MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 24, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 24, 1993, in Room 119 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:
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada
Dale Erquiaga, Election Deputy, State of Nevada
Dan Hansen, State Chairman, Independent American Party of Nevada
Lynn Tynan, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas
Daniel Braisted, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County
Tamara Clark, Libertarian Party
Jeanine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Russ Driver, KLAV Radio, Las Vegas
Bonnie Reynolds, County Chairman, United We Stand America of Washoe County
James Dan, Northern Regional Representative, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Steven Dempsey, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas
James Frye, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Steve Bellingar, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas
Richard Puckett, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 302.
SENATE BILL 302: Revises charter of City of Henderson to change residency requirement for candidates for certain public offices.
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reported to the committee on research he had done on S.B. 302. He stated:
On Monday you asked me to review briefly the issue of whether S.B. 302 which requires a 1-year residency requirement for candidates for certain offices in the City of Henderson would be constitutional. At that time, I indicated if you wanted an answer quickly we wouldn't get something in writing and I would report back to you and that is what I am doing. There is, as you know, litigation, ongoing as we speak, in Clark County on this. Many of the issues that will come up in that case are not raised by what I am going to be addressing, or not going to be addressed by what I am talking about here. I don't know what the court is going to do if, for example, they determine the existing 3-year residency requirement is unconstitutional before another bill is passed. Those are separate issues that will have to be considered later and will be addressed, I am sure, by the court. The issue that I want to address is simply, in a vacuum, is a 1-year residence requirement for the City of Henderson constitutional. First issue is whether the state can add to the requirements of eligibility for office to the constitutional requirement that a person cannot hold public office unless they are a qualified elector. On that point, I think the Nevada Supreme Court is pretty well decided that the legislature can. In 1971 the voters of the State of Nevada approved a constitutional amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. At that time, though, the statute concerning running for legislative office was not amended. You cannot run for state senator or state assemblyman unless you are 21 years of age, even though at age 18 you are a qualified elector. Therefore, we have an additional requirement to run for the office of state legislator that you do not have, that is in addition to being a qualified elector. In the case of Robert Allen Mengelcamp vs. Robert List, Attorney General, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the constitution defines the qualifications of an elector, but the legislature may prescribe reasonable qualifications for an elector who may desire to become a candidate, providing such qualifications are not in conflict with some constitutional provisions. Incidentally, that case was argued. The petitioner was represented by one Charles Springer and the defendant was represented, in addition to other people, by one Robert Rose. I am sure the issue will be familiar to the [Nevada] Supreme Court if it gets back up there. So, as a general rule you can add reasonable additional requirements. The constitution says a qualified elector is someone who is 18 years of age, but the Nevada Supreme Court has said you can require, to run for office, that someone be 21 to run for state legislature. Similarly, although the constitution requires that you must be a qualified elector to run for office and a qualified elector is someone who has resided in the district for 30-days and in the state for 6-months. That doesn't necessarily preclude adding additional residency requirements. The issue, I think, is more a question of whether the United States Constitution is going to prohibit that length of that durational residence requirement, whether it is too long. The cases are split depending upon the length, depending upon the tests applied and even applying the same tests the same length of time, the cases reached different results. Many courts, probably about three of the four cases I have looked at, 22 of 29, something like that, applied what is known as a strict scrutiny standard saying that these requirements are limiting, because they limit fundamental rights such as the right to travel, that these strict scrutiny test applies. Nevertheless, even applying this strict scrutiny test, a number of courts have upheld residents requirements of a year. There is even, we have a 3-year requirement upheld using a compelling governmental interest, a 2-year requirement upheld using a rational basis test, 1-year requirement upheld with a compelling government interest test. The other tests, of course, that don't apply compelling state interest, apply simply a rational basis test, that there is a rational basis for the distinction and the Equal Protection Clause will not invalidate it. The states that apply that test obviously have found more often that the residency requirements are upheld. The only authority on the other side that I found, cited by the parties in this case, is California. California has a very strict application, they have a strict scrutiny test and have determined that any durational residence requirement in excess of 30 days is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. These cases are all over the board even though they all purport to be interpreting the United States Constitution. One of the things is since they are applying a strict scrutiny test, they are determining what the compelling state interest is that justifies this and in