The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at

6:20 p.m., on Wednesday, March 3, 1999. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Richard Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Bob Price, Vice-Chairman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District 42

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Lucille Lusk, Member, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they would start as a subcommittee due to the Committee on Commerce and Labor hearings being attended by members of the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics Committee and would become a quorum when the committee members arrived. She opened the hearing on A.B. 242, and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman McClain.

Assemblywoman McClain testified A.B. 242 would amend current residency requirements for Assembly and Senate seats from 30 days to 6 months. She felt with the diversity of issues affecting all districts, anyone who wanted to represent the citizens of an area should have more knowledge about the concerns of that community and needed more than the required 30 days. She had thought about a specific date, for instance September 1, as it would coincide with the time limit to register for a party affiliation. When she received the original Bill Draft Request (BDR) from the Legal Division, the draft was 42 pages long and had changed the city charters, judges, state, and county offices. She explained that a specific time period stated in section 2, NRS 293.177, subsection 1 and 2 had been used instead, so the charters of city, state, or county offices were not affected. In previous sessions bills to change the requirement from 30 days to 90 days had been introduced in the Assembly and not passed on the Senate side. She had a conversation with Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, and confirmed

A.B. 242 would not affect city charters or county or state statutes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested information that pertained to other states for timelines and dates regarding residency requirements. Assemblywoman McClain stated she had figures from other states. She gave as examples: Arizona, 3 years in state and 1 year in district prior to election; Idaho, 1 year in district prior to election; Oregon, 1 year in district prior to election; Utah, 3 years in state and 6 months in district prior to election; California, 3 years in state and 1 year in district prior to election.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked who validated the residency requirements and how was it done. Assemblywoman McClain replied a person signed an affidavit when they filed for office. A.B. 242 addressed the Senate and the Assembly. The bill would bring consistency for residents.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Assembly passed the time period of 90 days in previous sessions, and they had not looked at the residency requirement other than 30, 60, 90, 120 days. She explained the number of days would be important due to the transiency rate and might hinder people who wanted to run for office and were not aware of the regulations. The 6-month period was considered in the past and several felt it was too long a time span. She thanked Assemblywoman McClain for introducing A.B. 242 and noted she believed there was no magic number for the residency requirement.

Assemblywoman Tiffany felt 6 months was too long a time as many people had circumstances which necessitated a move. She had been on candidate recruitment committees and noted many times the husband or the wife had to move suddenly or other circumstances made it necessary for the entire family to move out of a certain district or location. She wanted to know if 90 days were agreeable to Assemblywoman McClain. Assemblywoman McClain stressed it was not her intent to hinder legislators or anyone running for another position and felt 6 months was not too long a period of time.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated, in her opinion the change of residency requirement would not affect voters. She wanted to know if Assemblywoman McClain had considered changing the time requirement in the state itself as she noted other states required people to be in the state longer. Assemblywoman McClain replied she had not looked into that issue.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, Nevada Association of Election Officials.

Mr. Glover testified in favor of A.B. 242 and apologized to Assemblywoman McClain for not getting to her a copy of proposed amendments suggested by the Nevada Association of Elected Officials. He read from a prepared amendment by Barbara Reed, President of the Nevada Association of County Election Officials (Exhibit C). He stated the request for proposed amendments to the bill would change the language for a qualified voter in a district and affect office hours of certain county clerks during the final days of registration. He stressed early voting was important and gave registered voters time to receive ballot information and ballots.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought up a statute situation in which a 17-year-old filed for an office and was told he could vote as long as he turned 18 prior to day of election. She wanted to know if the statute needed to be fixed, changed, or legally codified and asked if there had been problems with the statute since that time. Scott Wasserman, Chief Committee Counsel, replied he would look into the statute.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, she closed the hearing on A.B. 242 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 268 and

A.C.R. 5 and asked for discussion

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the work session sheet contained proposed amendments for A.B. 268 and A.C.R. 5 (Exhibit D). Both bills had to do with policy changes and proposed amendments to be considered next session and suggested a letter be written to the Legislative Commission in regarding A.C.R. 5 and A.B. 268. The committee could adopt one or more of the proposed amendments for consideration. She had recommended resolutions be heard on Friday so families or people interested would have ample time to attend the discussion of the resolutions.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani further explained proposed amendments in A.B. 268 would delete the April 10 date and add the date of April 25, giving the economic forum dates for session to be in compliance. The report to the legislature would enable the economic forum to provide economic data from the second quarter of the fiscal year.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani acknowledged a quorum as all members were present except Assemblyman Price, who was excused. She stated she would hear a motion on A.C.R. 5 and then A.B. 268.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested a motion be made for an authorization for a letter to be written and sent to the Legislative Commission asking for consideration of rules that did not fit the timelines as they had already been adopted.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 200 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Mortenson. She stated A.B. 200 was more complicated than it appeared, and the bill would be taken up again in another work session to clarify what the legal staff had drafted.

Assemblyman Mortenson stated all comments and testimony heard in a previous committee hearing had been considered and enclosed were proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit E). Several of the recommendations requested were to remove bias from county municipal ballot questions as much as possible. Others concerned timelines, covering school districts, drafting of language by certain committees, options of districts composing a ballot question, input from organizations, and rather than the term auditor include the option of city/county clerk. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Legislative Counsel Bureau would not draft an amended bill until all other bills were drafted, in approximately a week or two.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the word "board" meant a generic board and the right term was needed to be able to adopt the correct language. She questioned who would have jurisdiction and stated counties would look at suggestions for their ballot questions. Assemblyman Mortenson stated his theory was the committee would look at the language in the ballot questions, draft "for" and "against" and send it to the board or commission. She asked for questions or comments.

Lucille Lusk, member, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified the person conducting the election handled the language of the ballot questions.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the work session closed on A.B. 200 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 218.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani instructed everyone to open Tab B of the work session handout (Exhibit F). She explained notes, comments, testimony, and opinions had been taken into consideration when proposed amendments were compiled and Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, prepared the legal draft. The draft narrowed the application of the bill to university groups singling them out and included in the draft was what the term lobbyist would not include. She opened the work session for questions, comments, or testimony.

Assemblyman Dini wanted to know how a person who gave a luncheon and invited 50 people would be listed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained that person could be exempt under the bill. The lobbyist for a group still needed to be registered and had to declare all of their expenditures. If a person attended the legislature for one day, did not attend committee hearings, and did not appear in the office of a legislator, he or she would be exempt under A.B. 218.

Assemblywoman Tiffany related an actual case of a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) chairman who invited many people into her office for a discussion on the deregulation of utilities. She explained the PUC chairman was acting as an advocate for the utilities. Although she had not spent money she was discussing issues on deregulation, would she have to register as a lobbyist. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the PUC chairman would not have to register as a lobbyist as the main concerns of the bill were paid lobbyists who spent money on legislators not the advocates who were unpaid and had not spent money. The idea of lobbying came down to disclosure and who spent money on whom and from where all income had been derived.

Assemblyman Perkins stated the intent was correct, as the intent was to identify who had a perceived influence on the legislator other than a normal citizen and who received money for those services.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). He stated the issue about the PUC chairman would depend on whether a person actually attempted to influence legislative action as to whether they fell into the exempt status, or whether they went into the hall and discussed the bill by number and actually stated they were "for" or "against" the bill. If they had a discussion out in the hall, they needed to register as a lobbyist. Assemblywoman Tiffany asked how that would be accomplished, and he stated all anyone had to do was call him. He explained a lobbyist packet would be given to the person or people at that time and people who were not paid a salary although they had expenditures were still lobbyists and must register.

Assemblyman Beers stated the original intent of A.B. 218 was for university employees to be registered as lobbyists and now had expanded into dialogue to include many other state agencies. He wanted to know if the committee members were straying from the original intent of the bill. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated no and pointed out university people had registered for the current session.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel commented on an e-mail she had received and encouraged her to vote for a bill. She wanted to know if e-mail constituted a lobbying issue. Mr. Malkiewich said a person would be a lobbyist if they appeared in the committee hearing and maybe sent e-mail "in favor" or "against" a particular bill. He would need to research the matter.

Assemblywoman McClain requested the committee look into badges for everyone as the need to have people identified was important. Mr. Malkiewich suggested they could do voluntary badges for state employees. He stated an option would be a different colored badge. If the Legislative Commission approved the badges for the state employees, he preferred to see voluntary badges first rather than mandatory.

Assemblywoman Leslie stated she was not in favor of everyone mandated to have badges since it was too extreme. She felt the public needed to be encouraged to speak in hearings, although she was in favor of the Legislative Commission taking up a discussion on adopting procedures for issuing badges for state employees.

Assemblyman Beers said he thought Mr. Malkiewich had said state badges would be gray. Mr. Malkiewich said badges would be gray if the Legislative Commission said so. If committee members felt a need for state employees to be registered as stated in A.B. 218, the current statute would need to be changed.

Lucille Lusk, member, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated she felt the proposed amendments to A.B.218 in the work session would narrow and loosen the field for state employees. She felt the real issue was who testified as an unpaid advocate. If the problem would prevent someone like herself who was an unpaid registered lobbyist, she would rather be under the lobbyist regulations and eliminate the ordinary citizens from appearing before committees.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Richard Bennett, Director, Government Relations, University of Nevada at Las Vegas. His comment was strictly related to university employees. His concern was the bill would make himself and all employees of the university be registered and suggested personnel who made the expenditures should be registered. In his opinion, the proposed amendment was too inclusive.

Assemblyman Dini stated the bill became more complicated the more it was discussed. He stated he was ready to make a motion if Chairwoman Giunchigliani would accept the motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

**********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Mr. Malkiewich. He wanted to know if they wanted him to continue with the name badge issue, and the Chair replied the Legislative Commission would take up the discussion.

She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the committee hearing adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: