MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 21, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 21, 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, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employee's Association,
Mitch Brust, Chief, Nevada Department of Personnel
Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Nevada Secretary of State
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Carolyn Nelson, Concerned Citizen
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
James Dan, Lobbyist, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Marlene Henderson, Registrar, Washoe County
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 18.
ASSEMBLY BILL 18:Revises provisions regarding accounts for catastrophic leave.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, (SNEA) spoke on A.B. 18. He stated this bill primarily omits the sunset provision of the catastrophic leave program. He reminded the committee in 1989 SNEA proposed catastrophic leave be instituted in the state government and it was a fairly new item nationally at the time. He stated while the legislature was in favor of it they were reluctant to approve it now, knowing the long-range consequences of it, so they added a 4-year sunset. He pointed out the sunset operates the end of this month, therefore if this bill is not passed the catastrophic leave program ends on July 1. Mr. Gagnier stated when they originally introduced the bill in its original version it had a number of factors and one was to create a committee to oversee the program and it had some other provisions. Those provisions were removed in the assembly. He told the committee the only change the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means made was on line 11 of page 1 and then increased the number of hours per year that an employee could donate. He stated in the estimation of SNEA the program has been working very well. He wanted to refresh the committee's memory so he stated under the catastrophic leave program a person may donate to another person or to a bank when an individual has used up all of their leave time and is in a life-threatening situation as is verified by a physician or they have experienced something that will require a lengthy convalescence. He told the committee the legislature provided by regulation the Department of Personnel would define that and they defined that as 10 weeks. He stated it is up to the agency whether they will allow an individual to use it and whether they will be eligible for this and that was put in the original law and remains, in an effort to have some control by the agencies.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier if all that has to happen is the legislature remove the sunset and allow the employees to give the information to the Department of Personnel and then the employee who is in need of it can receive it.
Mr. Gagnier stated that was correct. He pointed out on page 1, line 22 and 23 there is a provision which talks about the personnel commission which may adopt regulations to institute the new provisions of this law. He maintained the personnel commission still controls the plan through the regulatory process and they can adopt regulations.
Senator Lowden asked how well the system is working and how many individuals have benefitted from this.
Mr. Gagnier stated it is operating very well, but SNEA does not keep the statistics. He explained the stats are kept by the Department of Personnel.
Mitch Brust, Chief, Nevada Department of Personnel, spoke on A.B. 18. He stated in the last year there were 112 people throughout the state government who were able to take advantage of the catastrophic leave. He told the committee there were 545 employees who donated to those individuals.
Senator Lowden asked for some examples of catastrophic illnesses.
Mr. Brust stated cancer is one of the illnesses that is considered catastrophic.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED DO PASS A.B. 18.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 18 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 50.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 50: Urges adoption of policies to avoid takings by governmental entities.
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), spoke on S.C.R. 50. He told the committee the attorney general believes this bill is a reasonable compromise for the bills presented earlier and the problems associated with that legislation. He gave the committee written copies of his proposed amendments and went over them with the committee, see Exhibit C.
Senator Raggio stated at this stage they would like to avoid amendments if they are not necessary.
Mr. Hutchins suggested the committee put in the record:
The intent of this legislation is along the lines of this amendment and it is not only the intention of the legislation, but it actually does not create any kind of cause of action. Perhaps that would be appropriate.
Senator Raggio asked how this bill could do it if it is a concurrent resolution and does not affect the law. He stated he would prefer no amendments to bills if they do not have to at this stage. Senator Raggio stated for the record:
I think we can note in our record, Madame Chairman, enacting the resolution expresses the intent, it is a concurrent resolution and we urge the policies to be adopted. Obviously we understand this does not create a cause of action and certainly that should suffice. We can live with one grammatical error.
Chairman O'Connell asked if there was any opposition from the committee members in having the record reflect the intention of the amendment suggested by the Attorney General's Office. She noted there was none.
Senator Hickey noted for the record he would not be voting on this measure.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 50.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR NEVIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.C.R. 50 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 552.
SENATE BILL 552: Urges adoption of policies to avoid takings by governmental entities.
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained this bill to the committee. She explained she met with Senator Lowden, Senator O'Connell, Dale Erquiaga from the Secretary of State's office and Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State to go over some proposed amendments to Senate Bill (S.B.) 250.
