The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 5:00 p.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1999. Chairman Bob Price presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bob Price, Chairman

Mr. Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Price opened the meeting with a few remarks to the committee. The meeting on A.J.R. 6 was teleconferenced to Grant Sawyer office building in Las Vegas.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, representing Assembly District 6, provided the committee with documentation on different states’ procedures on the loss and restoration of voting rights (Exhibit C). The report showed the rights felons lost upon conviction and the process used for a restoration of those rights by state. Mr. Williams stated it was not his intent to be soft on crime or decriminalize any felony that had previously occurred. He emphasized an ex-felon was a rehabilitated person. Mr. Williams felt inconsistency between states had the potential to shut out entire populations from the voting process. Disenfranchisement laws discouraged felons from returning to society as productive citizens. The fact that continuity did not apply between states made the situation more difficult. Mr. Williams gave an example of student discipline. He said after a student had served the penalty for disobedience, the student was returned his rights as a student in the classroom and the school. Mr. Williams clarified he did not advocate an automatic return of voting rights. Most states required completion of probation or parole before voting rights could be restored. Mr. Williams commented on voting rights in the constitution, rather than in statute.

Mr. Brower asked if there were a statutory procedures in place to restore civil rights to felons.

Mr. Williams answered such a procedure was in place, and pointed to a letter he had distributed to the committee from the Board of Pardons (Exhibit D). Mr. Williams read from the letter to the committee. The letter, authored by Executive Secretary Susan J. McCurdy, said an informal "rule of thumb" had been established by the board requiring 10 years to pass after release from prison, parole, or probation before a felon could apply for a pardon. The letter also indicated a felon could receive a restoration of civil rights by petitioning the Division of Parole and Probation. Neither the Board of Prisons nor the Division of Parole and Probation could pardon a federal felon or a felon convicted in another state. He said the board was no longer using the letter, but was continuing to promulgate the informal "rule of thumb" for granting voting rights. Mr. Williams understood only two people had been granted their rights back through that process. He asserted the program was perceived to be too cumbersome to potential applicants.

Ms. Leslie asked if the restoration of rights would be automatic under the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Williams affirmed the restoration of rights under the resolution would be automatic but conceded a more appropriate method would be after parole and probation were completed, perhaps including good behavior. Mr. Williams suggested the committee specify guidelines for restoration of rights.

Ms. Leslie commented she would be interested in hearing testimony on other states’ voting rights for felons.

Mr. Williams reiterated it was not his intention to decriminalize what the felon had done, and if a person had committed a crime society deemed too horrible, that person should still be incarcerated.

Chairman Price asked about line 16 of the bill. He wanted to know why language had been included specifying those who may be incarcerated had rights under this law. The Chair suggested Legislative Counsel Bureau staff may be able to answer why the language had been written in such a way.

Ms. Von Tobel asked how many felons had applied for a restoration of voting rights. She commented the letter handed out by Mr. Williams was an embarrassment to the state and wondered why anyone would want to circulate it.

Mr. Williams replied that information would be provided by further testimony. He also found the letter interesting, especially since it was printed on state letterhead. Mr. Williams suggested someone from the Division of Parole and Probation might be available at the hearing to testify.

John Martinson, a private citizen from Reno, was an ex-felon. He was opposed to the Korean Conflict and went to prison for failure to submit to induction. Mr. Martinson stated he wanted the right to vote back, which would allow him to serve on citizens advisory boards or commissions. Mr. Martinson presented a letter from the attorney general to the Clark County District Attorney, Stewart Bell (Exhibit E). The letter stated the Division of Parole and Probation could only restore the rights of those felons convicted in Nevada. It also said felons convicted in Nevada may have their voting rights restored under current Nevada law by petitioning the Division of Parole and Probation. The division then processed the restoration through district court. If the division refused to submit the petition to district court, the ex-felon could go directly to the district court for a restoration. Federal felons may only have their rights restored by presidential pardon. Additionally, statutory language authorized the Board of Pardons and Nevada district courts to restore the rights for Nevada felons. It was Mr. Martinson’s understanding that voting rights were a state issue—not a federal issue. Mr. Martinson felt the legislature should be able to give Nevada residents their right to vote.

Ms. Leslie asked if Mr. Martinson had ever attempted to get his rights back in Nevada.

Mr. Martinson replied he had not attempted to do so in an official manner, but he had inquired about the procedure to various state officials.

Mr. Mortenson asked if Mr. Martinson had explored any federal remedies to his dilemma.

Mr. Martinson replied he had gone to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to seek forms for a presidential pardon. He said he had mixed feelings about the presidential pardon. His problem with the selective service form was a religious freedom issue. Mr. Martinson stated the religious questions on the selective service form were removed after another person had sued and won in the United States Supreme Court. He did not want to admit guilt or ask for forgiveness in order to receive a pardon.

Richard Siegel, Vice President of the American Civil Liberties Union, presented a report from the Sentencing Project entitled "Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (Exhibit F). The report was publicized approximately 1 year ago. The lengthy document included an overview of all states’ disenfranchisement laws and an examination of the impact of felony voting disenfranchisement. Mr. Siegel agreed with Mr. Williams, passage of the resolution in no way undercut the tough approach Nevada had toward crime. He felt it was an issue involving democratic rights. Nevada was 1 of 10 states that permanently deprived people of their right to vote over a single felony. The most fundamental and elemental civil right Americans possessed was the right to vote. According to the Sentencing Project, at least 16,800 Nevadans did not have the right to vote. Mr. Siegel contended the report was inaccurate because it only included the people who were involved in the criminal justice system in prison, parole, or probation. Ex-felons were not included in that number. Mr. Siegel indicated Nevada ranked fifth in the country in incarceration rates. He approximated 25 percent of black males in Nevada did not have the right to vote. He also asserted one-quarter of the people not voting in elections were not voting due to loss of voting rights by a felony conviction. Mr. Siegel referred to the letter from Stewart Bell, presented by Mr. Martinson (Exhibit E). That letter was the most comprehensive and official statement of the State of Nevada’s policy on voting rights. Additionally, Mr. Siegel submitted an article from the October 23, 1998, issue of Corrections Digest entitled "The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (Exhibit G). That article summarized information provided in the Sentencing Project’s report (Exhibit D).

Mr. Mortenson asked if the statistic Mr. Siegel reported on incarceration rates was accurate, because he had been informed Nevada had the highest incarceration rate in the country.

Mr. Siegel responded studies showed Nevada ranking anywhere between first in the nation to ninth highest in incarceration. He opined the state was currently somewhere in the middle of those figures.

Ms. Leslie asked what the American Civil Liberties Union’s official position was on the resolution.

Mr. Siegel replied the American Civil Liberties Union nationally and statewide supported the measure and had made it a priority issue. It was clearly the most important civil rights issue today. Especially in Nevada, where incarceration rates were so high, the impact of disenfranchisement was severe. Mr. Siegel discussed the harassment of young black males by the police and the resulting high number of felony convictions and loss of voting rights. He acknowledged the crime rate was somewhat higher in the black population as well.

Mr. Brower stated there was a procedure in place to restore voting rights to felons presently, and he wanted to clarify his understanding of that procedure. He asked Mr. Siegel if he had studied those procedures and had any empirical data on the procedures.

Mr. Siegel responded he had not studied the procedure in detail. He said very few people attempted to use the process. He also suggested the process was extremely difficult and cumbersome.

Mr. Brower again asked if Mr. Siegel had any statistics to present on the success of those applications whatsoever.

Mr. Siegel stated he did not have that information.

Chairman Price indicated the information may be available to the committee soon from a state agency.

Danny Thompson, Political Director of the Nevada American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), gave a brief description of his job responsibilities in that post. He stated part of his job was to motivate voters. Mr. Thompson said he was amazed at the number of people who were not even registered to vote. He found the most interested and dedicated people to those motivational campaigns were ex-felons. The idea of punishment was to change someone’s behavior, and once that behavior had changed the punishment should end. But in Nevada, punishment did not end after completion of a sentence. Mr. Thompson agreed with previous testimony the resolution was not soft on crime. He reiterated punishment was completed once the sentence had been served, and the goal of a change in behavior had been achieved. Mr. Thompson was asked to serve on a parole and probation committee designed to help integrate ex-felons back into the workforce. The committee helped ex-felons get good jobs and make a decent living after prison. He opined it would be difficult to answer Mr. Brower’s previous question, because most of those who attempted restoration of their right to vote were given the letter from the Board of Pardons discouraging them from going through with the process. He also felt statistical information on the number of applicants would be skewed only because of the existence of that letter.

Mr. Gustavson asked if other states had always given felons their right to vote back after completion of the sentence, or if the reinstatement of rights had been a recent development.

Mr. Thompson answered he did not know when other states’ statutes had been passed or amended.

Ms. Leslie asked if Mr. Thompson saw a problem in educating the public on the new law, by explaining the difference between a voting rights issue and a crime issue.

Mr. Thompson said most people understood after punishment was given and a criminal paid his debt to society, voting rights should be restored. He stated most unions already supported the bill, as did the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Brower asked about the letter from the Board of Pardons and the difference between the restoration of civil rights and a pardon. It was Mr. Brower’s understanding the two were different. He wondered if anyone with whom Mr. Thompson had worked had applied for restoration of their civil rights, if not a pardon.

Mr. Thompson replied most people were trying to get a job to support themselves once out of prison. The restoration of civil rights required a lawyer and money, which were not available to felons. One reason Mr. Thompson stated was embarrassment. After those ex-felons had been released and were leading new, normal lives, they did not want to have the issue arise.

Mr. Brower asked if the AFL-CIO had tried to assist any felons with those legal fees.

Mr. Thompson responded the union had attempted to help a couple of people.

Mr. Anderson said the "rule of thumb" was a common law theory, in reference to the letter from the Board of Pardons (Exhibit D).

Naeem Hasan had lived in Las Vegas for the past 7 years, having moved there from Detriot, Michigan. Mr. Hasan asserted Nevada had the second highest incarceration rate in the world, second only to South Africa. He said he had to register with the Las Vegas Police Department within 45 days of moving there, because he was an ex-felon. He had been convicted of the felony 20 years prior to moving to Nevada. Mr. Hasan said his voting rights were taken from him when he moved to Nevada, because in Michigan felons did not lose the right to vote. He was angered because he felt he had redeemed himself. Mr. Hasan had served in the military, putting his life on the line for the right to vote. He was told by Nevada he did not have the right to vote, although he had paid his debt to society. Mr. Hasan said the State of Nevada had taken away his basic rights as a citizen of the United States. He said the relationship between the State of Nevada and the country of South Africa under apartheid was very close. Mr. Hasan said he was not incarcerated in Nevada and reiterated he had paid his debt to society and was entitled to basic rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. He was a law-abiding citizen who was still paying for a crime committed 20 years ago. Mr. Hasan was told by the Division of Parole and Probation to write to Michigan to ask for a restoration of rights, but he had never lost his rights in Michigan. He said the Division of Parole and Probation did not know how to handle the law already on the books and passed the buck to other agencies.

Franklin Simpson did not identify himself for the record. He submitted written testimony for the committee to consider (Exhibit H). In his written testimony, Mr. Simpson discussed the United States Constitution and how it protected citizens from government abuses. He said Americans struggled to find a balance between the protections afforded by government and a fear of the government’s interference. Mr. Simpson had worked for Congressman Bilbray of Nevada and assisted Mr. Bilbray on the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Small Business as a staff member. In the last 4 years, Mr. Simpson had been involved in a Justice Department program offering children an opportunity to stay away from criminal behavior. He recognized Ms. Von Tobel’s comment regarding the letter from the Board of Pardons and the embarrassment of the state because of it. He asked the committee how long the debate would be open and what would be the next appropriate step. He stated petitions were being circulated in the greater Las Vegas area to gather support for the amendment and find out who was opposed to it and why. Mr. Simpson urged the committee to give the measure due consideration and allow public input.

