MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 22, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 22, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson
Lorin L. Williams, City Councilman, City of Henderson
Larry Scheffler, City Councilman, City of Henderson
Gary Hayes, Attorney, Hayes & Gorley, Attorneys at Law
Claire MacDonald, Concerned Citizen
Jim Arrendale, Resident, Henderson, Nevada
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Donald Schlessinger, Commissioner District F, Clark County
Pat Markese, Assistant Director, Clark County Parks and Recreation
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada
Tamara Clark, Libertarian Party of Clark County
Richard Puckett, Libertarian Party of Clark County
K. R. "Sandy" Harmon, Vice Chairman, Libertarian Party of Nevada
James Frye, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County
Lois Avery, Natural Law Party
Jim Ley, Assistant County Manager, Clark County
Dale Erquiaga, Election Deputy, State of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 302.
S.B. 302: Revises charter of City of Henderson to change residency requirement for candidates for certain public offices.
Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson, spoke in favor of S.B. 302. He told the committee this bill essentially changes the durational residency requirement to run for mayor, city council or municipal judge from the current time-frame of 3 years as a resident to 1 year. He explained this is necessitated from information brought to the city's attention by a citizen and their attorney stating the current residency requirement was unconstitutional.
Lorin L. Williams, City Councilman, City of Henderson, spoke in favor of S.B. 302. He read from prepared testimony, see Exhibit C.
Larry Scheffler, City Councilman, City of Henderson, spoke in favor of S.B. 302. He explained to the committee the City of Henderson held meetings regarding this issue. Councilman Scheffler told the committee 10 people spoke in favor of a 30-day residency and against a 1-year residency and six people spoke in favor of the 1-year residency and against the 30-day residency. He stated Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution states, "one cannot run for any state office unless he or she is a qualified voter." He asked the committee to vote this bill out of the committee with a do pass.
Senator Nevin asked what caused the reconsideration of the current residency law.
Mr. Urban told the committee a citizen who was interested in running for a city council seat came to the city to find out what requirements were necessary to file her declaration of candidacy. Upon examination of the city charter it was found the individual must be a qualified elector and resident of the city for 3 years. He stated this individual consulted with her attorney who brought it to the attention of the city, the durational residency requirement in the charter was unconstitutional. Mr. Urban stated his staff did the research and found 3 years is in fact constitutionally questionable. He explained the longest duration of residency they found to be supportable from
a constitutional standpoint for municipal government levels, was 1 year. Mr. Urban and the city council held an open forum and passed Resolution No. 1639, (Exhibit D), supporting a 1-year residency requirement.
Senator Raggio asked if he was correct in feeling the City of Henderson wants this law changed effective for the present election cycle to avoid some unconstitutional challenge. Mr. Urban told him that was correct.
Gary Hayes, Attorney, Hayes & Gorley, spoke in opposition to S.B. 302. He explained to the committee, Claire MacDonald approached him on the subject of the residency law in the City of Henderson. He stated he looked up the information in the Nevada Constitution and he found in Article 15, section 3 it stated, "in order to run for public office a person must be an elector." He further explained Article 2, section 1 describes the qualifications to be an elector and he iterated it does not say voter, it says elector. He told the committee the Nevada Supreme Court has previously tied those two constitutional provisions in when they have looked at challenges related to an individual running for an office or who was elected to an office and there were questions regarding the qualifications of that candidate. Mr. Hayes stated he did some research and it was his conclusion based on decisions in a number of states, particularly the State of California. He explained the California Supreme Court ruled any residency requirement in excess of 30 days has to be supportable by compelling reasons. He told the committee his client is opposed to the 1-year residency, but they support the 30-day residency requirement. He explained they are supportive of S.B. 302, however, they would ask the residency requirement be reduced from 1-year as the City of Henderson requests, down to 30 days.
Senator Nevin asked Mr. Hayes if he had attended the city council meetings and made the recommendation of 30 days. He told the committee he had indeed presented the same arguments. Mr. Hayes explained he feels anything in excess of 30 days is still unconstitutional.
