Carson City (Wednesday), May 7, 1997

Senate called to order at 11:18 a.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Roll called.
All present.

Prayer by the Reverend David Ditolla.
Lord, this morning we want to acknowledge that You are the pathway to peace. God, as we have walked in here from a world that is so noisy and so often filled with confusion, we pray that Your peace would fill us this morning. Quiet our hearts as we assemble to do this work. It's in Your Name that we pray.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

William R. O'Donnell,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 6, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 28, 164, 173, 191.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 357, 367.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bill No. 297.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Senator Rawson moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.

Senate in recess at 11:31 a.m.

At 11:37.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Quorum present.

Senator O'Connell moved that Senate Bill No. 215 be taken from the Secretary's desk and placed on the General File.
Remarks by Senator O'Connell.
Motion carried.

By Senator Rawson:
Senate Bill No. 365--An Act relating to taxation; increasing and providing for the adjustment of the assistance for property taxes provided to certain owners and renters of residential property; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 366--An Act relating to motor vehicles; eliminating the requirement that the department of motor vehicles and public safety collect fines for certain traffic violations before renewing the registration of a motor vehicle; prohibiting the department from renewing the registration of a motor vehicle if the registered owner of the motor vehicle has not provided a receipt to the department indicating that the fines for certain traffic violations have been paid; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By Senators Wiener, Townsend, Titus, Adler, Jacobsen, Mathews, O'Donnell, Porter, Rawson, Regan, Schneider and Shaffer:
Senate Bill No. 367--An Act relating to hazardous substances; prohibiting the use under certain circumstances of any substance or material that contains a diisocyanate in the maintenance or repair of a building owned or operated by a school district, a private school or the University and Community College System of Nevada; requiring the division of environmental protection of the state department of conservation and natural resources to prepare and distribute an informational pamphlet concerning diisocyanates; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Wiener moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 368--An Act relating to contractors; requiring a contractor to file a bond or establish a deposit with the state contractors' board in certain circumstances to cover payroll expenses; requiring the labor commissioner to notify the board after the filing of three substantiated claims for wages against a contractor within a 2-year period; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 369--An Act relating to the state contractors' board; revising provisions governing the fees charged by the board; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 370--An Act relating to real estate licensure; excluding certain persons from the definition of a real estate broker; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 371--An Act relating to employment; expressly authorizing an employer to establish a program for testing employees and applicants for employment for abuse of certain substances; providing standards for that testing; providing a discount from premiums for industrial insurance for establishing such a program; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 372--An Act relating to industrial insurance; requiring, under certain circumstances, the manager of the state industrial insurance system to apply to a newly formed corporation that was previously owned by one person the rating based on experience which was applied to that business before it was incorporated; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 373--An Act relating to the building trades; requiring prompt payment for work performed and materials furnished for certain persons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 374--An Act relating to taxation; clarifying the provisions governing representation of the Nevada tax commission in legal actions or proceedings; authorizing the Nevada tax commission to contract for independent counsel for certain actions or proceedings; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 375--An Act relating to taxation; clarifying the authority of the Nevada tax commission; revising certain provisions of the taxpayers' bill of rights; reducing the rate of interest required for amounts paid pursuant to an extension of the time for paying granted by the department of taxation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 376--An Act relating to fees; increasing the fee for a marriage license to support certain legal aid for indigent persons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 377--An Act relating to crimes; increasing the penalty for the crime of aggravated stalking; providing for mandatory protective orders for victims of certain crimes relating to stalking; increasing the penalty for the violation of certain protective orders; providing for mandatory periods of imprisonment for certain crimes relating to stalking or domestic violence; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 297.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 357.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 367.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

"An Act relating to public offices; revising provisions governing the filling of vacancies in certain county and township offices; requiring that a notice be posted at the polling place if a candidate for public office dies within a certain period before a general election or general city election; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

"Summary--Revises provisions governing vacancies in public offices. (BDR 20-602)".