Chairman Price responded to the questions presented by Mr. Simpson. He said the legislature was under a time constraint due to the 120 day session. He expressed his desire to move as quickly as possible. Chairman Price said he did not expect further testimony to be heard after that evening. The Chair stated all exhibits from the teleconference to Las Vegas would be included in the record for that meeting. He suggested the committee would be giving due consideration to the arguments made during the meeting. Chairman Price said the resolution would have to be processed by the full body by April 19, 1999.

Rich Houts, Secretary-Treasurer of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, stated the construction industry employed a large percentage of the ex-felons because there were few background checks. The council fully supported a resolution to restore rights to ex-felons.

Reverend Bonnie Polley, Pastor of the Episcopal Church and board member of the Las Vegas Interfaith Council for Worker Justice, stated the council was in support of the resolution. She listed several members of the clergy who served on the council and were in support of the bill as well. She read from a prepared statement: "In scripture in the second Corinthians we read the penalty on which the general meeting has agreed has met the offense well enough. Something very different is called for now. You must forgive the offender and put heart into him. The man’s distress must not be so severe as to overwhelm him. As religious leaders of congregations in Clark County, and neighbors of the Las Vegas Interfaith Council for Worker Justice, we support restoring voter rights to felons, who have had completed the terms of their sentence. Nevada law makes it difficult if not impossible for former felons to participate in society as voting members of the community. God demonstrated his love for the disenfranchised and the powerless throughout the scriptures, notably in the book of Exodus. His prophets continue to remind us of that love throughout scripture. In American society today, we know that people without a vote are truly without a voice. Yet we hear in our own community the faint cries for justice from those who are disenfranchised. It is our responsibility as religious leaders to add our voices to theirs. We recognize that scripture teaches us that individuals must accept responsibility for their actions and that society must act to protect its members. We ask, however, does the punishment ever end? In our experience the answer is no. We minister regularly to individuals who have completed their sentence and have become contributing taxpaying members of our society in all respects save one. The right to vote. We also take note that the policy of permanently disenfranchising former felons originated as a southern strategy to disenfranchise African Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War. While the motivation may be different today, the effects are the same. We cannot support a law that originates in racism, disproportionately reduces minority participation in our political process, and punishes people indefinitely. God calls all of us in many different ways and under many different circumstances to forgive one another. Restoring voting rights to former felons is a logical conclusion to all our shared values on forgiveness."

Spencer Barrett, pastor of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in North Las Vegas and Co-chairman of the Interfaith Council for Worker Justice, stated many of the people in his congregation had family members who were ex-felons. Many of them were young adults, with families and jobs, who attended church on a regular basis. Those people did not have the right to vote. They were represented in terms of dollars, because of taxation, but did not have a voice as to how those dollars should be spent. Mr. Barrett was involved in voter registration drives, and during those drives he discovered many in his congregation were ex-felons who did not have the right to vote.

B. J. Thomas, a member of the A. Phillip Randolph Institute, stated he and the institute were in support of the resolution. Mr. Thomas clarified although he was a union member, the institute was not an extension of the AFL-CIO union.

Joe Malone, President of the A. Phillip Randolph Institute, President of the Carpenter’s Local Union 971, and Ombudsman of the Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, gave his support to the resolution.

Anthony Wilson, a private citizen, voiced his support for the resolution. Mr. Wilson was released from prison 5 years ago and finished his parole soon after. He felt ex-felons should have their voting rights restored after their sentence had been completed. Mr. Wilson was a father of two children, whom he raised with no assistance. He also started his own business. Mr. Wilson felt he had paid his debt to society.

Mr. Anderson asked if Assemblyman Williams could return to the hearing. He asked Mr. Williams if an amendment would be acceptable on page 2, line 1, which read: "lawfully released from incarceration for that offense, or." Mr. Anderson suggested some language which specified all obligations of incarceration and restitution must be completed in order to have voting rights restored. That would strengthen the law and overcome potential problems.

Mr. Williams responded the amendment clarified the intent of the resolution and eliminated the question of what would be required of a former felon to have voting rights restored. He agreed with the amendment.

Mr. Mortenson asked about the aspect of treason, and wanted to know if Mr. Williams thought persons who had committed treason in their youth might have their voting rights restored.

Mr. Williams replied the issue deserved a debate. However, he was attempting to deal with felons only at that time.

Chairman Price explained the process needed for the resolution to become law. The resolution must pass out of committee, then pass the Assembly. The resolution would be sent to the Senate where the process would be duplicated. If passed by the Senate, the resolution would return to the legislature for deliberation in the next legislative session, which would be in the year 2001. The resolution would follow the same process, with the exception no amendments or changes could be made to the resolution. If the resolution passed both houses again in 2001, it would be put on the ballot and sent to the people. He stated the process was long.

Jan Gilbert, lobbyist for the League of Women Voters and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, urged the committee to support the resolution with the changes proposed by Mr. Anderson.

Benjamin Blinn, a private citizen, was a 50 year resident of Nevada and an ex-felon. He was a school teacher. Mr. Blinn said anyone who was governed by law and paid taxes had the right to representation under the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, further defined by the reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. He said felons had a lifetime parole because their sentences were never completed under Nevada law. Mr. Blinn stated several biblical characters, such as Moses, Joseph, David, and Paul, had committed crimes against God but received atonement. Any penalty extending beyond the time of incarceration was an enhancement of the punishment prescribed by Nevada Revised Statute. Mr. Blinn said NRS 213.090 was the statute which gave a felon the right to petition for restoration of civil rights, after 5 years. Mr. Blinn did not understand why the Board of Pardons nor the Division of Parole and Probation could not advise him on the course of action needed to achieve a restoration of rights. He said ex-felons were governed without representation. He suggested crimes be defined and disenfranchisement be graduated for different felonies. Mr. Blinn stated some crimes were felonies in Nevada and only misdemeanors in other states. He reiterated the State of Nevada incarcerated more people than other states. He also said the letter he received from the Board of Pardons was discouraging. Mr. Blinn opined the persons serving on the parole board were "into punishment."

Chairman Price advised Mr. Blinn it was not in his best interest to criticize the members of the parole board.

Mr. Blinn said at least 50,000 people had been incarcerated since 1975 in Nevada and they were all disenfranchised. He said the Board of Pardons had not issued enough pardons. He also said it was difficult to receive a pardon because it required a lawyer’s service.

Patricia Brown, council member of the Marble Manor Resident Council, said many female residents of the property she represented were ex-felons. Ms. Brown submitted a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit I). The ex-felons did not know it was possible to have civil rights restored, including the right to vote. She felt it was very important for all citizens to have the right to choose and therefore the right to vote. Ex-felons who had served their sentences and moved back into society should be given back their right to vote. Until voting rights were restored, they were only partial citizens who had a tendency to revert back to a life of crime. Ms. Brown submitted a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit I).

Liz Carrasco, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, stated she and her organization fully supported the resolution. Every voice in Nevada needed to have a vote. Voting was the most important part of a democratic system.

Michael Douglas, Clark County District Court Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, said he was a judge in criminal cases and was also a sentencing judge. Mr. Douglas said financial constraints in the Division of Parole and Probation prohibited the division from processing pardons. On a daily basis, he was contacted by people unable to get work cards. He said most people who successfully complete parole did not receive their voting rights back, even though they were advised they would be able to do so.

Gary Peck, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said there was broad based support for the resolution. He believed the disenfranchisement of ex-felons was not morally defensible. He urged the committee members to look forward and noted Nevada was only 1 of 10 states that disenfranchised ex-felons. Mr. Peck reiterated his organization’s support for the resolution.