many cases they are finding that the compelling state interest test is met by these residency requirements. That there is a compelling state interest for this requirement. Probably the farthest anything has gone is there are a couple of cases, actually I believe a pair of cases decided at the same time, Chimento vs Stark and Sununu vs Stark. The court upheld the New Hampshire 7-year durational residency requirement for governor and in Kanapaux vs Ellisor, 419 US 891 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina 5-year durational residency requirement for governor. These are higher offices though. They can be distinguished on the grounds that this is a municipal office as opposed to a statewide office and the interest of the state is not quite as much. There is no Nevada precedent. There is some Ninth Circuit [Court] precedent. There is a Ninth Circuit [Court] case that purports to apply, I believe, the compelling state interest. The test, the strict scrutiny test and upholds residents requirements, I believe, either 6-months or a year. The only Nevada authority on point is an attorney general's opinion. There is a 1976 attorney general's opinion almost directly on point, durational residency requirements for municipal political candidates. [It states] City charter provisions requiring municipal political candidates to reside within the boundaries of the city for a specified length of time prior to holding office are constitutional, an opinion written by then Attorney General Robert List [and] by then Deputy Attorney General Donald Classic. But, this case I was quoting from when I was citing Chimento and Sununu and Kanapaux, this was the attorney general's opinion concluding that these charters residency requirements were constitutional, in light of what appears to be an emerging less strict standard of review. Again, there is California precedent, fairly recent California precedent stating anything over 30 days is invalid so I don't think I could give you a solid answer one way or the other on it. There is no
Nevada case law on it. There are cases even applying strict scrutiny that have upheld 1-year residency requirements. Briefly, I would also like to address the issue Senator Hickey raised about the annexed territory. I was concerned that amending this charter may cause problems...
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Malkiewich if he had stated he found precedence that specifically indicated a 1-year residence requirement would be inappropriate. Mr. Malkiewich stated he believed there are cases holding a 1-year residency requirement both appropriate and inappropriate. He explained checking the different state courts and the different circuit courts reveal there will be precedence, as far as 1-year is concerned, on both sides.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he checked into Senator Hickey's questions regarding a person running for office if the area he lives in was annexed within 11 months of the election date. He told the committee he found under the language of the Henderson City Charter, he does not think they could run for office, because it states you must have been a resident of the city for 12 months. Mr. Malkiewich was concerned all of the city charters might be worded that way, but he found they were not. He explained the Las Vegas City Charter provides an individual "must have resided within the territory defined by the boundaries of the city" for a certain period. He told the committee the intention of that language was to address that type of situation with regard to annexation.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Malkiewich to repeat the California precedent. He stated there were a few cases, but the primary case was Johnson vs Hamilton which holds that any durational residents requirement for candidates for local office in excess of 30 days is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. He explained the California Supreme Court has taken a very hard line on the durational residency requirement.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 302 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 thanked the committee for allowing her to answer the questions the public posed for her at the previous meeting on this bill.
She started with section 6 through 10 where there was a concern of the appeal process for signature verification. She stated it was suggested the legislature create a panel instead of allowing the secretary of state to hear the appeal and issue a final ruling. Secretary Lau stated Senator Hickey had asked about model legislation and whether there was such a piece of legislation, but she could find none. However, there are a few states that have a state election board and that board is comprised of people who are appointed either by the secretary of state or the governor and they include equal representation from the political parties. She told the committee this is an alternative they may want to consider.
Secretary of State Lau directed the committee's attention to section 11. This section states, "indication of party affiliations." She told the committee she got two suggestions from the Washoe County Registrar as to this section and pertaining to her computerized records. Secretary of State Lau stated she is incorporating these ideas into her suggested amendments for the committee during their work session.
Secretary of State Lau went to section 13, which suggests a 3-year rotational color coding for the ballots. Secretary of State Lau stated there was a suggestion for a 4-year rotation in color coding, but she does not feel this is necessary. She explained all ballots are shredded after 22 months and that means there is no overlap during a 3-year period, but she added she will leave it up to the committee.
She addressed section 14, changes in political boundaries. She told the committee a lobbyist came up to her and asked if this section prohibits annexation and she told him it was not intended to do so. She explained this section prohibits a board from changing lines after candidate filing has begun, in an attempt to redistrict an opponent out of a particular race. She stated she is offering new language in amendments to the committee to make this clear.
Secretary of State Lau went to sections 20 and 49 which address the give and take away concern. She explained section 20 establishes a public list of absentee voters and section 49 allows a voter to withhold his name from the list. She told the committee this exemption is in response to the complaints from many senior citizens who do not want their name on another public list. She explained, by withholding the name from the list, does not mean the name is withheld from the file of requests and the candidates or designee can still look at the file of requests, but the name can be withheld from a public list.
She explained section 28. The concern was using the office of representative in congress for petitions. She told the committee she offered an explanation which she hopes will clarify this language. She explained the intent is still to add the total votes cast in both congressional districts and then take 1 percent of that figure, not 3 percent.
Secretary of State Lau drew attention to section 29, section 36 and Section 76. These sections deal with circulator requirements. She stated for the record:
This is not a new requirement. It clarifies existing practice in this way. The current law reads one of the signers must complete the affidavit, but the last three secretaries of state standardized the petition requirement through our power to prescribe petitions. So on the form prescribed by my office, which has been used by the other secretaries of state, we require the circulator to sign box one and complete the affidavit. We have done this for a very good reason, a reason pointed out by Senator Nevin. It is important to know who carried a petition in case signatures were forged or in case voters were not told what they were being asked to sign. You see, in 1992, last year's case dealing with term limit petitions, the Nevada Supreme Court agreed, calling some out-of-state circulators mercenaries, who had misrepresented a cause to the voters and at my town meetings I was told that this was too difficult. How come you have rules here in a law, then you have rules on a petition? Let's get together and have a place where all the rules are in one place and this is what we are doing. That is sections 29, 36 and 76. We are consolidating what has been used for many, many years. There is nothing new here. The only thing new here is to take the clerks out of the business of determining legal sufficiency. Let's not do that. Let's leave that to a court of law. Let's have those clerks check the signature to make sure they match. Let's have them check the name, address and date. But then if the circulator signs a little bit out of that box or if the notary is not quite right, don't leave that to the county clerks. It makes it too difficult. They throw out a whole list of names and maybe it was just one technical insufficiency that did it. That is the change I have
in [sections] 29, 36 and 76. Circulator requirements? Not new.
Secretary Lau then continued with section 30, subsection 1(b), minor candidate lists. She stated this bill standardizes filing dates for all candidates and in doing so they work with the existing framework of what they had to deal with. She explained this minor party lists arrive on one date and the candidates file on another date.
Senator Lowden asked if this amendment would mean all candidates would file on the same date. Secretary of State Lau stated this was correct. All candidates would indeed file on the same date.
Secretary of State Lau referred again to section 36 and section 76, which refers to percentage requirements for independent candidates. She stated she agrees with the testimony given. The percentage should be lowered from 3 percent to 1 percent. She stated this was a drafting error.
Senator Rhoads asked why there should be a percentage at all if the party is recognized. Secretary of State Lau explained they have looked at that and it goes back to the research which was done by the majority of the states, but she stated they are also looking at that aspect to see what else can be done. She iterated historically 3 percent was used and her office is recommending going down to 1 percent, but perhaps if they are on the ballot they would not be required 14,000 signatures, only 4,000.
Dale Erquiaga, Elections Deputy, State of Nevada, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. He added some states only require 500 or 1,000 signatures.
Secretary of State Lau went to section 39 which is the minor political party candidates having no effect on a major party primary. She explained this is only necessary if the primary date is moved to an earlier date. She iterated this is necessary. She told the committee if on the last day to file there are two democrats running for the same state assembly seat and on that same day there is a new minor party candidate in the same race, because of the federal ruling, the minor party has until July to bring forth their petition. She continued, telling the committee this would force a primary between the two democrats and when one wins and advances to the general election they must face the new party candidate, but what would happen if the new party candidate does not get the number of signatures necessary to fulfill the petition requirement. If this happens then the state has held an election without reason, because there is no longer a minor party candidate in the race. She explained she is not looking for any penalty for anyone, she is looking at logic. She asked how the state force a primary when they do not know who all the players are. She stated if there is a late filing date there should be equity all around and she said it is only true if the primary is moved to an earlier time, such as June.