Senate Bill No. 263.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 290.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 308.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Government Affairs:
Amendment No. 283.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 3 and 4 and inserting:
"1. All invoices or other notices issued by a local government to collect an account receivable must state that if the debtor wishes to pay by check or other negotiable instrument, such negotiable instrument must name as payee:".
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 7 through 9 and inserting:
"collection of such accounts.
In no event may the invoice or other notice state that a check or other negotiable instrument may name a natural person as payee.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, a local government may deposit into the appropriate account a check or other negotiable instrument which it determines is intended as payment for an account receivable.".
Amend section 1, page 1, line 10, by deleting "2." and inserting "3.".
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

"An Act relating to local governmental administration; requiring a local government to specify the permissible payees that debtors of the local government may name on a check or other negotiable instrument intended as payment to the local government; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

"Summary--Requires local government to specify permissible payees that debtor may name on check intended as payment to local government.".

Assembly Bill No.122.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Government Affairs:
Amendment No. 210.
Amend section 1, page 2, by deleting line 6 and inserting:
"2. [No agency] A regulation, rule, final order or decision of."
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 13, by deleting "and micrographics".
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 32, by deleting "and micrographics".
Senator Titus moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Titus.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator O'Connell:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I think all of the remarks that could possibly have been made on Amendment No. 295 to S.B. 215 were made yesterday. However, I want to answer the concern voiced by the Senate Minority Leader yesterday. We currently have a bill in the Government Affairs Committee that we will be reviewing in the meeting to be held this afternoon. This bill, S.B. 214, deals with the Ethics Committee. In that hearing, We hope to address many of the concerns that were brought up on the floor yesterday.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. When we had this amendment before us yesterday, my position was then, as it is now, to be opposed to the amendment.
I can recall, in reading the history of this country when Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1789, he was asked what form of government had been created. His answer was a republic, if we can keep it; a republic form of government. Meaning, of course, that the representatives who serve in that type of government must be elected by the people. I would submit to this body today that such a type of government is under attack because we have allowed the entering of this process of character assassination of candidates, creating positions that are adverse to others in order to elevate ourselves. It is a threat to that representative democracy.
We no longer have campaigns that address the issues of our day, but instead address personalities; that address who has not done certain things. We no longer have campaigns that address the issues, but campaigns that look to the polls to see who is leading. Then, we go against those individuals with a concerted attack to try to tear them down. The amendment presented here is an amendment used to weaken a bill which came out the committee with a unanimous vote. Somehow, once the bill reached the floor of the Senate, it lost that unanimity and we now want to water it down by putting its management under the Ethics Commission for them to enforce Sections 15 and 16 of the original measure. This commission has only one person as a staff member. We want to put this on their shoulders for them to make a determination as to whether or not a person has been libeled or a falsehood has been told against that particular individual. We want to remove it from a court of law and where an individual who feels he has been libeled can seek a redress that will have standing among the citizens of this state. We want to water this down and not do the right thing which is to try to correct the process which has seemingly gone haywire. We do not want to say to the public that our campaigning process is wrong and that it does not address the issues as they should be addressed. This amendment says it is all right for a candidate to lie, for a candidate to campaign on the basis of the personality of another rather than the issues that affect this particular state. I would think that the latter would be more important to the citizens of the State of Nevada when we can honestly stand up and talk about what is needed for the state rather than the personality of the person who is running against us. Somehow, we feel that is not necessary.
The people have cried out time and time again through their percentages of casting their votes, which seems to be less and less. They have cried out time and time again for some type of reform that would address negative campaigning, but once we have a bill before this house we are saying that we cannot do that even though we claim ourselves to be representatives of the people of this state. Who are we representing here? For those of us who like to be elected on the basis of personality, should that be the measure on which we run our campaign? I think not! For instance, look at the election that was held in one of our largest counties just yesterday. There were only 16 and 22 percent of the people turning out to vote in that election because of negative campaign practices. I submit to this body that it would be more appropriate to send a strong message as in the original bill that gained a unanimous vote in the Government Affairs Committee rather than to attempt to water it down and put it under a Commission which does not have the staff to properly carry out these functions.
You can add to the bill that you pay $10,000 and triple damage or what have you, but if you don't have the people to carry our those provisions, then what have you done? Nothing! But, if you have a measure by which I feel that I have been libeled during a campaign that I can take it before a court of law and have resolution of that conflict. I think that is the better process than what we are attempting to do with this amendment. I said it yesterday and I will say it again that if you want negative campaign practices to continue, then you want Amendment No. 295 to be adopted. That is what you are saying to the people of the State of Nevada; that you want negative campaign practices to continue and you do not want to send a strong measure by which a person who commits a felony if he decides to campaign on personality and lies about an individual rather than campaigning on the issues. If you want negative campaign practices to continue, then you want this amendment to be adopted. But, in good conscience, Mr. President pro Tempore, I cannot support it nor will not support the bill. I think that the citizens of the State of Nevada deserve more. They need to know that if they can claim this legislature as their own, they need to know that we had a measure before this house that would have given them the opportunity once and for all to eliminate negative campaign practices and we did not take the opportunity to do it. They will feel that we would much rather water it down and continue to let the same old thing happen.