SENATE BILL 250: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections.
She told the committee it became pretty clear to the committee that the petition's concept was quite convoluted and the secondary topic of fortifying the public's perception about the election process is also an area that needed some work, but it was the desire of the chairman to continue with S.B. 250 and come back to these two issues at a later time. She explained S.B. 552 is the outcome of those desires and in her estimation it does two things which are addressing the sections of S.B. 250 which were deleted prior to its passage and
adds what comes from a very long and complex discussion of the senator's intent regarding investigating any impropriety or fraudulent practices or any such perception of such things in the election process.
Chairman O'Connell stated for the record:
I think it would be good to state for the record that although the secretary of state has been given the responsibility for elections she has never been given any enforcement power. This was a very big concern especially after the election in Clark County where people did not have a source that they could make any complaints to except the election department itself and they were very concerned about that. So the focus of the first part of the bill was to put in place a commission which would have some authority for the public to make complaints to and they would be able to bypass the county in which the violations, or alleged violations took place. So this is something that is set up in order to allow the public access to somebody to review any perceived violations of an election.
Senator Hickey asked who would be the members of the commission.
Chairman O'Connell stated the commission would be appointed by the secretary of state.
Ms. Jenkins stated for the record that she works for the Legislative Counsel Bureau and as a result she is not here to support or oppose any measure, but simply to clarify any questions anyone may have. She also stated Mr. Erquiaga may be able to clarify some issues regarding the petitions. She explained the commission is a totally new concept that was developed.
Senator Hickey asked what this newly formed commission means as they view it.
Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Nevada Secretary of State, explained the commission that is proposed in S.B. 552 is a local commission which replaces an accuracy certification board that is in existence under current law.
Senator Hickey asked who has control of the accuracy certification board.
Mr. Erquiaga stated it is appointed by the county registrar or county clerk.
Mr. Erquiaga stated he wanted to speak specifically to the sections of S.B. 552 which deal with petitions, which was taken out of the election bill. He told the committee those sections were contained in the original bill proposed by the secretary of state for one reason. He explained in 1992 the Secretary of State's Office was sued by minor political parties and independent candidates for president seeking a place on the ballot.
Senator Hickey asked if that was the first time the Secretary of State's Office had been sued in an election.
Mr. Erquiaga answered no. He stated for the record that that suit was one of eight suits last year.
Senator Hickey stated it is a normal process to go under lawsuits and they will continue, no matter what is done in the law.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the point made in the suit in 1992, which was answered at the time only by preliminary injunction which is also important for the committee to realize, was that Nevada's statutory signature verification process provides too much time for the county clerks to verify the signatures. He stated what is allowed is approximately 65 days. He told the committee the way it works is the constitution in some instances or the law in other instances establishes a filing date for every petition including minor political parties, initiatives, referenda, major political parties and recall. He stated there is a date specified that the petition is filed. He explained the act of filing is the formal filing stamp and the document is then stored in the office. Mr. Erquiaga stated some years ago the legislature, in response to another lawsuit, established the signature verification process that allowed the clerks these 65 days. He explained they push then from filing back into the year 65 days for submission of a petition. He clarified they must differentiate between submission and filing, therefore they file in August which means they submit in June. He told the committee the federal court ruled on preliminary injunction last October 1, that made the submission date too early, not the filing dates, but the submission dates. He explained the court found good reason at a future date that it might at a later date find that the submission date was too early and thus unconstitutional for candidates for president, specifically. He told the committee that case is now at the point where the state and the parties to the suit are preparing motions for some rejudgement and they expect some final ruling perhaps as late as the fall. He stated since the legislature will not be in session when the judge renders his decision the Secretary of State's Office is asking that the 65 days be trimmed to 45 days which would give them a July submission date in most instances which, he states they feel is within the realm of other state's submission dates.
Mr. Erquiaga stated what the secretary of state is proposing in this bill is the time-frame be shortened. He explained there are three steps in signature verification; the first being the raw count for which they currently have 5 days; the second is a statistical sampling and currently they have 15 days; and the last is a total verification if the results of statistical sampling are unclear, which is 30 days. Mr. Erquiaga stated they suggest in this bill those be cut to 2 days, 7 days and 15 days respectively. He told the committee they feel it is reasonable to shorten this time down to something that would put Nevada in the realm of the other state's time-frames.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Erquiaga if his office had made contact with the counties dealing with the submission dates.
Mr. Erquiaga stated when the secretary of state wrote the original language she had met with the clerks and he emphasized the counties do not like it. He explained the counties would rather have 65 days so they can be meticulous in what they do, but there are times when more than one petition is submitted at a time, along with three initiatives, a referendum and then 1 month later there may be four minor parties trying to qualify.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Erquiaga why his office is comfortable at 45 days versus 65 days.
Mr. Erquiaga stated they feel by cutting the time in half they are reacting reasonably to the expected instruction to the state by the judge. He told the committee there is also an appeal process in this bill, because in recent years the petitions would be verified at the county level and the clerks make judgement calls when they do this.
Senator Hickey stated there have not been constitutional restrictions placed on the petitions.
Mr. Erquiaga stated S.B. 522 contains a measure in section 6 which requires the secretary of state to prepare an informational pamphlet describing the requirements for filing and circulating petitions. He explained the secretary of state already has the authority to prescribe the forms for those petitions, but not everyone currently has to follow that form. He stated that has not been addressed in this language because it was simply moved over from S.B. 250.
Senator Hickey stated the individuals who have talked to him regarding petitions told him some of the forms were not developed correctly. He suggested a form be developed by the government which could not be challenged, but that is not done here in this bill and he feels the legislators may be back here in 2 years dealing with this very issue because some individuals do not understand the petition or appeal process in dealing with these forms. He asked why this is not included in this bill.
Chairman O'Connell stated she would be amenable to address that language in an amendment.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the secretary of state tried to put into the law everything that is actually required either by court case or in the constitution. He explained what is proposed does not change the current rules, it simply puts all the rules in the statute so they are not subject to interpretation. He told the committee there is an appeal process in case something does go wrong and there would be a way to question the signature verification process and a ruling could be made or the process could be ordered to be done over. He added they are unable to do that with the current law.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the secretary of state has asked him to stress to the committee the sections of the bill that deal with enforcement. Her position since election has been if you assign her a job she will take it. He emphasized she is not asking the legislature to make her the enforcement office. He pointed out this is dramatic step which changes the scope of the Secretary of State's Office from ministerial to regulatory in the area of elections. He maintained she has regulatory authority in other areas so it is a logical step for that office, but she wanted it stressed she is not campaigning to be the office that investigates and regulates elections. Mr. Erquiaga stated the secretary of state agrees this needs to be done in some manner.
Senator Raggio stated he appreciates the statement that the secretary of state is not seeking this authority, but he feels it would be highly inappropriate for anyone other than the secretary of state to be given that function. He insisted somebody needs to be designated as the person in charge of elections and the secretary of state is perceived in that role by the entire population and has been there when the occasion arose. He maintained it is time the government specified that.
Mr. Erquiaga stressed it is the secretary of state's phone that rings when something goes wrong in an election. He emphasized it is a frustrating position to tell a constituent the secretary of state has no authority to do what the constituent wishes them to do. He pointed out there is nobody with that kind of authority, short of the constituent filing a criminal complaint in the district attorney's office.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Erquiaga how he envisions this working.
Mr. Erquiaga explained when there is a complaint with a petition the complaint will be taken directly to the secretary of state and give her the evidence.
Senator Hickey asked when this local commission comes into the picture.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the local commission deals with elections. He stated, for instance, when a group differs with the outcome, conduct or irregularity of an election separate from a petition.
Senator Callister asked which office is responsible for enforcing election laws in other states.
Ms. Jenkins stated it is federal law, in the motor-voter law, which requires the secretary of state be declared the chief elections officer.
Ms. Jenkins briefly reviewed the bill with the committee.
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc., supports S.B. 552. She stated on page 2, section 6, lines 26 through 29 it speaks only to local elections. She asked how this section would pertain to a multiple county campaign such as Senator Rhoads'.
Ms. Jenkins stated it is her understanding that investigation would be of the votes cast in that county and the secretary of state's investigation would then be reported to the county so the board of county commissioners could close that election down. She explained those votes would be forwarded to the statewide race.
Ms. Engleman asked if this would be handled county-by-county in that instance.
Ms. Jenkins stated it is her understanding each county would have its own commission.
Ms. Engleman stated she has a problem with recall petitions which is the lack of understanding by those wishing to execute such a petition on the number of signatures that are required. She explained that has been the crux of this and the way the constitution is written it speaks of the last general election. She pointed out if they have another recall petition such as they had in Reno or for a smaller entity, this bill reads the individuals must go out and get more signatures than it took to actually get the candidate elected to office and she feels this is a major problem. She suggested clarification of that issue.
Chairman O'Connell explained what they did when writing this bill was for the individual trying to collect the recall signatures to get the secretary of state to give them the certification of numbers that the registrar had given them and that would be the bottom line. She clarified the individuals with the complaint would go to the clerk and the figure given them is then certified by the secretary of state.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the problem has arisen where the county gives the individual a number and that is certified by the secretary of state, but the judge later determines that number is incorrect based on the constitution. He explained the problem is a separation of powers issue and the secretary of state cannot tell a district judge how to interpret the constitution. He pointed out the only recourse is to go to the supreme court and if they say it is wrong, it is still wrong.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Erquiaga if it is possible to specify which general election, in the bill, by date.
Mr. Erquiaga stated:
Thursday in the assembly elections and procedures committee there was a resolution that has been floating around dealing with amending the constitution to clarify this issue. The constitution, as Ande [Engleman] says, uses the term, "preceding general election" which means today, the [19] 92 election, even though, you, Senator Hickey, was elected in 1990...am I correct? But, to recall you we would currently use the [19] 92 election even though you were elected in 1990. If you were a municipal officer you were elected in June, but the constitution defines a general election as that election which falls in November. So that is the instance you are coming to. What they proposed on the assembly side...and I don't know where this will go...is to rewrite the constitution which will, of course, take two sessions and a vote of the people to clarify so that it says, "the general election at which the officer was elected" so if we are recalling the senator from Las Vegas it would be the [19] 90 election and if we were recalling the senator from Elko it would be the [19] 92 election. That is the way to clarify that. That is a process that takes some time.
Chairman O'Connell asked: "If we were to put that language in the bill, even though it does not exactly jive with the constitution right now, how...Do you think it would hold up in court?"
Mr. Erquiaga stated:
"Not exactly jive with the constitution" is not a term that our legal counsel will appreciate, I am sure. We would hold to the constitutional rule...until the constitution is amended.
Chairman O'Connell stated: "So there is nothing we can do further to clarify this...do you think? But, you say that has already been started?"
Mr. Erquiaga stated:
Perhaps...I think the legislative intent might put future district judges on notice. This is what we really meant when we did this in 1912 and when we amended the recall section in 1971, but...
Chairman O'Connell stated:
In our minutes, Tanya [Morrison, committee secretary], if this bill is acted on and this bill goes through, will you please make sure the intent of section 9, subsection 3 is what has been stated here? And we would use the language that Dale [Erquiaga] has just discussed with us.
Ms. Engleman stated her organization would support that clarification and they feel it is one of the most important points in allowing citizens to redress their government. She explained if they do not know what the rules are it is hard to comply by them. She told the committee her association is confused over the filing fees in section 19, page 7. She pointed out during the last session of the legislature the press association supported an omnibus ethics bill and they were challenged at the time to come up with a way to fund that ethics commission and a pamphlet they were asked to publicize. She told the committee she went back to her board and they gained support after 40 years, to raise the filing fees for office so it may fund the ethics commission. She stated during the last election there were letters to the editor by people criticizing the fact the filing fees had gone up so much even though they had not been raised since 1925. Ms. Engleman stated she wrote letters to the editor defending the action saying the purpose of it was, in fact, to fund the ethics commission. She told the committee she was surprised when she spoke with the chairman of the ethics commission, Spike Wilson, who stated that the commission did not receive any of that money. She explained they looked at the budget on the assembly side and they had dropped the funding after the press association had supported the raising of the filing fees, but they forgot to target that money to go to the ethics commission. Ms. Engleman stated that is why she is concerned that this money is now going to the Secretary of State's Office for the election department, but she added she thinks very highly of the secretary of state and even more highly of Dale Erquiaga and the elections department. She feels they have done a very good job, but she is caught in between, because she had committed to her people that this money was going to help fund the ethics commission and she is concerned there will be an ethics commission with no funding.
Chairman O'Connell asked if it had been clarified that the money is to be used to fund the ethics committee.
Ms. Engleman stated she would have to check with the money committees on this.
Ms. Engleman stated the last clarification they would like is section 21, subsection 5, lines 38 through 40, states it has always been a misdemeanor, but now it is a felony and she stated her attorney has some constitutional problems as far as prior restraint is concerned. She explained she knows this is intended to apply to the election workers who have access to this information and she does not feel the intent was originally to apply to the press who might receive this information.
Chairman O'Connell stated the committee would see if they can address these concerns.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, stated she likes section 6 and feels it is very good for the secretary of state to provide an information pamphlet describing the requirements for filing and circulating a petition. She suggested one thing which might be helpful would be to require individuals to submit the petition to the secretary of state for approval prior to circulating it so it would not be challenged later for the form. She drew attention to page 6, section 17, where it states the circulator of the petition is required to be a registered voter of that particular county. She told the committee there are a couple of problems with that, one of which is there may not be a person in that particular county who is willing to circulate the petition in that county. She explained the second problem is there are a lot of older teenagers who are not old enough to register to vote, but would like to become involved in the political process. Ms. Hansen stated on page 7, section 4, they feel it is important to clarify the minor details left off of the petitions do not disqualify a signature. She told the committee on page 8, line 45, it states an independent party must identify they are independent when running on a party ticket. She questions why an independent party would run on a party ticket.
Mr. Erquiaga stated this is existing law and he suggested the language be amended.
Carolyn Nelson, Concerned Citizen, told the committee the language could read, "a person may not file as an independent candidate if he is proposing to run as a candidate of any political party."
Ms. Hansen stated she is also concerned on page 6, line 37 where it states, "be submitted to the county clerk in the county in which it is circulated" and she suggests instead it say, "in which the signers of the petition reside." She explained that would eliminate the county requirement. She also suggested on line 41 where it states, "must be made in a district court in the county in which the signers of the petition reside" rather than where the petition was circulated. She pointed out the petition would be allowed to be circulated anywhere in the state if they happen to be getting signatures out of that county.
Senator Hickey asked if individuals should be outside their county collecting signatures on petitions.
Ms. Hansen stated it would impractical and probably would not happen. She suggested if it is a statewide petition, signatures could be collected statewide.
Chairman O'Connell stated this language would be addressed with some of the other language changes.
Ms. Nelson stated there are a couple of other sections in the bill which have the same language problems. She pointed out on page 8, section 20, line 25, it states, "the person who circulates the document must be a registered voter of that county" and she pointed out section 48 would also require language changes. She stated she would like to echo what has been said about having all the participants of registered voters able to participate in the election process and to allow the young people to help with petitions drives.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, stated the few concerns she has were addressed by some of the other speakers. She stated she did want to compliment the committee on their fine work on this bill and she feels a lot has been accomplished. She also wanted to commend the Secretary of State's Office.
James Dan, Lobbyist, Libertarian Party of Nevada, stated he only has a few complaints as most of them were addressed by the other speakers. He stated he feels the business of having to be a registered voter within the county for circulating a petition is unnecessary. He stated many petitions make use of paid petitions, even organizations whose only business is to circulate petitions around the country. He pointed out quite often the individuals circulating those petitions are brought in from out-of-state. He feels they need to loosen the restrictions to simply having the circulator be a registered voter somewhere in Nevada.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the requirement that a signer of the petition, sign the affidavit going with it, stating they circulated this petition is found in the Nevada Constitution for Initiatives and Referenda. He explained it is from that constitutional requirement in article 19 of the constitution. He pointed out the courts and previous secretaries of state have built that requirement into all other petitions and that is what this section of the bill is trying to do. He told the committee the rules are trying to standardize the rules and they are based on a constitutional requirement, so they have to change the constitution or have different rules for different petitions. He emphasized in the secretary of state's opinion it is better to be consistent on all forms of petitions and it must not conflict with the Nevada Constitution.
Mr. Dan stated on page 7, line 4, it states, "unless a greater penalty is provided by section 10 of this act, a person who alters or defaces a signature after it has been affixed to a petition by a registered voter is guilty of a misdemeanor." He explained in circulating petitions himself he has had signers immediately sign a petition just because it is handed to them, then when it is explained what they are signing they will scratch their name out. He asked who would get the blame for this, the petitioner or the person in the registrar's office.
Senator Hickey stated they would have to approach this type of problem very carefully and with a lot of reasoning.
Mr. Dan stated he is not sure section 5 of page 7 should be part of this bill.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the language is in the bill because a group may go out and collect 10,000 signatures and they need 9,000, but they go through and complete the county clerk's work for her by taking off the names of registered voters. He explained this way they stand a better chance of passing the statistical sampling portion of the signature verification. He emphasized it is the secretary of state's position that the petitioners should not be going back and changing those petitions even if they fail on statistical sampling.
Senator Hickey stated he is not sure he agrees with the Secretary of State's Office on this portion of the bill and he asked what the reason for it is.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the feeling is it gives the petitioner control over individual's rights to sign. He pointed out the constitution is clear in that only registered voters can sign to trigger an election. He explained this should be done by asking individuals before they sign if they are registered voters and if they are not they should not sign the petition. He told the committee the reason for this is nobody should be drawing out the names.
Mr. Dan stated he is more concerned with the voter drawing out his own name after realizing what he signed. He explained too often he has put a petition before an individual and they sign it before they read it and then the signer crosses his name out after discovering what he
signed. He told the committee he can prevent the county clerk scratching out a name by making a copy of every petition that is submitted. He stated he is more concerned with protecting himself as a petitioner when individuals scratch out their names.
Chairman O'Connell asked if it would help if the individual who scratched out his name would initial that along with the petitioner.
Marlene Henderson, Registrar, Washoe County, told the committee to refer back to section 7, when they submit the petition, they have the number of documents and the number of signatures that are good, so she feels there is no way the clerks could mark out the lines.
Mr. Dan stated he is not at all concerned with the county clerk, he emphasized he is trying to protect himself in the event the signer crosses his name out.
Chairman O'Connell suggested they add in that case if both the signer and the petitioner initial that area.
Mr. Dan stated that would help if the individual stays around long enough to initial.
Mr. Erquiaga stated that section of the bill is not that important to the overall bill and he feels they can delete the requirement.
Ms. Jenkins stated section 10 states, "a person who willfully attempts to alter the signatures on a petition is guilty of a felony." She told the committee she is not an attorney, but that seems clear that an individual who signs a petition and changes his mind is not attempting to alter the outcome, just simply get rid of his signature. She stated the misdemeanor would be a deterrent in the case Mr. Dan brought forward. She feels it is highly unlikely somebody will do a criminal prosecution for crossing out someone's name on a petition, but it would be enough of a deterrent so an individual may not do that.
Mr. Dan stated they are missing the point. He told the committee he does not like laws that are not going to be enforced.
Chairman O'Connell stated since this subject was covered in sections 7 and 10 of this bill, they will delete this section.
Mr. Dan stated section 40 states, "unless a greater penalty is provided by section 10 of this act, a person that registers as a voter in more than one county at a time is guilty of a misdemeanor." He explained the way individuals move so frequently and with no mechanism for removing your registration from the old county an individual who moves will be technically guilty of a misdemeanor. He pointed out with the motor-voter act at the federal level where the purging is not done as often, a person could be accountable for breaking this law. He suggested they devise a procedure whereby an individual moving from one county to another can cancel his registration.
Mr. Erquiaga stated when a voter registers in a new county there is a space on the form which asks where they were previously registered and a copy of that application or affidavit is forwarded to the original county and they delete it from their records. He stated the voter has not committed a crime by moving.
Mr. Dan continued with section 43 on page 16 where it talks about selecting candidates for the elections commission. He explained the provision here is each party provides the name of three individuals and the county clerk selects one from each political party. He asked if the county clerk has complete discretion in selecting the one.
Ms. Jenkins stated the three individuals on that list do not need to even be members of the party. She explained they simply put forward three names.
Mr. Dan stated perhaps the commission should be composed of nonpartisan people that all of the political parties agree upon and not members of the party themselves.