Secretary of State Lau explained section 31 with the committee. She stated this section proposes Nevada move its primary from the first Tuesday in September to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. She told the committee she was not the first secretary of state to try this. She explained this was tried for one election cycle many years ago. Secretary of State Lau stated at the town hall meetings which she held, constituents stated they wanted to be a part of presidential primaries and to participate more. They felt having a late primary does not give them a chance to get to know who their candidates are. She told the committee the county clerks and registrars feel administratively, this late primary is better and will allow the clerks and the registrars more time to administer an election. Secretary of State Lau stated this may reduce the precinct walkers and the lawn signs during the summer months. She explained there is one caveat in that there may be a bigger cost to candidates due to an earlier primary which may cause them to spend more money.
Senator Raggio told Secretary of State Lau she is proposing an issue which was done previously. He explained they formerly held the primary in June. He stressed they changed the primary back to September for the same reasons Secretary of State Lau is explaining, are not problems. He iterated telling the committee the length of the election was so long, 5 months, that quite frankly, the voting public was irritated by the process. He stated this will lengthen the time for the general election and it did not prove to be very thrifty in the past. He said his opinion was elections cost an inordinate amount of money as it is and he would not like to see individuals have to put more money into campaigns as well. He explained that is why the compelling reason to change even though other states remained in June, but Nevada went to September for that reason.
Secretary of State Lau told the committee the length of the general election is something she is very concerned about and that is why she left this until last. She stated it is not just expensive financially, but personally as well and she wanted the committee to be aware of that.
She agreed with Senator Raggio in that elections are way too costly even in minor political positions. She stressed to the committee this proposal was what she heard from the public in town hall meetings and she felt it extremely important she bring this up before the committee and the public so she could give them the pros and cons, but she stated she did promise she would put this proposal in the bill.
Secretary of State Lau went on to explain section 41 which addresses, "None of these Candidates." She stated this was another concern brought up by the public. She explained the most common concern expressed was this section would allow the Governor or the county commissioner to appoint a candidate who lost to "None of these Candidates." Secretary of State Lau stated Chairman O'Connell very graciously pointed out this oversight prior to the hearings and she added this was going to be contained in her amendments. She told the committee she will prepare an appropriate amendment which would say the Governor and the county commissioner cannot appoint a candidate who lost to"None of these Candidates." Unfortunately, she stated it may in fact be unconstitutional to have "None of these Candidates" win an election. She explained the constitution talks in terms of a person who is elected and "None of the Above" is not a person. She stated the decision would be up to the committee, but she suggested the staff attorneys take a good look at this to see if this is indeed constitutional or not.
Secretary of State Lau then explained section 53 to the committee. She stated this is the audit of unused ballots. She stated the unused ballots are sealed so this section must be amended to allow them to be opened before the audit can occur. She stressed it was also suggested that the judge is not the best person to decide whether there is due cause to inspect voted ballots. She stated she disagrees. She stressed a judge is the only person who should render this decision and she does not believe voted ballots should be subject to inspection except under a court order.
Secretary of State Lau explained section 62, subsection 10, requires the identification of any person who assists with a mail-in registration. She stated this section provides a voter may be assisted by someone else when completing a mail-in registration and it requires this person provide his or her name and phone number. It also states failure to provide this additional information will not result in the application being deemed incomplete. She explained this last sentence does not take the meat out of the provision, but it is model legislation in other states which have been using mail-in registration successfully since the 1970s. She told the committee this provides an accurate trail so they can track down someone who alters a form or misrepresents a voters intention. She iterated the forms would be printed with appropriate instructions.
Secretary of State Lau told the committee her bill contains strict penalties for election fraud and she pointed out in most instances she proposed election crimes be considered a felony. She stated she believes if an individual tampers with another individual's right to vote, that criminal should face the possibility of losing his or her right to vote. She told the committee she understands their concerns with prison overcrowding when she added the felonies. She stated they could look at fines if that is what they prefer to do.
Mr. Erquiaga addressed the committee on the problem of motor voter fraud. He stated there are two measures moving through the United States Congress, S. 460 and H.R. 2, which are commonly referred to as the Federal Motor Voter Act, although they have more wide ranging effect than just motor voter. He stated:
Briefly, what the bill does is mandate motor voter programs which Nevada already has, mandates mail-in registration programs which Nevada already has and mandates what is called agency based registration which Nevada does not have. It will require that mail-in registration forms be provided at state agencies of public assistance, welfare, employment security, those offices. That is one of the areas that is being worked out in conference committee. The [United States] senate bill allows the state's chief election officer to pick which agencies will have agency-based registration. Whether that was all agencies of public assistance or just certain agencies, that would be a state option. The [United States] house bill mandates all state agencies of public assistance. That is one of the points they need to work out. One of the other major provisions which indirectly affects what you are doing in the area of election reform, although it doesn't specifically affect S.B. 250, is the change in the way voter registration lists are maintained and updated and you mentioned this on Monday, Madame Chairman. Currently, Nevada purges its list for failure to vote after a presidential election. You'll recall we used to purge after every general election and in the last session the secretary of state proposed and the legislature agreed that that purge occur only after presidential years. A purge for failure to vote will now be outlawed throughout the United States. What will happen, the names will remain on the lists for two federal elections, are you with me, and you must send the voter a notice that he has failed to vote, so if you send him a notice that he has failed to vote and his name stays on the list for two federal elections, then you put him in inactive status, you don't take him off the list. You simply move the voter to an inactive status. This, the Federal Election Commission will have to prescribe regulations for, because it is very unclear in the bill and even the information Secretary of State Lau received yesterday from the Federal Election Commission is still unclear as to what the intent will be. They are saying there may be two poll books at the polling places. An active poll book and an inactive poll book. If a voter appears 6 years down the line and he is still in the inactive poll book, he has to be allowed to vote. That is a fairly dramatic change for us and we will have to work out the way we purge our lists. That will have to be removed from our statutes and we will have to adjust. There are also provisions that will require the manner in which you update addresses. It was suggested on Monday that we could send a first class postcard and if that was returned, then you could purge, you can't. You can send a first class postcard and if the voter proactively returns it to you, you being the Clark County Registrar of Voters or the Esmerelda County Clerk, the voter returns that card saying, 'yah you're right, I moved,' then you may change his or her address. If the voter does not return his card you can't change his address. So, the counties will have new responsibilities for automatically updating lists if people move within their jurisdiction and trying to send postcards to people to get them to respond back. That, again, will be tried by the Federal Election Commission [FEC]. It will result in much larger voter registration lists and they may not be what is termed clean, they may actually have voters who have moved. One of the suggestions is, and it also does not directly affect this bill, but it might be something you consider, it has been discussed. This bill does deal with challenged ballots in some sections. What has been suggested at the federal level is you allow voters to vote a provisional ballot. Currently in Nevada if you are a challenged voter at the polls, take an oath, if you are challenged on the basis of residency, if you are challenged on the basis of identity, you take an oath, you sign the oath and you vote and then you go on, your ballot is cast. A provisional ballot requires that your ballot be sealed separate from the rest of the ballots and only counted after your eligibility is determined after the fact. So if the committee is concerned that the lists are going to be out-of-date and the people will be voting in districts where, in fact, they no longer live, you may want to request some information on provisional ballots and we can provide that to you as the federal election commission provides that to us. As I say, currently it is not provided for in S.B. 250, but the challenge section is already in the bill so you could amend it further to comply with that federal law. The secretary of state sent this information to bill drafters and I believe the chairman has asked for an emergency bill draft to be prepared whenever they sign this bill finally so we can clean this up, as a trailer, perhaps, to S.B. 250. One of the things that bill drafters have asked the secretary of state's office about is election day registration. The way the first house bill is written, that is your only way not to comply with the federal laws as you move to election day registration. There are no lists, there is no 30-day close, you walk in on election day and say I am here to register to vote and you are allowed to vote. Only one state currently does that, the state is completely computerized so they can check to make sure you are not voting in 17 counties on the same day. Nevada, as you know, is not computerized at that level. The senate bill has taken steps to prevent states from exercising the election day registration escape hatch so the bill drafters have asked me if that is a possibility and I have told them the secretary [of state] opposes election day registration and it is no longer an option. The escape hatch has been taken away from you anyway. Even if you now suddenly change to election day registration, it would not be grandfathered in under the federal law. One of the most common misperceptions of the bill is that it requires automatic voter registration at DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety] rather than simultaneous registration. It requires only simultaneous. When you appear at DMV and are filling out the forms for your drivers license, if you say I also want this to serve as a voter registration, they will print out a form at that time, but you have to say either I want this to be a registration or I don't want this to be a registration. There is still the voter having to take some action. It is not just automatically going to register everybody. It will be very similar to the Nevada system. Our DMV has a very clean system that relies on voter choice. The difference with the FEC is whether or not it is a positive question or a negative question, whether the voter has to say yes or whether the voter has to say no. That is still being worked out in committee.
Chairman O'Connell asked if an individual was registering their vehicle and did not want to be registered to vote, will it be on the form. Mr. Erquiaga stated it would be indicated on the vehicle registration form.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 250 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 302.
SENATE BILL 302: Revises charter of City of Henderson to change residency requirement for candidates for certain public offices.
Chairman O'Connell asked for a motion on this bill.
Senator Raggio stated when the committee last heard this bill it was his suggestion to obtain an opinion from legal counsel on the constitutionality of the proposed change which was recommended by the Henderson City Council. He surmised the legal counsel indicated there was a difference of opinion in various states in precedents which are limited. He explained some of the precedents state 1-year may be unconstitutional and others state it may be constitutional. He further explained in the last meeting on this bill, a good number of the cities in this state have a 30-day requirement for candidate qualification, but there were others with longer periods. He told the committee if he were a member of the city council in Henderson and he was making this decision, he would probably vote to request a charter change to 30 days. But, he stated, on the other hand, historically in acting upon city charters, the legislature has most usually acceeded to the request of the duly elected body of that community and followed their request for charter change. In this case, the city council of the City of Henderson had a public hearing and they discussed the issue and it is their desire to change this to a 12-month period. He explained he does not feel the legislature should substitute their judgement in these kinds of cases for the duly elected governing body of the city involved and for that reason he stated he will support the provision in S.B. 302 for a 12-month period. He suggested if the bill does get processed in whatever form, on line 14 the existing language of being an actual and bonafied resident of the city, they insert the language suggested by Mr. Malkiewich, prior to the word city, "territory defined by the boundaries of the" which is the language that would cover a situation where an individual is a resident of an area next to the city for the required period of time even though they did not reside in the city. He stated this would be his suggestion to amend with that language and otherwise pass the bill.
Senator Lowden stated she felt the City of Henderson would be happy to stay with their current charter of 3 years, but they are being forced into making a decision they do not want to make in the first place. She told the committee according to the testimony taken, the people who spoke out in Henderson were by a majority, for a 30-day period. She stated in spite of that, the City of Henderson has decided to go with the 1-year provision instead of listening to the people in their request for 30 days. She explained there are times when good candidates want to run for office and by technicality they are not able to run, but yet they are still able to vote. She stated for this reason when they vote on the bill she would like to make the amendment that they go to 30 days.
Senator Hickey stated he tends to agree with the 30-day residency requirement, but he added, the legislature has a tradition of accepting recommendations from the city suggesting the change, especially when we are dealing with their charters.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 302 BY ADDING TO LINE 14 "TERRITORY DEFINED BY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE."
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Lowden suggested another amendment.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO FURTHER AMEND S.B. 302 TO CHANGE 1-YEAR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO 30-DAY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND S.B. 302 FAILED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, RHOADS, HICKEY, NEVIN AND CALLISTER VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell called for a vote on the original motion to amend and do pass S.B. 302 by adding to line 14, "territory defined by the boundaries of the."
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 302 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 250.
Dan Hansen, State Chairman, Independent American Party of Nevada, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. He read from prepared testimony see Exhibit C.
Senator Hickey asked if a standard petition form developed by the secretary of state be acceptable in the petition process. Mr. Hansen said yes and no. He explained his group amended their petitions to comply with the basic requirements, but he stated they did not use the exact form that was printed because they found it cumbersome. He told the committee he would not use a standard petition unless they could make it better than the existing one.
Lynn Tynan, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas, spoke on S.B. 250. She told the committee she was concerned about her constitutional right to vote. She commended Cheryl Lau on S.B. 250 and for coming to the aid of the public and trying to make a better system. She stated, the public needs to be represented by the public officials and not by the big money special interest groups which she feels presently run this state.
Daniel Braisted, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas, told the committee he appreciated the time the committee was putting in on election reform, but he voiced his displeasure that the meeting did not start on time today.