I happen to think that serving in this body is an honorable profession. I have been in the Legislature for over twenty-five years. Personally, I have never talked about an opponent. I did not, would not because I felt that if the people wanted me and I told them the truth, if I made a promise and carried it out, then the people would re-elect me to office. They have done that time and time again. Yet, we still have those who would exploit the process and demean it to the point where the citizens of this state no longer want to participate in the voting process. It is sad that we would have this amendment. It is sad that we would vote to adopt the amendment and not send to the people the necessary law that would address their concern and increase their interest in the process of election. Those of you who feel a need to try to protect this constitutional democracy, I want you to understand that this amendment would not do that. If you have a need to protect this constitutional democracy which in the past has sent troops to the far-flung lands of the world to tell the story about our government and how it should be run, yet on the other hand we propose an amendment that does not believe in that. We are proposing an amendment that says that we can continue to campaign as usual. We are proposing an amendment that will go to an agency that does not have the manpower to carry out even the minor mandates that might be found in this amendment.
I happen to think that this constitutional democracy is important, even though there was a period in the history of this country where I was left out of it. I know that if we do not have a representative government where people can appeal to that government through their elective representatives and have them to come and serve, then we have lost that which we hold so dear in this democracy. The representative phase of our government in in jeopardy and we can no longer claim to be that republic of which Benjamin Franklin spoke. If you allow negative campaign practices to continue, then you are saying in essence that this is what we want; this is what our system represents and this is how we elect our representatives.
I was sitting in the Senate Lounge the other day watching the British elections on television. I heard the announcer speak about how the British have adopted the bad experiences of American elections. It is not represented in this amendment that we are going to change these practices. I hope we understand what we are doing here. Even though the original bill contained stiff penalties, I happen to think those penalties are needed. If we don't start here, when and where will we start to try to correct this process? This is where it is supposed to start, here in this body with these good men and women of conscience who can see the threat and understand what jeopardizes the function of this government. This is what we are talking about. It is not a game of who wins or who loses. In the long run, the people have indicated to us that they are losing. They are indicating that by the small percentage of voters going to the polls that they no longer have respect for the electoral process. I happen to think that this body has an obligation to try to correct that lack of respect. This body has an obligation to say to the people that we can move, change laws and try to change attitudes as to how they think about these campaign practices. This is what it is all about. It is not about vanity. It is not about who wins or who loses. It is about protecting this democracy and the electoral process. We need once again to get the people involved in the process.
I would hate to be rated next to used car salesman. That is what they tell us we are in terms of political representatives on the scales of professions and vocations; we come in last next to the used car salesmen. I say it is time that we try to elevate our status and again arise to the noble cause of representing the interests of the people and getting them more involved in the process.
I am sorry to say, Mr. President pro Tempore, that this amendment does not carry us in that direction. As a result, I will not vote for this amendment. If it is included in the bill, I will not vote for it either because I think it is time that someone said something about this particular process. It is about time that the people note that someone in this house would stand up and say that this is the wrong way to go and that we want to get more people involved by eliminating the negative campaign process. This amendment does not do that.
Senator Titus:
Thank you Mr. President pro Tempore. I also strongly oppose Amendment No. 295. Not only is it a rich man's license to lie, as pointed out by the Senator from North Las Vegas, but it also dilutes the original bill by sending infractions not to our state's election officer, the Secretary of State, but rather to the Ethics Commission. Turning this important responsibility over to the Ethics Commission is inappropriate for several important reasons. First, all of the state's election law, which is contained in NRS 294, is under the Secretary of State's Office. The Ethics Commission has no current jurisdiction over this area of law. Singling out two small provisions of that chapter to give to the Ethics Commission, sends a message that negative campaigning is somehow less important, less significant, and less a priority than campaign finance. I think that is a mistake.
Another reason that I believe it is inappropriate is that the Secretary of State has the expertise needed to enforce this statute. That office enforces all the current disclosure laws and has even conducted two elections itself: the Mineral County Clerk's recall election and the Washoe Presidential Primary election. That office has also been invited to monitor international elections. Certainly, no one is more aware of the expertise of that office than the members of the Government Affairs Committee. We have had to rely very heavily on that office, especially on Mr. Dale Erquiaga, throughout this session as we worked on S.B. 215. We know expertise is available from that office.
Third, in additional to their expertise, the Secretary of State's Office has the resources needed to enforce this statute. They already conduct investigations of various kinds and can take on this responsibility without additional cost to the taxpayer. As has been pointed out, the Ethics Commission, on the other hand, has only one employee and certainly cannot enforce this statute. In fact, when asked yesterday how they planned to enforce it, they responded that they did not have a clue since this was the first time they had heard of it.
Fourth, the Ethics Commission is appointed. There is no accountability over their decisions. The Secretary of State, however, is elected. If he or she makes an inappropriate decision, one that may be too politicized, he can be held accountable by the voters. For that reason the likelihood that there will be strict enforcement and more equitable decisions is greatly enhanced by having the Secretary of State assume this responsibility rather than the Ethics Commission.
Finally, I oppose this amendment because I think it is a ruse and a thinly veiled attempt to clabber up this very important campaign finance bill. It is an attempt to add something that will be unacceptable to the other house.

Senator Raggio:
Mr. President pro Tempore. I rise to a point of order. We have tolerated attacks on motive. That is precluded by the rules under which we operate. No comment is permissible from a Senator in any way addressed to potential motive of anybody who makes an amendment. I have tolerated it long enough. That is not in order to in any way question the motives of any member of the Senate.

President pro Tempore Jacobsen:
The order is well put. Senator Titus you may continue.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I have finished.

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I find it interesting to be speaking after the two prior speakers because the first opposes the amendment because he wants to leave in the provision which makes it a crime to speak a libel in a campaign. The second opposes the amendment not because that speaker wanted to take that portion out; she does agree with that. But, she does believe that the Secretary of State's Office should enforce this libel provision as opposed to the Ethics Commission.
I want to speak to the comments made by the first speaker, if I may Mr. President pro Tempore, the Senator from North Las Vegas and the arguments that he raised regarding this amendment. It is amazing to me that anyone can invoke Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers of this country to support the provisions we seek to take out of this bill. Those provisions being that it is now a felony crime to utter a falsehood during a campaign. I sympathize to a great degree with what the Senator said about how negative campaigns have negatively affected politics in this state and this country. I sympathize to a great degree with what the Senator said about the need to elevate the political process, political debate and political campaigns above the mud and muck in which they currently reside. But, do we do that by prosecuting people who are running for office so that they must bail out, go to a criminal trial before they finish their campaign. In the past, there have been many bad things that have happened in this country. But, when they regard the right to participate in the political process and the freedom of speech, every time this country or congress or legislators have tried to cure that through the criminal process, it has failed. We have had examples in the past with the Alien and Sedition Acts, with the whole thing about McCarthyism, but when we went through a process which turned into a witch hunt it did not help this country. It weakened it. Here, in the Bill of Rights, of which I asked for a copy, the very first right in the Bill of Rights enshrined by our Founding Fathers is the freedom of speech. The reason that the freedom of speech is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights is because it is the most important. The Senator is concerned about the future of our democracy. The future of our democracy depends upon free and open debate. It depends upon the ability to come up and be able to point out that there may be something wrong with the voting record, the integrity, the ability, the skills of someone who is serving in office or someone they are running against. We cannot do anything which will chill that process. That would be wrong. Should someone be able to make a blatant lie about someone else - no! But, through the 200 or so odd years of the history of this country, and before that as our common law was developed, we developed this law of libel and slander. This law of libel and slander was very carefully crafted, in this country, so as not to infringe on freedom of speech. If you are talking about a public official, we have a case called New York Times vs. Sullivan which said that a public official cannot sue for libel or slander unless he shows that the speaker had actual malice. Why do we have that high standard in the laws? Why is it so difficult for someone to prove, if they are in public office, that they have been libeled or slandered. Because the courts and the constitution do not want to take any chance at all of having a chilling effect on the free and open debate of ideas. How do you think any candidate in an aggressive campaign, or in a very hotly debated campaign, is going to feel about the potential of a felony crime? This is not a damages suit. This is not something which might be settled in civil courts. . This is Category D felony. This is one which requires you to be sent to prison. Don't you think that is going to have a chilling effect on someone in a campaign. I am not encouraging someone to lie. I am not saying that people should be going out in campaigns uttering falsehoods about other people, or even doing the kind of negative things that has muddied up the process. The question here for this body is simply this: is it appropriate to make this a felony? And, is making it a felony going to chill our political process in this state? The answer to the first question is that it is not appropriate to make it a felony and, if we do, it will absolutely chill the political process. That frankly is why this Senator raised this issue when this bill first came up on general file. I had a chance to look at it and to deliberate on it and decided that this is wrong. We can't do this. So, what did we do? There is a problem with negative campaigning. It is unethical. It is a wrong thing to do. It is really wrong if you can engage in this type of campaigning, destroy someone in the polls and be elected to office. All the recourse the person libeled has is some subsequent remedy in the courts somewhere down the road. We came up with a good way in which to handle this. It does it quickly, brings this to the fore and lets the people judge after an opinion has been made as to whether or not there has been a falsehood uttered in the campaign. That is what this process is set forth in this amendment. You receive a quick hearing before the Ethics Commission which is already charged with ruling upon the ethics, the responsibility and the compliance with the campaign and election laws of the people within this very body and all those who are running for office in this state. The Ethics Commission already has that job. They can have that job augmented by looking at these kinds of questions which are raised in the context of campaigns. And, it does not take away the right of someone to go through the courts and participate in that process as well.
The point was made that the Ethics Commission is appointed. Well, so are juries appointed. If we should move this function to the Secretary of State's Office because the Secretary of State is the person who is charged with dealing with elections. The Secretary of State does handle ministerial violations of the election laws, but does not conduct the kind of hearings contemplated here. I suppose you have to ask yourself what happens if it is the campaign of the Secretary of State in which this question arises.
I agree, Mr. President pro Tempore, that the people are crying out for change in the political process. But, we are not going to help this process by engrafting into the law something which is going to render the process subject at every point to the threat of criminal prosecution. The district attorneys and the Attorney General, all of whom are also elected, are going to feel like they must pursue these cases and bring charges in the case of a political campaign. It is completely inappropriate. The debate rises to a high level in this very chamber on occasion, but we would never do anything which would chill the right of any person to stand on this floor and speak by threat of being persecuted criminally. We should not do that in the case of a political campaign either. I find it also amazing that the support of this bill as written without the amendment comes from those who are so articulate and who use the freedom of speech to press points from a minority position and to convince some of us sometimes that they are right. They should be the first to stand up and say that we should not do anything here that is going to chill the right of the minority voice. I tell you what is going to happen if we enact this measure without the amendment, if you are involved in a campaign, you had better review with a criminal defense attorney who deals with libel and slander cases, everything single thing you place in a brochure, every statement you are going to make in debate. To heck with seat of the pants statements, ad hoc debates and off-the-cuff kinds of debates that might crop up in a campaign. You will not be able to do that anymore.
We need to pass this amendment and bring reason back into this process. Penalize people who lie and fall below the standards in a campaign, but, for goodness sakes, let's not try to do something like throwing people in prison because of a muddy campaign.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore and members of the Senate. After listening to the remarks of the young Senator from Clark County and his citation of the case of New York Vs. Sullivan, he made mention of the fact that they talked about actual malice in order to prove libel. Actual malice is one of the statements you will find in the original bill. One of the things that case also said is that truth is the best defense against libel. As I understand the gist of the young Senator's remarks is that George Washington should have lied when he cut down the cherry tree, but he didn't. That became a standard for every young person who attended elementary school, at least in my day, that you should not lie. You should tell the truth. This is what we are asking for here today. We are asking that we should have a campaign with truth, not of lies, but of truth. I think this is what the bill was attempting to address, but the amendment would now take that away and continue to allow a lesser standard to control the lying in campaigning. That is all that it does. If we believe in the Father of this Country and the cherry tree incident, then that should become the standard of our campaigning. Truth!