Mr. Erquiaga told the committee they had asked about the constitution and how it relates to counties with regard to residency and petitions. He explained what he found was the state does not have a requirement that petitions be signed only be registered voters of a particular county and then submitted to that clerk. He stated the constitution assumes an individual can have a document and carry it around the state, because at the time the constitution was written these documents came directly to the secretary of state who simply counted the signatures and did not verify. Mr. Erquiaga told the committee the verification process was added and at the time it was added the legislature added the requirement through intent, not statute, that only registered voters of a county sign the petition that is in that county. He explained what the constitution requires is that each signer shall affix thereto his or her signature, residence and address and the name of the county in which he or she is a registered voter. He continued stating the document shall have affixed thereto an affidavit made by one of the signers of such document to the effect all signatures of each individual signer was at the time of signing a registered voter in the county of his or her residence. He explained that assumes if an individual signs the petition they are a registered voter in the county in which an individual signed, because the legislature has stated the petitioner submits the petition to the county clerk, but he stated this could be changed.
Ms. Henderson told the committee she does not support section 4. She stated in the past elections she has hired data processors from the private sector and she does not ask what party they are. She further explained she sends out invitations to the political parties, news media and whoever wanted to come and sit in and watch to see if she is doing her job correctly. She told the committee she would not mind if the parties are allowed to recommend individuals to help with the election as long as they recommend somebody with a data processing background who would know whether or not the job is being done correctly on election night.
Chairman O'Connell stated that was a point she questioned when they were considering this provision in the bill a few months prior. She told Ms. Henderson the information given to the committee by the county clerks and from the legislature's computer professional led her to believe they did not need anybody with technical ability to do that job.
Ms. Jenkins told Ms. Henderson that computer professional was Fred Dugger who is the chief of the information systems for the Legislative Counsel Bureau. She explained Chairman O'Connell had asked Mr. Dugger for his input regarding all of the mechanical voting systems used in the elections. She stated he is not a county clerk, but his response from reading of the statutory responsibility of the certification board would be they would watch the tests that are run by the clerks. She told the committee these tests consist of 100 cards, 25 votes punched for candidates a, b, c and d and they are thrown into the input, they go through the machine and there would be a tally which would give the total votes for each candidate. She explained it does not take a computer expert to see that, but that was Mr. Dugger's story that Chairman O'Connell accepted. Ms. Jenkins stated if the process is different from what Mr. Dugger stated, Chairman O'Connell needs to hear that.
Chairman O'Connell explained that is why she went to the individuals she felt would have a concern over the fairness of the election process, since the committee was told the technical information was not that critical.
Ms. Henderson stated she has an accuracy certification board member at the repunch table, one sitting where the ballots come into the room to make sure the header card can be read and make sure it is the right prepunches that go through the machine. She added she has at times one of the certification board members run the card reader and at other times she has a regular employee of the data processing center she has hired for that night to do the cards and the certification member stands and looks over his shoulder. She told the committee it is true when they do the 1,000 card test they do 250, 250, 250 and 250, but they do another test which tests the equipment.
Senator Hickey asked what kinds of irregularities the commission will be reporting and what kinds of expertise will they need to do the job.
Ms. Henderson stated at the table she has a member of the certification board, her assistant and another member from the data processing board. She explained when the computer prints out after 100 individuals have voted and the election board member comes to her and states they only had 99 votes cast, they will have to find the missing ballot. She stated she basically needs someone who can add and subtract, understand the format of an election and how to read an official ballot statement with a computer printout of the cards from the tabulation card reader.
Senator Hickey suggested the committee have the county clerks give them a job description and then formulate a job description requirement prior to filling that commission.
Chairman O'Connell agreed that is a good idea and the committee should add that to this bill.
Ms. Henderson stated the time given to contest an election or to report a discrepancy is very limited.
Mr. Erquiaga stated the time period is tight, but any type of contest of irregularity or recount following a primary runs them close to the print time.
Chairman O'Connell stated what Mr. Erquiaga is trying to say is the clerks are already working with that short time-frame without this bill.
Ms. Henderson had several other questions which were addressed and answered for her by the committee members and staff as well as Mr. Erquiaga.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 21, 1993
Page 1