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 250. She presented the committee with a copy of her likes and dislikes on this bill (Exhibit D) and a copy of a letter to all interested persons with regard to the testing of the computer equipment in Washoe County. She also gave the committee members a copy of her yearly calendar of events (Exhibit E).
Tamara Clark, Libertarian Party, spoke on S.B. 250. She stated she was in agreement of most of what Cheryl Lau proposed in this bill. She did wonder about the political parties which are already on the ballot by qualifying the 1 percent or 3 percent. She explained these individuals should be considered candidates and should not be discriminated against. Ms. Clark told the committee she attended all of the town hall meetings held by Secretary of State Lau and she explained she did not hear any testimony from the citizens encouraging an earlier primary.
Jeanine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified on S.B. 250. She stated her organization is an all-volunteer organization and during elections they get involved in surveying the candidates and distributing the information. She told the committee moving the primary would make it difficult to sustain a volunteer effort of individuals, because they have families and other commitments they are involved in and therefore it would be a great burden to extend the campaign period for several more months. She also expressed concern at the extra cost it would be to sustain a campaign for several more months. She encouraged the committee not to move the primary date. She is also concerned with the area of petitioners and feels young people who are not registered voters should be able to help gather signatures on petitions to help involve them in the political process. She encouraged the committee not to require an individual be a registered voter in order to gather signatures.
Russ Driver, KLAV Radio, Las Vegas, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. He told the committee he sees nothing in this bill which refers to recalls. He suggested forms and documentation be made available so an individual does not have to guess as to what form is going to be accepted by the registrar of voters. He also stated the recall time element should be extended and it should be made easier for the public to recall public officials, not harder.
Chairman O'Connell told Mr. Driver the concerns he has are already being looked at by the committee. She explained they have gotten forms from all over the country to incorporate these ideas into one form to make it easier for the petitioners.
Mr. Driver asked Secretary of State Lau if the public is allowed to recall state officials or if it is an impeachment process. Secretary of State Lau told Mr. Driver the public could indeed recall state officials. She asked Mr. Driver to remember that recall was such an important issue it is presented in a separate bill and not in S.B. 250. She explained her office wants to make sure they have streamlined and wide ranging reforms.
He then asked Secretary of State Lau about the penalties. He stated there are already penalties on the law books, but he feels these have not been enforced and asked what she is going to do regarding this process. Secretary of State Lau stated she provided Chairman O'Connell with some information regarding enforcement which she feels is very important. She stated the prisons are burgeoned and suggests there might be a series of fines which can be installed, however, she explained that is up to the committee. She did say she concurred with Mr. Driver that the penalties should be strong.
Mr. Driver also expressed concern regarding the change of date for the primary. He stated he attended the town hall meetings and never heard anyone suggest the date be changed. Secretary of State Lau told him after the meetings were over individuals told her the primary should be changed so they could participate more. She also stated she got the suggestion from letters and phone calls to her office. She explained she held three other town hall meetings and she is bringing forth all of the concerns that were brought to her attention.
Mr. Driver was concerned with regard to page 4, line 12 where it states, "the county clerk may charge a reasonable fee for providing mailing labels." He stated this fee should be spelled out. He also expressed concern regarding page 5 of the bill where it states, "the secretary of state, by regulation, establish further procedures for carrying out the provisions of this section." He stated this was an ambiguous statement, because there are no set procedures and these should be locked into the bill. Mr. Diver stated on page 6, line 29, 30, 31 and 32 it states, "except for a provision to recall a county, district or municipal officer, the petition shall be deemed filed with the secretary of state as of the date on which he receives certificates from the county clerk showing the petition to be signed by the requisite number of voters of the state" and his asked why state officer is left out of the list. Another concern he had was on page 8, lines 33, 34, 35 and 36 where it states, "include the affidavit of the person who circulated the document verifying that the signers are registered voters in the state according to his best information and belief that the signatures are genuine and were signed in his presence." He asked how the individual would know the signature was correct without a copy of their signature.
Mr. Driver told the committee he has problems with the provision on page 17, line 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 which states, "a person registered to vote pursuant to the provisions of NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 293.5235, shall for the first election in which he votes, at which [time] that registration is valid, vote in person unless he has previously voted in" and he stated they bracketed out "precinct" and replaced it with "county." He pointed out if a person is not registered in the precinct he is supposed to be voting in, it leaves it wide open to have individuals voting in precincts where they do not live. He suggested they take county out and replace it with precinct. He stated another concern he has is registration by mail. He believes when the voter goes to the polls to vote, he should present picture identification before voting.
Mr. Driver also expressed concern about shredding the ballots. He told the committee the date should be all over the back of the ballot so if it is shredded you could still see the date. He also stated he was against a 30-day residency requirement. He told the committee candidates for office should be a resident of the state or district for 6 months or 1-year.
Bonnie Reynolds, County Chairman, United We Stand America of Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 250. She gave the committee copies of a letter sent to Secretary of State Lau (Exhibit F). She read from this exhibit.
Dan Williams, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas, testified on S.B. 250. He stated he would like to see the voting process opened up for an entire week. He also expressed concern over the candidates not filing financial disclosures on the due date. Another issue he mentioned which concerned him was the 6-month waiting period for recall of a public official.
Senator Lowden asked what Mr. Williams would suggest as penalty for the candidates who did not win their election, but did not file their financial disclosure on time. Mr. Williams stated everyone who wants to be part of the process should obey the laws of the State of Nevada and the current laws should apply to the losers as well as the winners.
James Dan, Northern Regional Representative, Libertarian Party of Nevada, spoke to the committee on S.B. 250. Due to the lateness of the hour Mr. Dan suggested he leave his written testimony (Exhibit G),for the committee members to review at their convenience and he stated he would return on Friday's meeting to answer any questions they might have.
Steven Dempsey, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas testified on S.B. 250. He stated he had some concern on the recall. He explained he felt most of the concern on this issue is due to the past election and the alleged fraud that occurred. Another problem he wanted to deal with was the residency requirement. He also stated he does not like the idea of a 30-day residency requirement. Another problem he sees with a transient state like Nevada, an individual moves into the state and because they watch a little bit of television and see the campaign commercials, they feel they are fully informed on that individual in the campaign and that is not always the case. He explained candidates with a lot of money can swing the election in their favor with expensive commercials that another candidate may not be able to afford.
James Frye, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 250. He stated if the format of the circulation petition is changed and the individual who did the circulation had their name, address and phone number on the back of the petition and then had it notarized, he feels it would prevent a lot of problems. Another problem he heard and had a suggestion for was the filing dates. He explained with the dates the secretary of state recommends there is still a problem of weather. He pointed out we can have very bad weather here at times which might prevent a potential candidate from filing on the last day. The last problem he noted was with the primary. He stated all of the problems in this section come from the desire to put the primary in June, and he feels the major motivation for moving the primary to June is so Nevadans can have an effective voice in the primary. He suggested holding a separate presidential primary in June every 4 years and keeping the primary for the rest of the elections in September.
Steve Bellingar, Concerned Citizen, Las Vegas, testified on S.B. 250. He stated he was here to support his fellow citizens of Las Vegas who have already spoken on this bill.
Richard Puckett, Libertarian Party of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 250. He stated it is important for us to change to the 1 percent requirement for ballot access. He told the committee the State of Nevada currently has the third most restrictive law on ballot access.
Mr. Puckett asked Secretary of State Lau about the candidates being able to see the deleted names from the registration lists although it would not be available to the public. He stated this would be a great compromise, but he does not see it in this particular bill and wanted to know if there was another NRS code that would allow the secretary to make that interpretation. Secretary of State Lau told him it was in section 49 of S.B. 250.
Mr. Puckett addressed section 69 regarding public officials. He asked for an definition of a public official. Secretary of State Lau told him the complete definition is in the Ethic Statute as far as what is a public person. Mr. Puckett asked if that includes the employees at the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety when they are registering voters. She stated she thought this definition included these individuals.
Mr. Puckett asked for clarification on the requirements of picture identification. He stated he had a chance to look at the Federal Motor Voter legislation which will substantially change this, but from
what he understands, they will still require picture identification if a particular voter is challenged as to their identity and residency. Secretary of State Lau stated that was correct.
Mr. Puckett stated he was very impressed by the computerized system Washoe County has and he asked if it would be possible for the secretary of state to find out what cost would be involved to implement that statewide or at least in Las Vegas. Secretary of State Lau told him that is why she got all of the registrars together for a meeting to discuss this, but money is a problem. She stressed they are working toward linking all of Nevada together in the future.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
March 24, 1993
Page 1