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I think we have pretty much beat this horse to death, but something additional should be said. I want to compliment all of the speakers. They have stated their positions and have done so because they believe in these positions. But, I think there are a few points we need to emphasize. First of all, the Government Affairs Committee did process this bill with a unanimous vote. That included the provisions stated in Sections 15 and 16 of the bill that deal with untruthful statements and negative campaigning. Section 16 is the one that deals with efforts to impeach someone's election.
I would re-emphasize that my experience in campaigning is that constituents have expressed great concern over negative campaigning than they have even about the disclosure element. The committee unanimously supported the principle in this bill that we should include as an integral part of campaign reform some disincentive that would apply to negative campaigning and dirty tricks. I would agree with the senior Senator from North Las Vegas that we should have that type of disincentive. I was satisfied with the criminal penalties, but legislation is an art of compromise and I was persuaded that it was a matter of concern. I think the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has eloquently stated what many felt was a concern. This amendment does not water down anything. It sends out a strong message that says we no longer are going to be inactive and do nothing to dissuade this type of negative compaigning. Yesterday, one of the Senators referenced the judicial campaigns. I guess that reference was appropriate because, for too many elections, those campaigns have resorted to this type of campaign practices. That is not assigning blame to any particular person or persons. Our present system accommodates exactly what has happened. So, for the first time we are affirmatively attempting to provide a strong disincentive to those who will resort to those kinds of tactics.
Let's talk first about the Ethics Commission. It is not a perfect system, but, as I said before, neither is the jury system. The Ethics Commission doesn't deserve the kind of remarks that have been directed toward it. It has been developed over a good many years and has served us well. Some of us have had complaints filed against us. We have been annoyed but, no matter what, that process works The Ethics Commission has a good record. Under former Senator Spike Wilson, and the present members, it has done a good job. Concern was expressed that it only has one staff member. That is a little bit inaccurate since the present budget under consideration that has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee adds money for investigative purposes. Let me say that, if that is the concern, the Senate Finance Committee will re-open that budget, ask the Ethics Commission what if anything is necessary to meet this concern, and will provide the funding for that purpose. This is too important an issue not to provide the funding.
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in answer to the concern expressed by the distinguished Minority Leader, has also answered properly and accurately her suggestion that this be given to the office of the Secretary of State to make these kinds of determinations. While that may be appropriate under the present responsibilities he has for determining whether or not someone did not perform an act, did not file a return on a timely basis, or did not put something in a report that should have been there, those are ministerial acts. The Secretary of State is not the proper person to hold these kinds of hearings. These kinds of hearings should be performed by the Ethics Commission or, if we had a special commission for this purpose, which we don't, but it should not be done by a political office holder. As the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee indicated, what happens if the complaint is made in the campaign of the Secretary of State? Does he then put on another hat and sit and determine whether or not that occurs? Certainly not!
Let's not beat this to death because we do not like it. It is the best suggestion we can come up with in answering the concerns of everyone and still send out a strong message that we will do something about it. We will provide a remedy that does not now exist. Today, if this occurs, you can go down and file a libel suit and that can be delayed for months and years. This amendment will at least provide a means for someone to request an immediate opinion from the Ethics Commission whether someone has lied about his campaign or his person. The details are in the amendment. It will also provide an immediate and timely response from the Ethics Commission. Under this amendment, the Ethics Commission must give this type of request a priority and then an opinion must be rendered within three days. The determination after notice can be done quickly as to whether someone has lied about someone or their campaign. This is an effort to strengthen the bill and to provide complete campaign reform to the extent that we are able. I hope you will support this amendment and that we can get this campaign reform bill out of this house and over to the Assembly.
Senators Rhoads, O'Connell and Townsend moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the adoption of Amendment No. 295 to Senate Bill No. 215.
Senators Neal, Coffin and Titus requested a roll call on Senator O'Connells motion.
Roll Call on Senator O'Connells motion:
Yeas--12.
Nays--Adler, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener--9.
The motion having received a majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it carried.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 131.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 131.
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 131 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 167.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Townsend, O'Donnell, James and Neal.
Senator O'Donnell requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I have concern about this bill. I have no love for these individuals who are perform deceptive trade practices. I have a lot of respect for the Attorney General's office, but this bill allows that office to issue a subpoena without filing a complaint. Any business in the State of Nevada that is adjudicated, not by a court action but by someone in the Attorney General's office who feels as though there might be an infraction has the right to do a subpoena. I am concerned about the over reaching authority that the Attorney General might have in this instance. We have a lot of freedoms in this country, and it seems like we are chipping them away, one at a time. Again, I do not have a love for the people who perform deceptive trade practices, but there is a system in place that we must adhere to. If we don't, if we start overstepping those bounds and chipping away at our freedoms, we are going to do ourselves a disservice.

Senator O'Donnell: (2^nd time)
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I would just point out that on line 18, page 3 of the bill, it allows the Attorney General to get injunctive relief, to get equitable relief, but what about the person who is wrongfully accused? What about the person who has been subpoenaed, required to bring in his records, required to go out and get an attorney, required to represent himself before an Attorney General and it is found that this is a big mistake and is told they are sorry, no problem. At that point, there is no redress for someone who has been falsely accused. I would say here, see page 3, line 1, that if the Attorney General has reason to believe and puts that in writing, then subpoenas the individual, at least the person has something to go back on to the court and say that they were wrongfully accused, set up and subpoenaed and that they want redress. That is not contained in this bill.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 167.
Yeas--19.
Nays--James, O'Donnell--2.
Senate Bill No. 167 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 264.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 264:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 264 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senator Raggio moved that Assembly Bills Nos. 32, 102, 134, 159, 201, 231, 261, 328 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 29
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by Senators Augustine and Washington.
Amendment No. 307.
Amend sec. 3, page 1, line 13, before "approval " by inserting "written".
Amend sec. 4, page 1, line 18, by deleting:
"an oral or" and inserting "a".
Amend sec. 13, page 2, line 40, by deleting:
"an oral or" and inserting "a".
Amend sec. 13, page 2, lines 42 and 43, by deleting "orally or".
Amend sec. 17, page 4, line 23, by deleting "or" and inserting "and ".
Amend sec. 17, page 4, line 24, by deleting:
"an oral or" and inserting "a".
Amend sec. 21, page 5, line 28, by deleting "or euthanasia;" and inserting:
", euthanasia or assisted suicide;".
Senator Augustine moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Augustine, Coffin, Rawson and James.
Amendment Adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 66.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 224.
Amend section 1, page 2, between lines 13 and 14, by inserting:
"(c) A statement which informs the applicant that, pursuant to NRS 485.185, he is legally required to maintain insurance during the period in which the motor vehicle is registered.".
Senator O'Donnell moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Bill No. 66.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered enrolled.

On request of Senator McGinness, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Martha Bellisle.

On request of Senator Mathews, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following students from the Nate Mack Elementary School: Danielle Bradley, Nicholas Bortolin, Ashley Bruce, Brandon Connelly, Cole Cosgrove, Ryan Foley, Kristen Frigon, Bo Gifford, Steven Good, Nathan Hamilton, Christian Headrick, Ryan Heroy, Jonathan Howard, Matthew Jay, Timothy Klunk, Jimmy Lee, Alexandria Lessard, Nicole Martin, Andrew Page, Billy Pritchett, Devon Richards, Brent Schill, Adrianna Semrau, Andre Skaropoulos, Michael Voss, Sheena Walton, David Wiggins, Christopher Zuniga and Nichole Sharp-Hernandez; chaperones:Cathy Jay, Jane Pritchett, Steve Walton, Stacy Heroy, Jeanne Cosgrove, Robin Foley, Sherry Gifford, Connie Martin, Dan Bradley, Maria Fleming, Christine Page, Michelle Risden, Loris Zuniga, Sheri Bruce and Candace Bortolin; teacher, Eugene Fife, Jr.

On request of Senator Rawson, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Rick James and Ron James who are pipers with the Sierra Highlanders Pipe Band who played the following selections: Skye Boat Song from Scotland the Brave, Willie Davey from Kelsey's Wee Reel and Bonnie Dundee from Cock of the North.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, May 8, 1997 at 10 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 1:27 p.m.

Approved:

Lawrence E. Jacobsen

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate