The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 4:47 p.m., on Thursday, May 6, 1999. Chairman Robert E. Price presided in Room 3161 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. Robert E. Price, Chairman

Mr. Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Sheila Leslie

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O’Connell, Senate District 5

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O’Connell, representing district 5, introduced the bill to the committee as the Liberty Bill Project. The project was an effort of students who wanted to put portions of the constitution on the dollar bill. The students heard about the revamping of the current dollar bill and presented their design to a United States Representative and Senator. The congressmen introduced H.R. 3792 and S. 2053 respectively. The Las Vegas Advanced Technology Academy testified in favor of S.J.R. 7 in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and were responsible for bringing the bill to the legislature. Senator O’Connell submitted a copy of the literature from the academy (Exhibit C). The pamphlet included a sample design for the back of the new $1 bill with a description of the bill’s features. She expressed regret the students could not be at the hearing, but acknowledged Larry Spitler had assisted them in their effort and was willing to testify on their behalf.

Larry Spitler, lobbyist for the Clark County School District, explained how he got involved in the project with students at the academy. He said the students used a video at the hearing for the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and were thrilled to be a part of the project.

Mr. Anderson said the example provided by the students dealt more with the Bill of Rights than the Constitution. He said the backside of a $2 bill was very patriotic, because it had the signers of the Constitution. He wondered if the $1 bill would be changed continually and why that had been the bill of choice for modification.

Senator O’Connell stated the Federal Government was in the process of changing all currency, but the design for the $1 bill had not been decided. She said many states had become involved in designing the new bill, but mostly students were contributing ideas. Senator O’Connell speculated the decision would not be made until 2000. She said the class who originally proposed the Constitution be put on the bill had conducted a study on Americans’ awareness of the document. They thought the dollar bill would be perfect for printing parts of the Constitution because the average person looked at money every day.

Chairman Price asked if any research had been done to see when the dollar bill had last been modified. Senator O’Connell responded she did not know when the last modification had occurred.

Mr. Anderson thought the change was in the 1960’s, when the United States moved from silver certificates to federal reserve notes.

Chairman Price closed the hearing on S.J.R. 7.

Senator O’Connell thought the issue had previously been raised in the form of A.J.R. 7, which had been passed by the committee.

Chairman Price stated the two bills were identical.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing district 9, said the bill was a redraft from 1997 aimed at increasing the bond indebtedness limit by 1 percent. However, it was decided the funds could be accessed through the means brought forward by S.J.R. 8, rather than increasing the indebtedness for the entire state.

Senator O’Connell said she had refrained from introducing the bill in the 1997 session, because Ms. Giunchigliani had introduced a similar bill. She didn’t know what had happened to that bill, but decided to introduce the bill during the 1999 session. She felt the issue was very important, although the counties with severe school funding problems would not be helped by the measure right away.

Ms. Giunchigliani thanked Senator O’Connell for introducing the bill. She said similar legislation of the 1997 session had ended up in the Senate Committee on Finance and was not passed.

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, supported both bills.

Chairman Price closed the hearing on S.J.R. 8.

Mr. Gustavson had a problem with the constitutional issues of money. He did not want to see the Constitution printed on money that was not constitutional. He did not support the resolution.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated her constituents were concerned because district court judges did not have staggered terms. She felt it assisted with ease of understanding for the voters, who were often confused by the number of candidates running for office. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the legislation was enabling in nature and allowed the legislature to set the staggering of the terms. She suggested the language be amended from "may" to "shall" to force the legislature to stagger terms of office for district court judges. She also observed it might be necessary to study the salaries of the judges, as they might be altered as a result of staggered terms.

Mr. Anderson said monetary compensation would always be an issue whenever staggered terms were involved. He supported the concept of staggered terms and felt it essential, especially in the larger courts like the second and eighth judicial districts. He cautioned open seats might cause a problem in maintaining the stagger of the term. He said specific seats should be designated for running on certain election years. In addition, the provisions of A.J.R. 18 should be taken into consideration, because the 12-month waiting period for election of new judges after appointment could affect the stagger.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the resolution could be narrowed so as to affect only the second and eighth judicial districts.

Mr. Anderson replied all district courts should be staggered, although most districts had only two judges.

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated her desire to change the language in the bill from permissive to mandatory.

Karen Kavanau, administrator of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the office had not taken a position on the bill. However, she had been advised by the eighth judicial district court they were opposed to the measure. They opposed the bill because it would cause further problems with salary disparity between judges.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested newly elected judges could put their extra salary in a pot and have it divided among all the judges. That would ensure all judges were making the same amount. She acknowledged the constitution would not be changed to allow for mid-term salary increases. Ms. Von Tobel said the salaries would balance out, after judges were reelected.

Mr. Anderson asked if there was a current practice in the Supreme Court to allow judges with lower salaries to get paid for service on other boards and commissions within the Supreme Court.

Ms. Kavanau said that practice no longer applied.

Ms. Giunchigliani commented several other governmental agencies were restricted from that type of operation when the legislature forbade the practice during the 1997 session.

Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify no additional salary was given. Ms. Kavanau replied that was correct, no additional salary was received. She understood the practice was in use prior to her tenure as administrator.

Ms. Von Tobel told Mr. Anderson a family court study had taken place during the 1997 session and those persons on the study had been paid the exact amount their salary was short. The judges appointed to the study were also the judges whose salary was short. She thought it was an interesting coincidence.

Mr. Mortenson asked Ms. Giunchigliani if county commissioners were paid additional salary for the various boards on which they served.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded that was no longer the process.

Ms. Kavanau offered an amendment to the resolution (Exhibit D). She was concerned the term of office might end during the minimum 12-month period, causing the appointee to serve a 6-year appointed term. She did not want to see a court appointment extending into a new term of office. The amendment addressed that concern, and required the appointee to run in the next general election, if the appointment was made during the last 12-months of an unexpired term. Ms. Kavanau said the amendment had already been made in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on A.J.R. 13. Although A.J.R. 22 had been voted out of committee, she requested it be further amended and subsequently voted out of committee.

Mr. Anderson stated there had already been an addition made to the first amendment. He wanted to know how the bill could be further amended procedurally.

Mr. Erickson said the revised amendment had not yet been drafted, so there was no procedural difficulty in amending the bill further.

Mr. Anderson thought the best way to amend the bill would be to have the bill drafter incorporate all three changes at the same time. That amendment would include changes to the bill made during the April 8 and April 29 meetings.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the amendment being suggested by the court would void the whole purpose behind the bill. She said the point was to allow judges to gain experience on the court before running for reelection. If the amendment presented by the court was adopted, the provision would not apply to those judges needing the most help, the judges being appointed at the end of an unexpired term.

Ms. Kavanau agreed with Ms. Von Tobel’s statement. However, it was not the intention of the court to create a 6-year appointee. She said the measure would still protect the majority of appointees. In addition, the bill drafters felt language needed to be included from Article 17, section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, which discussed filling the residue of an unexpired term.

Mr. Mortenson wanted to clarify the bill was still needed.

Ms. Kavanau assured him the resolution would still benefit a majority of appointees.

Mr. Anderson thought the amendment would maintain the integrity of the 6-year term. If a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court in the second year of the judge’s term, and there were 7 months until the next election, the appointed judge would not be forced to run. The appointee would have to run during the following general election, which would be 2 years away and the judge would only be elected for the remaining 2 years of the original term—not an additional 6 years. The original concern and intent for the resolution was to let judges have more than 1 year on the bench before forcing them to run for the seat in the election. That provision was still maintained.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to know why an amendment to the constitution was needed, because it would not help those appointees filling the last year of an unexpired term. She asked what was the history of judges leaving office. She wanted to know if most of them left office in the middle of their terms or at the very end.

Ms. Kavanau reiterated the resolution would ease election pressure for the majority of appointees. Her office unofficially examined records of appointees and found less than half of appointees would not have enjoyed 12 months on the bench before reelection.

Mr. Anderson observed the problem was most common at the district court level, rather than on the Supreme Court. He said most district court judges chose to run for another office during the middle of their term, because if they lost an election, they could still return to their seats on the bench. Much like Senators, the judges had the opportunity to run for another office without losing their seats.

Ms. Von Tobel said she opposed the amendment because it would allow judges to run for other offices and provide a larger pool of appointees.

Mr. Anderson said the original concern was potential appointees not wanting to go through the arduous selection process, and subsequently have to run for the seat in the next general election. He observed serving as a judge took away political opportunities for campaigning and fundraising.

Ms. Kavanau agreed with Mr. Anderson. She said in southern Nevada, litigants had been shuffled from a retiring judge to an appointed judge to another judge due to electoral politics.

Mr. Anderson agreed the stability of the court calendar was very important. He said the question was both of politics and due process.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested the legislature prohibit judges from running for another office mid-term.

Mr. Anderson said there were some restrictions currently in place. For example, a district court judge could not run for attorney general without resigning their seat and a Supreme Court Justice could not run for governor without resigning.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if it was possible for judges to run for different judicial seats, such as moving from family court to district court.

Ms. Kavanau replied she did not have that information, and her office did not collect statistics on elections of district courts, family courts, or municipal courts.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to know if any of the short-term appointees had lost their seats in the general election due to the problem being addressed by
A.J.R. 22.

Mr. Erickson said the Legislative Counsel Bureau had those statistics available. He offered to present those to the committee.

Ms. Kavanau stated there had been an occurrence with a 3-month appointee who was forced to decide to campaign for his seat or handle the assigned caseload. The judge decided to work with the caseload, did not campaign for the seat, and lost in the general election.

Mr. Anderson gave an example of a 1994 election in which Judge Carnahan was appointed to a seat and lost in the general election. He said the problem occurred most frequently in the second and eighth judicial districts, because there were more judges.

Ms. Von Tobel indicated she did not support the amendment but reserved the right to support the resolution on the floor of the Assembly.

Mr. Gustavson supported the motion but reserved the right to oppose the resolution on the floor of the Assembly.

Chairman Price reopened the hearing on A.J.R. 18.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the committee would consider rescinding its earlier motion to amend the resolution. There were other bills, including A.J.R. 22, which would conflict with that language if both bills were to pass.

Ms. Giunchigliani recommended an amendment to make the resolution mandatory in nature rather than permissive. That would change the language in the bill from "may" to "shall".

Chairman Price indicated the bill had lost in the committee because it was not passed by the April 9, 1999 deadline for passage. He said David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, had a proposal for the committee.

Mr. Horton reiterated points he had made during the previous hearings on the bill. He felt it was very important to pass the legislation before more harm had been done. Mr. Horton had inquired as to the governor’s position on the bill. Mr. Scherer of the Office of the Governor had made several suggestions to improve the feasibility of the bill, which Mr. Horton passed out (Exhibit E). The suggestions included deleting changes to the Land Use Planning Advisory Council and thereby removing the fiscal note from the bill. The amendment provided by Mr. Horton included the following changes:

• deleting page 4, line 30 through page 6, line 4;
• deleting page 6, line 28 through page 7, line 2;
• deleting page 7, lines 15 through 21;
• deleting page 9, line 24 through page 11, line 22.

He said the bill could be resurrected in three ways: it could be waived through agreement of the Speaker of the Assembly and the Majority Leader of the Senate; or requested as an emergency bill draft request from leadership; or amend an existing bill dealing with the same subject matter. Mr. Horton indicated the leadership of the legislature did not agree to the waiver. The possibility of a new bill draft request was under exploration. Mr. Horton suggested a letter of intent from the committee on behalf of the bill would be appropriate. He submitted an example of such a letter with his amendments (Exhibit E).

Chairman Price asked for clarification on Mr. Horton’s proposal. Mr. Horton responded the idea was to have the committee express support for the bill so he could take the measure to another committee to be amended onto an existing bill.

Ms. Von Tobel asked which bill Mr. Horton had in mind for possible amendment. Mr. Horton replied the bill was A.B. 358, which dealt with public land in the Lake Tahoe basin. The bill was currently under consideration by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Anderson commented the bill might not have passed through the committee even if the meeting behind the bar had taken place on April 9. He said there was nothing restricting Mr. Horton from submitting his amendment for
A.B. 358, with or without the support of the governor. He asked Mr. Horton if the amendment could be suggested without the support of the committee or letter of intent. Mr. Anderson was afraid drafting such a letter would set bad precedent in light of the 120-day session.

Mr. Horton said if a waiver was given to the bill, it would come back to the committee. Mr. Anderson responded that opportunity had already passed, since the Speaker and Majority Leader were not in support. He pointed out the committee was not in control of the bill at the present time, because A.B. 672 had lost. Mr. Anderson felt Mr. Horton was trying to circumvent the system by going around established procedures.

Chairman Price suggested Mr. Horton go before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and propose the amendment on his own.

Ms. Von Tobel appreciated Mr. Horton’s attempt to resurrect the bill, but agreed with Mr. Anderson’s thoughts. She did not feel a letter of intent would be the appropriate vehicle for getting the Senate’s support for the amendment. Ms. Von Tobel stated the Senate committee would ask Mr. Horton if he brought the amendment forward when A.B. 358 was in the Assembly.

Mr. Horton acknowledged the concerns brought forward by Ms. Von Tobel. He suggested the matter could be brought forward in a special session, if certain circumstances arose.

Mr. Anderson said all bills that were not acted upon prior to the April 9 deadline for committee passage were returned to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. The committee was no longer in possession of A.B. 672 and could not take any action on the bill whatsoever.

Chairman Price said A.B. 358 could still be amended because the bill was still alive and referenced the same chapter in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), Chapter 321.

Mr. Gustavson agreed with the committee’s feeling about the letter of intent, however, he did support the bill. He suggested Mr. Horton talk to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to see if he would be willing to accept the amendment.

The meeting of the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

DATE: