Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman

Mr. Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. David Humke

Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst

Julie Whitacre, Committee Secretary

Kelly Gregory, Committee Secretary

Heather Collins, Personal Secretary to the Chairman

Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County

David Horton, Attorney at Law, Committee to Restore the Constitution

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Families Eagle Forum

Francis Gilling, Member, Independent American Party of Nevada

John Sande, Attorney at Law, Nevada Bankers Association

M.K. (Ike) Yokum, Member, Independent American Party

Lucille Lusk, Founder, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Sheila Wood, Member, Nevada Christian Coalition

Chairman Price went over the Standing Rules for the Committee on Constitutional Amendments for the Seventieth Session of the Nevada Legislature (Exhibit C). The committee suggested the following changes: the committee would be made up of 7 members, not 11; a minimum of 4 members, not 6, would constitute a quorum; and a two-thirds majority would be 5, not 8.

Chairman Price made opening remarks welcoming the committee members and gave a brief introduction regarding the purpose of the committee. He stated one of the reasons for the inception of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments was to address the problem of unconstitutional measures passed by the legislature. In addition, the committee would utilize the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to investigate the intent of the framers of the state constitution in hearing those bills.

Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst, gave a presentation entitled "Committee Brief: Constitutional Amendments, 1999 Legislature" (Exhibit D). The brief included background information on constitutional amendment committees in other states. He then referred to four measures approved for the first time in the Sixty-ninth Session which required another vote during the Seventieth Session to change the constitution. Those bills would now be referred to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, rather than the committee of origin. Mr. Erickson stated there were several pending Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) which would also be referred to the committee.

Assemblyman Humke stated the resolution was drafted just as he had requested. It was kept broad because Mr. Gammick had very strong feelings to impart on the resolution.

Mr. Gammick said the reason the resolution should be narrowed down was because of issues with the Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizure. State and Federal Law both stated searches were illegal without a warrant. There had been exceptions to the law handed down by the United States Supreme Court. Some rulings handed down by the Nevada Supreme Court had conflicted with or granted more rights to individuals than the rulings given by the United States Supreme Court. That proved to be difficult on police officers within Nevada. Many times, evidence obtained by a police officer was suppressed. Although it might have been obtained legally according to the United States Supreme Court, the Nevada Supreme Court would rule it was done illegally. Mr. Gammick used several examples of searches done by police officers found to be illegal by the court. In addition, he pointed out the inconsistency in the Nevada Supreme Court’s rulings on the issue of search and seizure.

Chairman Price asked Mr. Gammick to clarify the statement "law of the land" he had used several times during the testimony to refer to decisions of the Supreme Court. The Chair was concerned about states’ rights issues. Mr. Gammick clarified he was referring to "the law of the land" as decisions made by the United States Supreme Court in reference to the United States Constitution. Search and seizure was never allowed without probable cause.

Mr. Brower asked if the state constitution had an amendment or section similar to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. Gammick replied the Nevada Constitution mirrored the U.S. Constitution in that respect, but the Nevada Supreme Court had a right to interpret the state constitution in any way. Ms. Leslie asked if there was a set process to address the conflict between the decisions within the system. Mr. Gammick stated there was no appeal process. The only option would be for the Nevada Supreme Court to hear another case and then decide the case by referring to their earlier ruling or decide to overturn.

Mr. Mortenson asked if there was an option to not follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the basis of states’ rights. Mr. Gammick answered the state courts could not take away rights granted by the United States Supreme Court, but could extend those rights. The extension of rights was the result of the cases decided by state Supreme Courts. Requiring a search warrant in those cases was actually an extension of a citizen’s rights. Mr. Gammick suggested a subcommittee might be able to investigate a resolution in the future.

David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, read from prepared text (Exhibit E). Mr. Horton was speaking in opposition to the bill. He read a quote from President Abraham Lincoln regarding decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Horton argued Supreme Court decisions were never intended to make the law, only to apply to the singular case it decided. Additionally, he read a quote from Chief Justice Warren E. Burger supporting that argument. Mr. Horton urged the committee to look for a legislative, rather than judiciary, solution to the problem of search and seizure.

Ms. Janine Hansen of the Nevada Families Eagle Forum quoted Herbert Titus (Exhibit F) as saying, "this is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The courts of the state are obliged to uphold the Constitution, not to decide in accordance with what the Supreme Court has said." She read from prepared text (Exhibit G). The memorandum opined the Constitution was the law of the land; not the decision of the courts. Ms. Hansen quoted Amendments IX and X of the United States Constitution and Article 3 of the Nevada State Constitution. She asked the committee oppose the resolution. There were no questions from the committee.

Francis Gillings from the Independent American Party of Nevada stated he did not think the Nevada Supreme Court should follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court.

Assemblyman Goldwater gave a presentation (Exhibit H) about repealing the constitutional rule against perpetuities. He pointed out to the committee statutory change in the law regarding perpetuities could not be changed without a constitutional change. Mr. Goldwater discussed his background in financial planning and interest in drafting the resolution, which he thought would attract investors to "domicile" their assets in Nevada. The constitutional provision against perpetuities made estate planning and some other kinds of investments unattractive. His presentation gave a brief history of perpetuities, the basic functions of trusts and estate planning, a review of perpetuity laws in other states, concerns regarding repeal of the rule against perpetuities, and the advantages of adopting a resolution to end perpetuities.

Ms. Leslie asked how Mr. Goldwater planned to inform the public and explain the concept of perpetuities to the average voter, noting the resolution would go to the voters after being passed twice by the legislature. Mr. Goldwater replied he would seek help from Mr. Erickson and the committee that drafted the summaries for ballot questions to assist him in making the question very simple and easy to understand for the voters.

John Sande, representing the Nevada Bankers Association, stated the current rule in the constitution was difficult to understand. Many people did not realize it existed. Repealing it would allow the legislature the flexibility to decide whether there should be a rule as to when something should vest.

Mr. Gustavson then asked Mr. Goldwater to clarify whether expired trusts could be rolled over into a new trust. Mr. Goldwater replied after the trust had been vested, it would be up to the individual to create a new trust.

In returning to A.J.R. 3, Mr. Yokum voiced his opposition to the measure. He did not add any testimony.

Lucille Lusk, lobbyist for Nevada Concerned Citizens, read from prepared text (Exhibit I). Ms. Lusk gave some background information on her organization. The position of Nevada Concerned Citizens was to oppose the resolution. She made comments with respect to Mr. Gammick’s testimony, stating police officers should be the best informed in our society regarding the law. Also, she stated the resolution would limit the additional protection given to Nevada citizens by its Supreme Court. Ms. Von Tobel commented Yucca Mountain was a perfect example of why it would not be in Nevada’s best interest to mandate compliance with United States Supreme Court decisions.

A quorum was not present to take action. The meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

DATE: