MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 29, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 10:05 a.m. Monday, March 29, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Pete Ernaut

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, District 21

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; Mr. Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney for City of Henderson; Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities; Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities; Ms. Helen Foley; Mr. Jim Arrendale, Green Valley Go Vote; Mr. Jack Jeffrey.

 

 

SENATE BILL 302 - Revises charter of City of Henderson to change residency requirement for candidates for certain public offices.

 

Mr. Kurt Fritsch, Assistant to City Manager of City of Henderson, introduced Andrew Urban.

 

Mr. Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney for City of Henderson, testified the reason SB 302 was being brought forth at this time was a citizen had raised the issue of the constitutionality of the three-year residency requirements currently in the Henderson Charter.  Mr. Urban indicated after research the three-year residency requirement for a mayoral candidate was found to be possibly constitutionally defective.  He stated an emergency bill was initiated to change the charter reducing the residency requirement to one-year.  Mr. Urban gave a brief review of SB 302.

 

Mr. Urban explained the urgency of the bill was because the issue of the current residency requirement would go before Federal District Court Judge Phillip Pro that afternoon.  He said the only thing in front of the judge was for three years, and both sides felt three years was too long, so there would be nothing for the judge to decide unless this bill was passed.  Mr. Urban asked the committee's support in passing SB 307 which would allow it to be put before the federal district court judge for his decision on constitutionality.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked how the city council had voted on this measure.

 

Mr. Fritsch answered the city council had taken public testimony from ten people, four were in favor of a 30-day time frame and the other six spoke for a six or twelve month time frame.  He indicated the council deadlocked on six months, then amended to read twelve months and passed the resolution 3-1.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked about other city charters which had one year requirements.

 

Mr. Urban replied there were 13 special charter cities, of which two cities had 30 days, two cities with six months, one (Henderson) with three years, and the rest had two years; there were none with one year.

 

Mr. Ernaut then queried what the biggest argument was between six months and one year.

 

Mr. Fritsch answered it was a decision the council made after hearing testimony that it took at least one year of residency in the city to become familiar with the issues involving Henderson.

 

Further discussion ensued.

 

Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, indicated he was here in support of SB 302, and felt Henderson was trying to correct the problem with the three years.

 

Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, felt if they could get a ruling on 12 months, then they would know which direction to take for the cities with two year requirements.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned if Judge Pro would only be ruling on the three years, was there another case pending for the 12-month ruling.

 

Ms. Howard replied it was the same case and deferred to Mr. Urban.

 

Mr. Urban explained the case was scheduled for oral arguments that afternoon and if SB 302 was passed they wanted to ask the judge to postpone his decision until the governor had signed the bill so they could put it before the judge for a ruling.  Mr. Urban continued, "The filing for candidacy doesn't close until 5:00 p.m. Friday, April 2.  If he does rule it unconstitutional and it's made 30 days then Ms. MacDonald will have plenty of time to file her candidacy declaration.  We are just trying to get a case ruling on this, then we would respond from there.  There would also be some guidance as to whether or not you should pass the bill that deals with six months and then there has been some question - does it apply to all elected offices, or is it just state - and this judge's decision could be quite helpful in guiding you into making it apply to all the offices."

 

Mr. Bache asked if the judge would set an amount of time or was he just ruling between 30 days and either one or three years depending on what the committee decided.

 

Mr. Urban answered the judge did not make law, he would either strike down the three years or uphold it, and if SB 302 was passed, the judge would either strike down one year or uphold it.  He stated the 30 days would be achieved by a process of elimination.  Mr. Urban pointed out the city charter stated a person must be a resident of the city for a period of time and a qualified elector, and the constitution indicates the time frame to become a qualified elector was 30 days.  He continued, "If he strikes out the durational time period of residency as it stands right now, you would get a de facto 30 days, you would just be a resident of the city, and be a qualified elector, and residency could be one day and 30 days as a qualified elector."

 

Ms. Helen Foley, indicating she was representing herself, spoke briefly of Ms. MacDonald's involvement over the years in the City of Henderson.  Ms. Foley stressed the major reason she objected to SB 302 was during the past 16 years Henderson had made it extremely difficult for people to run for office, with the three year requirement.  Ms. Foley said Henderson was one of the fastest growing communities in Nevada and it had reached the point where one-third of the people living in Henderson were not allowed to run for office because they did not meet the three year residency requirement.  Ms. Foley asserted SB 302 would never have been requested by the City of Henderson if the unconstitutionality of the three year residency requirement had not been pointed out to them, so to remedy the problem they quickly pushed through the one year requirement.

 

Ms. Foley quoted a letter from the National Civic League (Exhibit C).  Ms. Foley gave residency requirements statewide but felt it was somewhat misinterpreted.  She said there were 30 day requirements in 28 cities in Nevada, a six month requirement in Reno, one year in Ely, Mesquite and Winnemucca, two years in Boulder City, Caliente, Elko, North Las Vegas and Gabbs, and three years in Henderson.  She agreed the requirement should be changed from three years to something much lower, and felt it should be 30 days.

 

Ms. Foley also introduced Mike O'Callaghan's newspaper column from Friday March 26, 1993 (Exhibit D).  She asked the committee to wait one day for the judge's opinion before making a decision on SB 302.  She pointed out if the judge ruled the three year and one year requirements were unconstitutional, the committee would have a greater issue to deal with in all the other city charters in Nevada which had longer than 30 day requirements.

 

Mr. Jim Arrendale, Green Valley Go Vote, testified against SB 302 (Exhibit E).

 

Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Assemblywoman District 21, representing her constituents which comprised one-half of the City of Henderson and the Green Valley area of Henderson, indicated she had numerous discussions with committee leaders and residents of Henderson communities.  She stated some elements wanted one year, and some wanted 30 days.  Ms. Tiffany felt there was excellent argument for both sides but in the spirit of creative compromise, she wished to propose a six-month residency requirement to run for office in the City of Henderson (Exhibit F).

 

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the amendment mentioned only the mayor and he questioned if it was intended to include all offices in the bill.  Ms. Tiffany indicated it did.

 

Mr. Jack Jeffrey stated one point which had not been made was residency requirements between state offices and city offices were almost incomparable.  He explained registration for state office opened right after the first of the year, almost a year away from the election, so a 30-day residency in that situation would not be an onerous requirement.  However, in city elections registration was open for one week, primary election was held one month from the close of filing, and the general election was held another month from the primary election, which made it possible with the 30 day residency for someone to move into an area, campaign and be elected and seated in 90 days. 

 

Mr. Jeffrey felt if the committee did not act on SB 302 there would be either a 30-day or a three year requirement as the judge would not make any amendments.  He was concerned the six month amendment was only a delaying tactic to hold the bill up long enough to throw out the three years.  He did not think a one year residency requirement to run for city election was unrealistic.

 

Ms. Nancy Howard wished to clarify there were only 18 incorporated cities in Nevada, the other 28 cities were considered unincorporated townships.

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if Ms. Howard agreed with Mr. Jeffrey that residency for state office should be for 30 days and one year for city office, or should they be the same.

 

Ms. Howard replied, "Personally, I feel 30 days is not long enough, but that's my own personal opinion."  She did not feel there should be a difference between state and local office requirements.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on SB 302.  Chairman Garner indicated he did not like making decisions on an emergency fashion, SB 302 had been on the Senate side for several days, there were amendments addressed and it was passed 21-0.  He stated he would prefer 7-10 days to review this bill, but only had a few minutes; therefore, he would not entertain an amendment to SB 302 which would hold it up even further.

 

Chairman Garner stated he felt the committee members had enough information to make a decision on the bill and called for a motion to do pass SB 302.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 302.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Ernaut indicated he also wished for more time to discuss the bill as it was against his basic philosophy to dictate the standards of a community.  He stated, "I have come to a point that if I vote against this bill, I'll be looking like I'm voting for three years.  And that's not what it's about, it's about the fact that this is keeping people out of the process."

 

Mr. Bache felt this was a Henderson problem and should be dealt with in Henderson.  He suggested Henderson put the question on their primary or general ballot of how long the voters wanted the residency requirements to be. 

 

Mr. McGaughey declared, "Good government is never served well when you have something that is run through as fast as this is, and puts this committee into a terrible dilemma.  I would like to have considered the amendment of going to six months.  I think it would have been healthy for this committee to discuss it, but because of the time constraints and the situation we find ourselves in, which was not our choice...  I think it is an issue we should address across the state...  I happen to think 30 days residence is fine and I think that would be a good level for all cities and all elective offices in this state."

 

Mr. Bennett agreed with Mr. Ernaut regarding home rule and followed up on Mr. Jeffrey's statements regarding the city council representing the community without having a ballot question or polling.  He felt the committee should support the city council as the representatives of the community and support the measure.

 

Mr. Williams stated he felt uncomfortable about being in a situation where he had no choice, and for government to work every possibility should be debated and every person's point of view heard.  He said not having the opportunity to do that limited the legislators' effectiveness as elected officials.  Mr. Williams asserted he wanted to go on record as supporting the chairman's point of view.

 

Mrs. Augustine commented she was not in favor of the bill as written.

 

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

 

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

March 29, 1993

Page: 1