Elgin Simpson, Executive Director of the Nevada Supreme Court’s Task Force on Racial, Economic, and Gender Bias in the criminal justice system had participated in several community meetings on the issue of voting rights. He said young people he with whom he worked in a minority community had never voted, because they lost their voting rights as juveniles. He urged the committee to support the resolution.

Janine Hansen, President of Nevada Families Eagle Forum, said she was very sympathetic to the issue. Ms. Hansen stated government tyranny was a critical issue in society. She suggested the process necessary to pass the resolution may not be the best avenue for voting rights restoration. Ms. Hansen pointed out the long and tedious process required for passage of a constitutional amendment. She said Mr. Anderson’s advice amending the resolution to specify restoration of rights after completion of parole and restitution was a great idea. Additionally, Ms. Hansen suggested an amendment may be desirable to take repeat offenders out of the process. She was opposed to the resolution, as drafted, because it designated a restoration of rights immediately after release from prison. Ms. Hansen felt rights should be restored on an individual basis with evaluation on each individual’s merit, using a clear, consistent, and fair procedure. She said a change in the process may be a better way to go about restoring civil rights than a constitutional amendment, because it would be faster and more discretionary. Ms. Hansen said the current process demonstrated a clear abuse of bureaucracy. The Board of Pardons and Division of Parole and Probation needed clear direction from the legislature to ensure restoration of civil rights occurred in a timely, fair, and consistent manner. A letter of intent or statute may garner more support for the changes and would not be as time consuming. She said abuses by government and bureaucracy took place, not only against minorities but against juveniles and other groups in society.

Lucille Lusk, founder of Nevada Concerned Citizens, said her organization was concerned about the resolution because of the stipulation voting rights would be restored automatically upon release from prison. She said the principle underlying the existing law required a felon to show his improvement by functioning in society for a certain period of time, not reverting to criminal behavior. That would earn the felon the restoration of his civil rights. Ms. Lusk recognized a wide range of acts were categorized as felonies. She suggested the waiting period required for a restoration of rights should be graduated. Additionally, Ms. Lusk felt a case by case review was necessary. She said many felons had demonstrated their ability to function in society according to the law and deserved to have their rights restored. She agreed the process currently in place needed to be reviewed and changed to make it less cumbersome. The seriousness of the original offense and the current behavior of the felon should be the most important factors in evaluation. She also agreed the problem could be solved more quickly by addressing the current procedure with statute, rather than amending the constitution.

Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation, clarified the process currently in place for restoration of civil rights. He said the resolution before the committee dealt specifically with a restoration of the right to vote, not a pardon. Six months after an offender was honorably discharged from probation, he could petition to the department for a restoration of his civil rights. The ex-felon was directed by statute to write a letter to the division, requesting restoration. The division investigated the background of the applicant, and checked to see if he had committed any new violations. If no new violations had been found, paperwork was filed with the district court requesting a restoration of civil rights. He said the process was very simple. The same process existed for parolees, except the ex-felon must apply to the Parole and Pardons Board. If the parole board did not grant the restoration of civil rights, the ex-felon could request consideration from the Board of Pardons. The letter distributed to the committee (Exhibit D) was from that board. If the parolee was granted the restoration of civil rights, the rights would be automatically restored at the end of his parole. If an offender was released from prison and not put on parole, he must wait 5 years before he could apply to the Division of Parole and Probation for a restoration of civil rights. Again, if the division found the ex-felon did not have any further violations, paperwork was filed with the district court to have civil rights restored. Mr. Concha cited NRS 213.57 and 213.155 as specifying the waiting period. He said the restoration process was available to those who had been put on probation, paroled, or incarcerated. Mr. Concha stated either the district court or the pardons board could be used to circumvent the Division of Parole and Probation in the process.

Mr. Brower said the testimony provided by Mr. Concha clarified the process. He asked what procedure a felon who was convicted in another state would need to follow to have his civil rights restored.