Senator Raggio told Mr. Hayes the legislature usually follows the recommendations of the local entities in changing charters, although he stated they do not always do that. He asked what the requirements are in the general incorporation law. Mr. Hayes stated it is conflicting because they are two sections. He explained one states to run for office the individual needs to be an elector and the other section states if an individual is running for city council they need to be a resident for 1-year.
Claire MacDonald, Concerned Citizen, spoke to the committee on S.B. 302. She stated:
I am here against the 3-year residency requirement in the change of the city charter. I have lived in the Henderson area for 10 years. In fact, the house that I have lived in most recently is three houses outside the city limits, so I am not a stranger to this ward. We also have a condominium we have lived in off and on while we were doing work to the house and we had planned to move into that again, because we are building another house in the City of Henderson. This condo that we have is also across the street from Ward 3 which is the ward I want to run for. When I decided to run, at the time I decided to run, excuse me, there were two other people who were thinking about running for this position. Both of those people, when they reapportioned the wards, both of them were left out. This is in an area called Whitney Ranch and they have not had anyone represent them for the last three elections. I decided that I felt strongly enough about the issue that I was interested in going ahead to run so I did contact Mr. Hayes and after looking at it, he felt we had a good constitutional issue. My own office is in the City of Henderson and has been for 6 years, our daughter has a business that is in the City of Henderson, I am no stranger. I have attended probably 70 to 80 percent of all council meetings in the City of Henderson for the last 10 years. I have never attended a council meeting in Las Vegas nor have I been to a Clark County Planning Commission meeting.
Senator Hickey asked how the legislators address this issue to incorporate the new areas annexed into a city and allow these new residents the opportunity to run for office.
Councilman Scheffler explained the individuals still must wait a year to run for office in the new district, however, they can vote.
Ms. MacDonald continued stating:
I would like to mention the fact that with a 3-year residency requirement in effect, 28 percent of the people in Henderson were unable to run for office. These were from the demographers own figures from the city and I think that is a disgrace. Now, getting back to my presentation. At the city council meeting which was held on March 11, after the city attorney had given her presentation, but before Mr. Hayes and I were allowed to speak, the mayor and one councilman said they had already made up their mind that they wanted at least a year and another councilman stated he wanted at least 6 months. One of the councilman stated, 'We change the charter to 30 days and next time it will be a wild-eyed Californian that came up here 45 days ago and wants to change everything.' Besides myself and my attorney, {Mr. Hayes} several people did speak. In favor of the 30 day was a UNLV {University of Nevada, Las Vegas} sociology professor who is also the president of the Green Valley Community Association. He spoke on his own behalf, not on behalf of the association. We had a developer, we had a private citizen who works in the gaming industry and a real estate broker. Speaking in favor of the 1-year were five private citizens who wanted 1-year and they did not give their occupations, I do not know what they did and one gentleman who felt 6 months was enough. As stated, we ended up with three in favor of the 1-year and one that voted against it. This case was set to be heard before the state district court last Thursday which was the 18th. The afternoon before, the city filed papers with my attorney to move this to U.S. District Court. That hearing is set for Monday the 29th at 3:00 (p.m.). Most of these cases I understand have been handled on the state level. The fact that we alleged a U.S. Constitutional violation, we had a judge that was more than willing to look at the case and to make a decision on it. I think it is a delaying tactic on the part of the city. We could have had a decision for you. I would hope that you would take a look at some figures that I brought. First there is a residency requirement statewide, (Exhibit E), I think you all have that. Out of 38 cities that have populations of over 1,000, 28 of them have 30-day requirements. That is 73-1/2 percent. The others range from 6 months in Reno to 3 years in Henderson. Also, when I was contacting these cities to find out what their residency requirements were, I kept getting the same documents faxed to me over and over and over and this is a form that shows declaration or acceptance of candidacy for independent partisan and nonpartisan office. These all have the 30 day, it says my actual residence therein began 30 days or more prior to the close of filing. This is a form that is put out, it says prescribed by the secretary of state, NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 293.177. This is the
form that the state sends and which is used by these cities. Also, I contacted the National League of Cities to find out if they had any recommendations and they referred me to the National Civic League and I have also given you a copy of that letter (Exhibit F).
Ms. MacDonald read Exhibit F to the committee members. She explained there is a 30-day residency requirement of all county offices at this time. Those include the Henderson Constable, Henderson Justice of the Peace, trustees for school districts, county commissioners, district attorneys, county assessors, county recorders, county auditors, state board of education, state university trustees, state comptroller, state treasurer, secretary of state and attorney general.
Senator Raggio asked the legislative counsel to investigate whether or not a 1-year requirement would be constitutional.
Jim Arrendale, Resident, Henderson, Nevada, and he is a resident in particular of Green Valley. He stated Green Valley is essentially one-half of all of the population of Henderson. He told the committee he is not here for any candidate, any single person nor for himself, but because of the city government. Mr. Arrendale pointed out Green Valley registered 25,017 voters and 20,429 actually went to the polls which is 81.66 percent. He told the committee Green Valley residents need representation and if they can find it through the halls of the legislature, they will do it. He asked the committee to listen to the voices of the citizens of Green Valley and understand they are the ones who will suffer most directly without the ability to run for office.
Senator Raggio asked Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, if he knew whether or not a 1-year requirement for candidacy would be constitutional. He explained to Mr. Malkiewich there had been some indication that any requirement in excess of 30 days may be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution.
Mr. Malkiewich told the committee he did not know the answer to that question, but he would do some research on this subject.
Chairman O'Connell explained to Mr. Malkiewich there is a time-factor involved as the City of Henderson would like to enact this into law before April 2, 1993 for the 1993 election. Mr. Malkiewich stated he would get back to the committee as soon as possible, but he did tell the members of the committee if this bill passes the issue may ultimately be resolved in court.
Senator Hickey told Mr. Malkiewich his concern with this bill is the possible annexation of an area and whether or not that would preclude an individual in the annexed area from running in an election. Mr. Malkiewich stated he would also look into this.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 302 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 307.
S.B. 307: Provides for creation and financing of park districts by counties.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke to the committee regarding S.B. 307. He gave the committee written testimony showing estimated tax rate impact (Exhibit G).
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Leavitt for an individual list of what the money on this bond issue would be paying for. Mr. Leavitt told him he would get a list to the committee, although they would not be voting on the projects.
Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke on S.B. 307. He stated they are neither in opposition or in support of the bill. He did state this bill needs some amendment. He suggested if this bill were to be used by all the counties it should contain an amendment that the election can only be a municipal election, a general or a primary election as opposed to a special election. He explained a special election draws a very small percentage of the registered voters and a general election or primary election tends to draw a much larger percentage of the registered voters. He stated this would enable them to get a more true representation of how the voters feel, which a special election would not normally do. Mr. Barrett also stated he would like the ballot question to make it clear to the electorate that there is a separate amount of the bond indebtedness, the redemption of the principal and interest and an additional amount which, according to this bill, is an ongoing, permanent amount for the maintenance and operation of the district. He added the ongoing amount, according to this bill, is exempt from the caps on the amount of money from the property tax, which an entity can receive. Mr. Barrett stated the taxpayer needs more information when he is voting on a bond issue.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Barrett if he was asking for the amendment to make this bond exempt from the cap. Mr. Barrett stated that was not what he said, he stated the information that goes on the ballot should make it clear to the taxpayer who is voting on this, the amount he is voting on is on their taxes permanently and it is, according to this bill, S.B. 307, exempt from the caps for local government receipts. He explained they are not suggesting it be this way, they are suggesting the taxpayer be fully informed that this is the way it is proposed to be.
Mr. Leavitt explained to the committee section 5 of S.B. 307 shows a cap which specifically relates to money for operating purposes. He stated what this bill is essentially saying is if the voters approve this levy when combined, one for operating purposes and one for debt, they are approving an override. He further explained this is an extension of the otherwise computed allowance. He stated this would not have any effect on the $3.64 limitation.
Senator Hickey asked how far above the cap this bond issue would put us. Mr. Leavitt stated it was about 5 cents.
Donald Schlessinger, Commissioner District F, Clark County, spoke on S.B. 307. He gave the committee a list of projects (Exhibit H). He explained to the committee he wants the voters to know exactly what projects they are getting and when they will be getting them. Mr. Schlessinger told the committee they have identified three areas of the valley which are being provided for in an inadequate way with respect to park and recreational facilities. He explained some of the proposals to the committee. Mr. Schlessinger told the committee, with this bill, they are trying to provide for the youths and the families in their community. He added some of these funds are going to be for the refurbishment and construction of additional senior citizen centers. He explained to the committee what is in this bond issue is what is necessary and not just a want list.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Schlessinger if he had any reservations regarding specifically spot lighting the debt as far as the bonding issue goes and to explain what all of the voters are paying currently on their bonded indebtedness. Mr. Schlessinger stated he thought this was an excellent suggestion.
Mr. Schlessinger told the committee it is not just the outlying growth areas that need refurbishment, but also the older neighborhoods which need their parks refurbished and in some instances, they need a park because they are without one. He stated he is pleased they have made provisions for this equally throughout the districts.
Senator Hickey asked how many little league fields were proposed. Mr. Schlessinger referred to Exhibit H and pointed out there are 36 little league fields proposed and also lighting to be placed on another five, which are inadequate at this time. Senator Hickey stated he is pleased this area is being addressed as he has witnessed the fact these children do not have adequate playing fields.
Pat Markese, Assistant Director, Clark County Parks and Recreation, spoke on S.B. 307. She read prepared testimony to the committee, see Exhibit I.
Jim Ley, Assistant County Manager, Clark County, spoke on S.B. 307. He made reference to Exhibit H and told the committee he would answer any questions they had.
Chairman O'Connell asked what the impact would be on the taxpayers if this bill passes. Mr. Ley told the committee there would be an approximated $50 tax added onto a home worth $100,000.
Senator Hickey stated he had concerns some of the areas in Las Vegas had needs and they were not being serviced. Mr. Schlessinger stated there is a project list which shows the amounts being spent on the different areas and their individual needs and this is the process by which the city and county has agreed to work together on this bond.
Senator Raggio stated the suggestion has been made that this bond not be part of a special election although he pointed out in section 6 of this bill it makes reference to a special election on the same date as the primary or general municipal election to accommodate it for this year. He asked if this meets the objections he had heard.
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, answered Senator Raggio stating there were concerns that this bond not be utilized on a special election and there is indeed some transitory language which is needed to allow the county to do what it needs to do.
Senator Raggio asked if she were suggesting an amendment that states "if this procedure is utilized, otherwise it should be at a regular election and not a special election." Ms. Vilardo stated this was correct and she added it could be at a regularly scheduled primary or general election.
Senator Raggio asked if they are asking for a cap exemption on this bill. Ms. Vilardo stated they would like an amendment to this part of the bill and it should read 106 percent as statute reads, be held in this. She explained this language exempts the operations and maintenance section of the issue from that provision. She further explained it can increase greater than 106 percent of the revenue received the prior year.
Ms. Vilardo explained to the committee if this bond issue goes through as a consolidated issue where they are voting for the bonds and the maintenance, the taxpayer knows very clearly the impact of these rates and particularly on the operating override which will be ongoing, but if not clearly identified, it might be interpreted as a bond which will eventually be paid off.
Mr. Ley stated he could commit on behalf of management that they would conform to this concern on the ballots. He explained they did this in one of their most recent bond issues.
Senator Callister stated one of the options for these improvements could be property tax, and yet here the committee is engaged in bond issues. He told the committee these are good mom and apple pie causes in this process of lopping off fingers and toes before the committee gets to the point where we really have to be able to utilize the whole body to fund the entire state. He pointed out if growth continues at the pace it has the committee should be ultra cautious as we approach the cap, as we are now doing, for funding these causes. He surmised these individuals testifying on this bill will be asking in another committee for funding on a different issue out of a different source of money and he feels we are narrowing the wedge down to the same limited sources of revenue. He asked the committee if it is wise as we get within a dime of the cap to spend it all in one last blitz on baseball fields. He questioned whether this was a wise expenditure when there may be a billion dollars in new school construction projects over the next 6 to 8 years. He told the committee sometimes we have to say no to some of the requests which seem as attractive as this seems in order to save money down the road for things which may be more crucial. He suggested someone come into the committee and tell them where the state is monetarily and where they are with the different caps.
Ms. Vilardo told Senator Callister she will provide the committee with a draft of a Nevada issue which they are in the process of publishing, which is on infrastructure financing. She explained to find out where the state is debt wise on a local level it would take roughly 50 to 60 phone calls, because there is no centralized point. She agreed there are potential problems, but there are ideas to solve the problems as far as funding the state.
Senator Callister stated the voters may not want the money allocated for the parks and ball fields if they know it may come out of revenue for schools that will be much needed in the near future.
Mr. Schlessinger stated the county is preparing an overall debt managing plan which Ms. Vilardo was talking about. He explained it is difficult when you have seven to 10 infrastructure items which may be competing with each other for limited amounts of money under a certain cap, how can you best address those needs. He told the committee what they are attempting to do is bring together the myriad of different districts which may go for bond issues and try to get some overall cohesive approach to the problem. He stated they are committed to that. He told the committee they have to recognize they have an obligation to provide for the residents of their valley and ultimately the best test is the people. He stated the voters will decide which is probably the best way to handle these kinds of issues. Senator Callister stated he agreed, but he said he never met a voter who did not see a project which involved cops, parks or education that he did not like and that is the problem. He explained the public always wants to vote yes and urges you to vote yes when it involves public safety, education or public recreation. He stated those are issues are easy for which to win support.
Mr. Schlessing stated he had heard Senator Callister say that growth costs. He explained if Nevada wants to sustain a rate of growth in Clark County and that is the policy, they must pay for the infrastructure so the quality of life is maintained and it costs money to do that. He stated Senator Callister asked how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it. He explained they are trying to deal with this issue responsibly through the infrastructure financing proposals they anticipate coming before the committee in the weeks to come and hopefully that will solve part of the problem.
Senator Raggio asked how they came up with the 10 percent amount on page 2, line 12 of the bill.
Mr. Schlessinger stated the special districts are limited to that 10 percent, just by past policy in the legislature.
Senator Raggio stated his concern was if you get too many special districts there will not be any money left for general purposes. He explained 10 percent seemed quite high for park purposes.
Ms. Vilardo stated the statutory requirements allow, as they do for the state, 2 percent of the state assessed valuation for bonded indebtedness for counties and the cities are 15 percent. She explained they have some special charter cities and some special districts that go as high as 40 percent of the bonded indebtedness. She stated her assumption in reading the bill is they took what the criteria is for the county at the 10 percent and used that to develop the level of bonding.
Mr. Leavitt spoke on S.B. 307. He gave the committee a copy of the list of projects that are included in the bond issue proposal (Exhibit J). He wants to indicate their support of this bill.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 307.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio stated he does not feel the 10 percent is justified and since it has general application, he stated he will vote no on the bill. He explained he opposes the allowance of 10 percent because he feels it unduly impedes the opportunity of other purposes for which the bonding may be necessary.
Senator Rhoads stated he would like to work on an amendment to exempt his rural counties from this bill.
Senator Callister stated he would support this measure, but he is supporting it because it is going to a vote of the people. He said he hoped those whose job it is to report these issue to the people will communicate somehow effectively that it is not whether or not you want more parks, it is whether you want a park or a school or whether you want two parks or one school or do you want more police versus a park or a school. He explained we do not do any great service to the general voters by not allowing them to understand. He added, given the rapidly depleting amount of revenue left available for property tax assessment under the statutory cap, it is quite clearly competition for those dollars and he hopes the voters understand that.
Senator Hickey stated he feels the voters will be fairly well informed by the time the bond issues hit the electorate, so he stated he supports this bill.
Senator Raggio stated he understood the chairman had requested a letter of intent which Clark County had agreed to provide. And also he was concerned regarding the general portion of the bill where these matters not be voted upon in special elections and he was under the impression they were going to suggest an amendment which would have general application so this bond would not be dealt with through a special election, but at regular either municipal or general elections and he stated he felt the committee was moving the bill out without the proposed amendment. Chairman O'Connell stated she intended to ask Senator Rhoads to include this in his amendment.
Senator Nevin withdrew his motion to pass S.B. 307. Senator Lowden withdrew her second on the motion.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE STIPULATION OF A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MUNICIPAL OR GENERAL ELECTION AND DELETE SPECIAL ELECTION AND DO PASS S.B. 307.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O'Connell stated she encouraged the press to do their best to see the electorate is informed on what they are voting on on this issue as well as any bond issue that is coming before them.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND RHOADS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio stated he would like his opposition noted to the exemption from the statutory cap which is included in the bill.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 307 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 250.
S.B. 250: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. She submitted to the committee a summary and overview of this bill (Exhibit K). She went through the summary section by section with the committee.
Tamara Clark, Libertarian Party, spoke on S.B. 250. She told the committee she does not take election procedures lightly. She stated a lot of S.B. 250 is good, but it does need some improvements. She wanted to remind the committee of the reason this bill is before them. She stated:
Your constituents were not very comfortable with how the elections in Clark County were run and I am speaking strictly on Clark County, because that is where I come from. Hundreds of people showed up at both Cheryl Lau's meeting and other meetings to talk about it. And there has always been this lack of trust between your constituents and their legislators for they feel their voices are never heard and no matter what we say you are going to come back and do the opposite of what we want. Senate Bill 250 has a lot of that in it and I think we need to use Senate Bill 250 as a bill that your constituents become comfortable with and that they feel their voices were finally heard and not a bill that addresses election reform, but never addresses election reform. I think you need to remember also that ballot access is so important in our country. Many of you who are republicans would not be here today if the ballot access laws that exist today existed when the republican party started. One of the greatest presidents in this country, Abraham Lincoln, came from a minor party representing an idea that was considered crazy, abolishing slavery. And if he had to deal with the access laws that I deal with today, he would have never been president. And we need to remember that great thought through politics comes from many ideas and never eliminating anybody's ability to access the ballot. What I would like to do is go through some of the areas. I am going to talk about those things I have a problem with. I will leave the things alone that are good, I don't want to waste anybody's time here, but the things we have a problem with. I am going to start with section 6 through section 10 which is an appeal process by the secretary of state. One of the things that brought this about was petitioners in this state had no avenue to readdress grievance if we had a problem with our petition and the secretary of state had no ability to override the county clerks or the county registrars. At the beginning this is very good. It now gives Cheryl Lau the ability to say, 'Hey, I'm the final say on this and if there is a problem I can take care of it.' But in going through here, as you read through this appeal process, the bottom line is Cheryl Lau is the final decision, we put in writing an appeal to her and then she is the decision again. When I go to court, I do not appeal to the same judge that I originally heard. I think what we were looking for was something a little more along the line of some type of a panel that included both some representatives of Cheryl Lau, some constituents, possibly some people here in the legislature and a couple of lawyers, but something a little more expansive than just the secretary of state. We did not want the same person that was going to make the first decision to make the final decision.
Senator Hickey asked if other states were using this process Ms. Clark was describing. Ms. Clark stated no other state, that she was aware of, was using this process, but she added, they do not have the situation that Nevada had whereby the secretary of state did not have a final say.
Ms. Clark told the committee in section 13, item 2 addresses the issue of colors of ballots. She said she would like to see the colors rotated for at least a 4-year period due to the elections which are run on a 4-year cycle.
Ms. Clark stated in section 20 with regard to the absentee ballots which was mentioned by Cheryl Lau. She told the committee in section 49 it states a person who wishes his name be excluded from a list prepared persuant to provisions of section 20 of this must indicate so on his application. She explained this specifically says your name will be excluded from the list being made available to the candidates and other individuals and she stated she has a problem with this language. She told the committee in Clark County they had a real problem with absentee ballots this year and accountability which really takes the teeth out of accountability. She explained there
were hundreds of citizens who got to the polls on election day and found that absentee ballots were cast in their name and yet they did not request one. Ms. Clark stated section 49, item 3 undoes any security.
Ms. Clark told the committee section 29, items A and B were a problem for her. She explained when the citizens came before Cheryl Lau and requested they lessen the requirements for petitioning. She feels the affidavit and circulator requirement are archaic and not needed, because the final verification of a petition does go to the county registrar and they do check to make sure each person is a registered voter. She stated they do not need tougher circulator requirements as long as all of the signatures are checked by the registrar.
Senator Nevin stated this requirement helps control the ballots and who acquired the signatures in case there are problems. Ms. Clark stated they do not need to add language to this section, they need to delete some. She told the committee they do not need a circulator requirement not do they need an affidavit requirement. She explained when a petition is circulated the registrar of voters is the final check and balance because they check to see the signatures on the petition are registered voters and if the signature does not match that of a registered voter it is thrown out.
Senator Hickey asked her what she would delete from section 29. She told him she would delete lines A and B.
Ms. Clark went on to section 36, item B, which gives minor parties 1 percent access and independent candidates 3 percent, but she feels it should be 1 percent overall. She feels more numbers makes it more difficult so she would change it to 1 percent for all parties.
Ms. Clark told the committee in section 39, item 3 makes this the most restrictive ballot access law in the history of the United States. She was told this by numerous federal judges and attorneys from all over the country and she stated this law would violate the equal protection clause and this will cause a court case. She suggested they leave the bill as it was and omit this item from the bill.
Ms. Clark told the committee section 49 which is None of these candidates, should be made to mean something. She explained if None of these Candidates wins, another election should be held and the citizens should be able to pick new candidates.
Ms. Clark stated in section 53, items 4 and 5, she would like to change this to include the voted ballots in contesting and not have to go through a judge to include these ballots.
Ms. Clark explained the next section she has a problem with is section 62, item 10 on page 29, line 38 which states, "a person who by mail registers to vote pursuant to this section may be assisted in completing an application for registration by any other person. The application must include the telephone number, signature of a person who assisted the applicant. Failure to provide this information required by this subsection will not result in the application being deemed incomplete." She told the committee there was a big problem in Clark County with people who were filling out mail-in registrations for other people and they were altering their political parties and sending in registrations for individuals who did not want them. She explained this will not solve anything. She suggested on the application in bold, red writing it should state, "Anybody helping to fill this out should include their name and address," so the voter knows if someone is helping them the individual who is helping them should have to write their name and address on the application also. Senator Hickey stated there is a problem with this kind of system because, for example, what if the voter is blind and cannot see that on the top of the application. Ms. Clark stated this section, as is, does not address the problem and she asked the committee not to pass bills which have no substance.
Ms. Clark then went on to section 76, line 29 which is another problem with circulator requirements. She stated we are making requirements more difficult rather than easier. She urged the committee to listen to what the citizens are saying because nobody else has listened.
Senator Nevin asked Ms. Clark if she would have any objection if he amended the bill to apply to a population of 400,000 or more. Ms. Clark stated she did object to that amendment. Senator Nevin told her the north part of the state does not have the problem the south has with this issue and Ms. Clark stated they may not now, but they could in the future.
Richard Puckett, Libertarian Party of Clark County, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. He told the committee some of the provisions in this bill are very helpful and address some serious problems, but he also thinks there are some provisions which make it unreasonably difficult for minor parties. He stated one of the provisions is in section 30, lines 18 and 19 which states minor political parties must file candidacy by the last Friday in February whereas other candidates have to file by the first Tuesday in March and he feels this is very restrictive.
Mr. Puckett stated in section 39, item 3 which has to do with minor parties not forcing a primary. He said he does not agree with this because minor parties do not force primaries.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Puckett if he wanted to eliminate the language in section 39, item 3 and Mr. Puckett stated he did in fact want this eliminated.
Mr. Puckett told the committee there were several sections of this bill proposed by Cheryl Lau to be very good, as in section 4 which eliminates the bounty for registering voters. He stated he also supports section 12 which improves security with regard to the date of the ballots. Mr. Puckett did suggest the ballots be printed with the date covering the entire ballot. He told the committee section 53, item 2 was a big improvement over the previous process which puts into place an audit process which would increase the confidence in the election. Mr. Puckett also liked section 54, item 4 which allows the lists to be made available on diskettes. He iterated the voter registration lists and the absentee ballot requests need to be accurate to make sure these are real voters. Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Puckett if he was aware of the federal law coming down which prohibits purging of any voter lists. He stated he was not aware of that and would like to see a copy of that letter sent to Chairman O'Connell. He went through various other sections with the committee which he agreed with.
K.R. "Sandy" Harmon, Vice Chairman, Libertarian Party of Nevada, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. Mr. Harmon read from prepared testimony, see Exhibit L. He told the committee section 28, subsection 2(a) does not clear up the ambiguity as to the exact requirement for continued qualification of a minor party.
Dale Erquiaga, Elections Deputy, State of Nevada, addressed the committee to try and clear up Mr. Harmon's questions. He stated it is the understanding of the secretary of state's administration that they have applied this law as have previous secretaries of state. He told the committee the way the formula is applied for the offices of representative in Congress in District 1 and District 2, the total votes cast there are added together and 3 percent is taken, but now it would be 1 percent.
James Frye, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 250. He told the committee he had two problems with this bill and one suggestion for improvement, but otherwise he thinks it is a very good bill. The first problem he has is section 39 which deals with the minor party not forcing a primary run off if a major party has two candidates. He stated he was not going to elaborate on whether this is fair or just, but pragmatically if this is passed, somebody will sue the state and probably win and he believes it would be better not to have it in there. Mr. Frye stated the second section he has problems with is section 30. He stated if you look closely and think about it, the minor party candidates will actually have to file before the major party candidates, because the minor party candidates filing with the secretary of state is like declaring candidacy. He suggests this section be rewritten to say the list of candidates be filed at the same time as the deadline for major party candidate filing and then given a week or two after that for each individual candidate to actually pay his filing fee. Mr. Frye stated he has a personal suggestion for section 28, paragraph a. He suggested instead of comparing the number of votes to a total in the representative in Congress, base it on 5 percent in two or three partisan elections.
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 250. She stated she wanted to just submit her notes to Secretary of State, Cheryl Lau and then testify before the committee on Wednesday.
Lois Avery, Natural Law Party, testified on S.B. 250. She told the committee she attended the meeting in Reno in which Cheryl Lau took testimony and she stated she was impressed. She stated she liked section 24, line 30 where they change the percentage of the petitions from 110 percent to 100 percent. She explained this would save the State of Nevada a lot of money because the random count will be used in many more cases and they will not have to count every signature. She further stated she liked section 28 where they have changed it to 1 percent. She explained this makes it a lot more possible to achieve, though it does not quite address the issue the previous speaker brought up for the small elections. Ms. Avery stated she also liked section 29, subsection 4, where it explains what makes a signature valid. She told the committee of several other sections with which she liked and agreed. She did tell the committee she had one complaint which was in section 30, subsection 1(a), which lists the deadline for the list of candidates. She suggested the deadline be 2 months before the primary and maybe having the primary at the end of June or the beginning of July.
Chairman O'Connell asked for any further testifiers on S.B. 250. She closed the hearing on S.B. 250. There being no further business, she adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
March 22, 1993
Page 1