MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:07 a.m., Wednesday, May 26, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Nancy Price, Private citizen of Northern Las Vegas
Mr. Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association
Mr. John Fowler, Vargas and Bartlett
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control
Board
Following roll call, Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of bill draft requests.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR16-1996 which authorized the department of prisons to confine in the infirmary of department certain offenders who refuse medical treatment.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR R-2089 which urges local law enforcement agencies to develop guidelines to ensure that citizens are afforded their right to bear arms.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR15-1738 which makes various changes relating to punishment for crimes.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUESTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN OPPOSED THE MOTION ON BDR R-2089.
ASSEMBLY BILL 626 - First Reprint
Makes various changes to statutes governing pari-mutuel wagering.
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, the requesting agency, testified on AB 626. Mr. Bible said this bill dealt with technology. He explained the Gaming Control Board had seen a number of applications for cashless wagering systems, and these applications varied from the use of paper slips which resembled dollars with a bar code to applications for cashless wagering systems activated by a card. He noted the bill would require licensing for those individuals or entities which were involved in the manufacturing of cashless wagering systems. He said it was an area which needed regulatory control as the possibility of fraud was great in these types of applications.
Mr. Bible indicated Section 2 of the bill defined "cashless wagering systems" and Section 3 of the bill defined "manufacturer." He pointed out Section 3, subsection 1, took existing language from regulation 14 and defined "manufacturing activities." He said Section 5 required licensing and Sections 6 and 7 of the bill amended NRS 465 which dealt with crimes against gaming to include cheating type activities in reference to cashless wagering systems. He suggested amending the bill to make it effective upon passage and approval.
Mr. Regan asked Mr. Bible when he worked with the companies which manufactured these new systems did the manufacturers try to make their systems cheater proof. Mr. Bible replied one of the marketability elements of the system from a manufacturing standpoint was to try and develop a system which discouraged and prevented cheating. He explained part of the reason for this legislation was to bring it into regulatory control so the Gaming Control Board could adopt internal control and licensing standards and try to thwart this type of activity. He pointed out Section 6 of the bill included cheating definitions so Gaming Control Board could follow up on cheating.
Mr. Haller asked Mr. Bible if credit cards or automated teller cards were also being referred to. Mr. Bible explained the potential was there but currently the Gaming Control Board did not allow and had not processed any applications which directly accessed bank accounts through either automated teller cards or through credit card activities.
Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Bible if these wagering instruments were going to be used in a local property. Mr. Bible replied so far the applications would be property specific, they would be contained within the property the same as chips and tokens were currently.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 626.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE AMENDMENT TO MAKE THE BILL EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER ABSTAINED FROM THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 611 -
Makes various changes to statutes governing pari-mutuel wagering.
Mr. Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association, the requesting agency for AB 611, explained the present form of NRS 464 permitted pari-mutuel wagering only on racing and sporting events which took place outside of Nevada. He added AB 611 would remove this limitation with respect to sporting events and would permit pari-mutuel wagering on all sporting events except Jai-Alai regardless of where the event took place.
He explained AB 611 primarily proposed housekeeping issues. He pointed out in March of this year the Nevada Gaming Commission, (NGC) on a petition from Caesar's Palace and Caesar's Tahoe, adopted Nevada Gaming Commission regulation 26B to regulate and control off-track pari-mutuel wagering on sporting events, and subsection 1 of the bill expanded the definition of off-track pari-mutuel to include pari-mutuel wagering on sporting events which took place in the state of Nevada. He added the significance of including such wagering in the term "off-track pari-mutuel wagering" was one of economic feasibility and was an extension of earlier legislative amendments which paved the way for off-track pari-mutuel sports wagering in the first place.
He noted in 1991 the Legislature amended NRS 464.040 to provide all off-track pari-mutuel wagering would be subject to the gross revenue license fee imposed by NRS 464.370. He revealed before this statutory amendment only off-track pari-mutuel wagering on racing events was subject to the gross license fees; off-track pari-mutuel wagering on sporting events was subject to a 3 percent handle tax which made it cost prohibitive. But for the amendment which resulted in an off-track pari-mutuel sports wagering also being taxed on the basis of gross revenue, it was highly unlikely Caesar's organization would have petitioned for the adoption of regulation 26B and pursued off-tracked pari-mutuel sports wagering. Section 1 of AB 611 expanded upon this earlier statutory amendment so pari-mutuel sports wagering on such in-state events as championship boxing would become economically feasible for gaming licensees and a realistic additional source of potential revenue for the state. Again he emphasized the bill complied with NGC regulation 26B.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Whittemore if expanding the language to include the sports wagering would affect collegiate sports. Mr. Whittemore said the bill did not have anything to do with the inter-collegiate wagering prohibition. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Whittemore then what type of sporting events did this bill address. Mr. Whittemore explained sporting events like championship boxing and tennis.
Mr. Bill Bible, Gaming Control Board, addressed Mr. Anderson's concerns regarding the effect the bill would have on college athletics. Mr. Bible explained under Gaming Control Board regulation 22.120 addressing college athletics, no wagers could be accepted or paid by any book on any amateur sports event in Nevada. Therefore, Mr. Bible said there was a prohibition currently in effect in regulation but not in statute. Mr. Bible said the Gaming Control Board did not have any opposition to AB 611.
Ms. Nancy Price, Resident of Northern Las Vegas, testified in opposition to AB 611. Ms. Price opposed the bill because it pushed the state insidiously in a direction opposite the nation against gambling on sports. This bill would increase incentives for fixed outcomes of sporting events and permit the expansion of sports betting within the state which was contrary to the national movement. She explained on January 1st of this year the Federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act went into effect and prohibited sports gambling under state law. She expounded state sanctioned sports betting conveyed the message sports were more about money than about personal achievement and sportsmanship, and in these days of scandal and disillusionment it was important young people did not receive this message. Ms. Price said the education committee had a bill to prohibit gambling on college sports in Nevada and a resolution to Congress to include the six states which it had exempted from the Sports Protection Act for college sports but not for all sports. She emphasized if even one state allowed college sports betting the goals of upholding the integrity of sports in colleges and Universities would be undermined. She pointed out gambling was not allowed on elections for the same reason, and certainly youngsters were worth the same concern.
Ms. Price said the supporters and fans against sports betting had a slogan "Don't gamble with our children's heroes." She stated, "I'm only asking, don't gamble with our children." Ms. Price quoted from a report of the Knight Foundation's Commission on Inter-collegiate Athletics, "I think the temptation is for us to throw up our arms and say we can't possibly change this mess. Such a position is pretty feeble in light of what's happening in Eastern Europe. If the Berlin wall can come crumbling down, I find it hard to believe that we can't deal with the problem of college athletics."
Ms. Price explained an article from the Journal of Gambling Studies by James H. Frey, Ph.D. entitled Gambling on Sport: Policy Issues (Exhibit C). She said Mr. Frey referred to the work done by the U.S. Congress and others to prohibit gambling on sports, citing the links of betting to organized crime. She noted the potential for fixing outcomes and the negative impact betting would have on the perceived integrity of events. She said AB 611 did not do much. Gaming Control Board regulations still prohibited betting on in-state university games, but AB 611 permitted the Gaming Commission and the Gaming Control Board to adopt regulations allowing wagering on collegiate sporting events. Ms. Price urged the committee not to consider AB 611 until the bill from the education committee had been heard.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 611.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 628 -
Makes various changes relating to dissemination of information concerning racing.
Mr. Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association, the requesting agency of AB 628, asked AB 628 be withdrawn since discussions between the disseminators and the various interested parties had been conducted and they had come to an agreement to try and resolve their differences over the next 2 year period with respect to some proposed regulations. Therefore, he indicated the legislation was not needed at this point and requested the bill be withdrawn on behalf of Caesar's Palace and Nevada Pari-mutuel Association which had had discussions with the disseminators.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 628.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 - First Reprint
Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide expressly for rights of victims of crime.
Mr. Sader postponed the consideration of SJR 2 because a majority was not present.
ASSEMBLY BILL 196 - First Reprint
Authorizes operation of charitable bingo by qualified organizations.
Mr. Sader explained the bill had been placed in a subcommittee with Mr. Scherer as Chairman. Mr. Sader added there were lengthy subcommittee meetings resulting in an extensive amendment.
Mr. Scherer discussed the proposed amendment to AB 196 (Exhibit D). He said the amendment basically followed some of the provisions of the Charitable Lottery Act which was passed last Session, but the amendment differed in two respects: Higher prize limits before charities would be required to take action; registration which meant sending certain information to the Gaming Control Board for approval depending upon the level of prizes to be awarded by the charity.
Mr. Scherer revealed the bill required the charity had to be a bona fide charity, and would not pay more than fair market value to suppliers. The purpose for this stipulation was because organized crime had infiltrated charitable bingo in a number of other states by "supplying the charity with bingo supplies at a much higher price than the fair market value would otherwise require."
Mr. Scherer explained the amendment had been reviewed by the subcommittee, Mr. Bill Bible, Chairman of the Gaming Control Board, and Speaker Dini, and they all were comfortable with it and he recommended its approval.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND TO PASS AB 196 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (EXHIBIT D).
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
ASSEMBLY BILL 469 -
Ratifies technical corrections made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada 1991.
Mr. Scherer the Chairman of the subcommittee on AB 469 the ratification bill, explained after extensive review and discussion with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, he believed LCB's recommendations were the best.
He noted some conflicts involved policy issues such as AB 728 and SB 245 of the 66th Session which raised the fees for various insurers and were significantly different. The fees in AB 728 which funded the Department of Insurance were significantly higher, and it was the opinion of the Legislative Counsel those most accurately reflected the intention of the Legislature and Mr. Scherer agreed. He felt the bill as accurately as possible reflected what the Legislature intended to do last Session with these various conflicting bills.
Mr. Regan asked Mr. Scherer regarding the language on Page 3, Section 5 and Section 11, lines 22 and 23 which said "....unless the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor..." Mr. Regan said there was discussion about changing both to misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor.
Mr. Scherer explained Section 4 had a separate procedure for misdemeanors which was omitted, and this was why the Legislative Counsel Bureau added "...unless the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor...". The language originally said "except as otherwise provided in subsection 4" and in those cases there was no jury trial and the district courts were not involved. The thought was when the district court was involved in a gross misdemeanor or a felony, then this procedure should be available.
Mr. Regan said so it was offense specific. Mr. Scherer replied yes, and there would be the possibility of reconsidering that provision in a revisor's bill if there was a desire to change the policy.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO DO PASS AB 469.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
ASSEMBLY BILL 387 - First Reprint
Makes various changes concerning corporations and similar entities.
Mr. Scherer, the Chairman of the subcommittee, briefly reviewed the first reprint which contained the adopted amendments.
Mr. Sader said the bill had been held so the committee could review the first reprint.
Mr. John Fowler, Vargas and Barlett and member of the Corporate Law Subcommittee and the Business Law Section of the Nevada State Bar, indicated all the amendments in the first reprint were accurate and he had no problem with the bill.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Fowler if the Secretary of State's Office concurred with the amendments. Mr. Fowler replied yes, he had discussed the amendments with Cyndy Woodgate, Corporations Deputy of the Secretary of State's Office, and she had found no problems with the first reprint.
Mr. Sader asked the representatives of Laughlin and Associates if they had any problem with the first reprint of AB 387 and they replied there was none.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO DO PASS AS AMENDED AB 387.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
MR. PORTER OPPOSED THE MOTION.
MR. CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
ASSEMBLY BILL 617 - First Reprint
Adopts recent revisions of Uniform Commercial Code concerning commercial paper, bank deposits and collections.
Mr. Sader discussed amendment #555 to AB 617 (Exhibit E). Mr. Sader reviewed the amendment and said it accurately reflected the changes needed.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 617 WITH AMENDMENT #555.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
Mr. Sader explained there was not a full complement of the committee to consider SJR 2 since Assemblyman Carpenter had to testify at another hearing in the Senate. Therefore, Chairman Sader postponed consideration of SJR 2 until Friday, May 28th's work session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 328 -
Provides that number of years of judicial service required for justice of supreme court or district judge for pension benefit be the same as for member of public employee's retirement system.
Mr. Gibbons recommended reconsideration of AB 328 which had previously been indefinitely postponed during April 30th's meeting. He explained the issue was judges which were in the judicial retirement plan vested at 10 years while judges in the public employee's retirement system vested at 5 years and the bill attempted to bring parity and equalize the vesting issues. Mr. Gibbons suggested the bill be reconsidered to allow the judges to bring in additional information to support their position.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO RECONSIDER AB 328.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader said if the motion passed he intended to schedule the bill for another hearing.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Sader requested a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AB 328 CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PETRAK, PORTER, REGAN, SCHERER, SCHNEIDER, SMITH, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTE YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, COLLINS AND HALLER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
ASSEMBLY BILL 625 -
Prohibits false accusation in divorce action of battery upon spouse or abuse or neglect of child.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO RECONSIDER AB 625.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Although AB 625 had previously been amended and passed out of committee, Ms. Smith said there was tremendous opposition to the bill and some strong repercussions including questions of constitutionality. Therefore, she felt there was enough concern to warrant the committee's review of the bill a second time.
Mr. Sader noted this was the subject of the Women's Caucus and there was unanimous opposition. Ms. Smith revealed there was unanimous opposition by women's groups and people of domestic violence.
Mr. Anderson pointed out initially the bill was poorly constructed, and he would be pleased to see it reconsidered.
Mr. Scherer disagreed with reconsideration of the bill as he believed the bill dealt with the issue in a reasonable manner and he was afraid the intent to reconsider the bill was to kill it altogether. For that reason he would vote against reconsideration.
Mr. Haller supported the motion to reconsider AB 625.
Mr. Bonaventura opposed the motion to reconsider AB 625.
Mr. Toomin spoke in favor of reconsideration of AB 625 because the committee did not hear any opposition to the bill and it had slipped through. He thought the committee should hear more testimony.
Mr. Sader requested a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AB 625 CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, COLLINS, GIBBONS, HALLER, PETRAK, PORTER, REGAN, SCHNEIDER, SMITH, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, GREGORY AND SCHERER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
May 26, 1993
Page: 1