Mr. Concha replied statute did not allow the department to grant restoration of civil rights to an individual convicted outside of Nevada. Therefore, federal felons or felons convicted in other states had to go through the appropriate channels for restoration. He acknowledged Mr. Hasan’s situation, noting his rights were never lost under Michigan state law. Mr. Concha did not have any suggestions for that circumstance. He recommended Mr. Hasan contact Michigan to see what the state could do to help.

Chairman Price said he understood Mr. Hasan did not have a problem in Michigan, only in Nevada. Mr. Price realized the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation could only operate under Nevada law.

Mr. Mortenson asked about the author of the letter given to the committee (Exhibit D).

Mr. Concha stated the letter was written by the Board of Pardons, which was not affiliated with his agency, the Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Concha said he could attempt to have Mr. Blinn’s rights restored in the process earlier described under NRS 213.155.

Mr. Mortenson said the letter should have been proofread before being distributed to the public.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. Concha if he could provide statistics detailing how many ex-felons had applied to have their civil rights restored, and how many were in-fact entitled to a restoration of those rights.

Mr. Concha said statistics would be provided by the Board of Pardons, who grant the restoration. He said since 1990, the Board of Pardons had granted approximately 150 restorations and pardons. Mr. Concha did not have the information for the Department of Parole and Probation. He speculated the majority of those released from probation received honorable discharges and were eligible for restoration. He did not know how many people had actually applied. Mr. Concha said juveniles were less likely to petition. He said it was dependent on the individual.

Chairman Price said he had the figures furnished by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The report indicated in 1997, 39 cases were considered for restoration, and 1 was continued. Seventeen cases were denied, and 21 were granted. In 1996, 22 cases were considered, 1 was still being continued;

6 were denied, and 16 were granted.

Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Concha what he thought the problem was. She wondered if the released felons did not understand the process.

Mr. Concha responded the biggest problem was informing the public. The felons coming out of prison needed to be informed, as well as parolees and those released from probation. Mr. Concha said those people were not advised of their right to petition for a restoration of civil rights when released, or the time period required. He said the division could improve the process by making it known to offenders.

Chairman Price indicated he was prepared to accept a motion on the resolution.

Mr. Anderson stated the amendment would be place on line 1 of page 2, indicating all obligations of incarceration and restitution be completed before the restoration of voting rights would occur. He said the purpose of the amendment would be to demonstrate the requirement of parole and probation had been fulfilled and any restitution or other payment to victims of crime had already been satisfied.

Ms. Von Tobel commented the people benefiting most from the resolution would not be able to vote on it if it came before the public as a ballot question.

Mr. Brower said he intended to vote against the motion. He stated the current process needed to be reformed, by making potential applicants aware of the process and making it fair, timely, and simple. He said public leaders should take responsibility and assist constituents with the process.

Ms. Leslie encouraged Mr. Concha to make changes to the system, since it would take 5 years for the resolution to become law. She felt it was unfortunate it took the suggestion of a constitutional amendment before the problem was brought to light.

Mr. Gustavson asked if rights would be automatically restored after the conditions outlined by Mr. Anderson were met. He said if that were the case, he would oppose the resolution because he did not believe automatic restoration was the best course of action.

Chairman Price stated he would be voting in favor of the resolution. He agreed with Ms. Hansen and Ms. Lusk, and said the problem may be better addressed statutorily.

Mr. Anderson asked the Chair to draft a letter of intent of the committee to the office of parole and probation to amend their forms to make their parolees more knowledgeable of the process available to them in that regard. He acknowledged Mr. Brower and Ms. Leslie’s concerns about the resolution. Mr. Anderson said when members had bills drafted they were often unconstitutional. The letter would need to be drafted so as not to cross that constitutional barrier.

Chairman Price agreed to work with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Anderson to draft such a letter.

Mr. Mortenson asked if there was a difference between a pardon and restoration of civil rights.

Mr. Concha replied a pardon washed away the crime. A restoration of civil rights simply gave the ex-felon back the right to vote, or the right to avoid registration as a convicted felon. It also gave him the right to withhold the felony conviction from a potential employer.

The meeting of the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

DATE: