing a card for every registered voter.

 

Mr. Sader questioned Mr. Rob Elliott's portion, Section 20, since Mr. Elliott was not in attendance at the meeting.  Mrs. Williams declared Mr. Elliott had no proposed changes, and his attendance was not vital if the committee had no questions regarding Section 20.

 

Mrs. Williams then asked for further committee discussion.  There being none, Mrs. Williams asked for a motion.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 250 AS DEFINED IN THE MEETING.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Erickson if he had minor changes in language to SB 250 requested by committee in a previous meeting.  Mr. Erickson did have the changes and stated he would meet with Mr. Erquiaga.

 

AB 404:     Clarifies and expands authority of legislative commission and its subcommittees to conduct studies and investigations.

 

Mr. Price testified he had served on Assemblyman McGaughey's subcommittee on U.N.L.V. where, near the end of the hearings,  Mr. McGaughey issued subpoenas which everyone except Dennis Finfrock answered.  Mr. Finfrock's attorney prepared a brief (Exhibit D), and Mr. Finfrock did not appear.  The basis of the brief was subcommittees of the Legislative Commission did not have subpoena power.  The brief also indicated the Legislative Commission was a subbody to the Legislative Counsel Bureau which was just the reverse of how the structure was set up.  Legislative Commission was not subservient to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and AB 404 was drafted to correct that situation. 

 

Mr. Sader stated he (Mr. Sader) served on the Legislative Commission and was closely involved with issues relating to establishment of the U.N.L.V. investigation.  The incident Mr. Price described illustrated the need to change statutes to clarify the authority of the Commission, Mr. Sader said.  The question was whether the Legislative Commission had the power to enforce subpoenas or otherwise compel testimony at any committee meeting under the Legislative Commission.  The statute needed to be amended, and AB 404 was an important bill which needed to be passed, he asserted.

 

Mr. Dini referred to AB 404, Page 1, lines 7 and 8 and felt the language weakened the position of the Commission being able to turn down studies.

 

Mr. Sader said if the Legislative Commission was to have flexibility in the interim to initiate an investigation or study, existing language was needed to give the Commission that flexibility.

 

Mr. Dini said if both houses refused a study, he did not believe the commission should have the power to reinstate the study. 

 

Mr. Price pointed out if something serious happened and the Commission needed to have a study, he felt the Commission should have that authority.  Language could be inserted which said the Commission could not do a study turned down by both houses. 

 

Mrs. Williams questioned what would happen if the study had been turned down by the Assembly with 42 members representing the whole state but approved by the Senate with 21 members.

 

Committee discussion ensued with Mrs. Williams stating her concern a law would be passed in the legislature which required both houses, and if one house turned something down, a few people could override the wishes of all the members of that house whichever house it was.

 

Mr. Dini stated the real intent of the conversation was if the study was turned down, he did not feel the study should be done.  Mr. Dini did not object to an emergency study.

 

Mr. Sader suggested rewording lines 6 through 8 so the Legislative Commission could not authorize a study proposed in the previous legislature by concurrent resolution and not passed. 

 

Mr. Scherer noted Mr. Sader's suggested language, "a study proposed by concurrent resolution" and wondered if just "a study proposed" should be used to include statutory studies.

 

Mr. Crossley stated the commission could not do a study if the study was authorized through an Assembly Resolution.

 

Mr. Sader said the existing language would need to be left in and expanded with the concept of studies the legislature turned down the previous session. 

 

Mr. Price asked Mr. Sader if AB 404 made clear subcommittees would have the power to investigate.  Mr. Sader stated AB 404 clarified it to the extent statutory authorization was provided for a study to investigate.

 

Mrs. Williams thought Page 2, lines 4 and 5 language, "governmental problems, important issues of public policy or questions of statewide interest," was too broad.  Mr. Sader stated this was existing language, and he referred to Page 3, lines 13 and 14, "with governmental problems, important issues of public policy or questions of statewide interest."  Mrs. Williams asked his thoughts on amending out the language, and  Mr. Sader thought it was a legitimate policy concern.  The commission was obviously authorized initially with existing language to have expansive powers to look at things, he said. 

 

Mrs. Williams thought anything important could be classified under "important issues of public policy" without having the other phrase in there. 

 

Mr. Price thought the legislature should keep itself with the broadest powers possible and use good judgment when to exercise those powers. 

 

Mr. Sader raised the question if committee rewrote the statute to reduce power, problems would arise.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if committee had other questions on AB 404 other than the amendment on Page 1.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 404.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Mrs. Williams asked committee to review "Proposed Assembly Interim Studies" list dated June 27, 1993, for a committee meeting Monday, June 28, 1993, at 3 p.m.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                              

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

June 27, 1993

Page: 1