The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 5:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Bob Price, Vice Chairman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1

Senator Jon Porter, District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 444 and called on a representative of the main sponsor, Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State.

Pamela Crowell distributed handouts (Exhibit C) to the committee members for changes concerning city elections recommended by the Office of the Secretary of State. She gave a brief overview of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 293C, City Elections, A.B. 444, and explained a pertinent chapter of Title 24, Election Law. During the 69^th session two bills, A.B. 414 and S.B. 447, were approved and NRS Chapter 293C was created. She noted for the record how many counties held elections in even-numbered years and those counties that held elections in odd numbered years. Ms. Crowell presented proposed amendments to current city election law on a section by section basis and referred to Exhibit C. She stated the Office of the Secretary of State was in favor of A.B. 444. She introduced Vicki Mayes, City Clerk, Boulder City; President, Nevada Municipal Clerk’s Association.

Ms. Mayes read from a prepared speech (Exhibit D) distributed to the committee members with more proposed amendments to A.B. 444 from the Municipal Clerk’s Association. She read the proposed amendments regarding differences between early voting and absentee voting in statutes. She referred to the statutes NRS 293C.110(2), NRS 293C.356 to 293C.361. NRS 293C.356(1) stated the city clerk "shall" issue a ballot. The understanding of that law was everyone had a right to vote early. The language in the statute clouded the issue of whether early voting was truly optional as stated by law or mandatory. She explained the timeframes for the process of voting created an overlap of efforts for the election department to report early voters and the in-office absent ballot voter. Her understanding was those statutes were not meant to cause a duplicated process. Her second concern was that A.B. 444 needed to have an amendment pertaining to the nominating procedure for filling a vacancy in offices due to the number of days required prior to election, and she felt the provision could be eliminated in its entirety from NRS 293C. She commented on a clerical error in the listing of sections 3 and 4 of the statute when talking about board members. The statute stated two members on the board, and it needed to be changed to three members on the board. Charter cities had most of those procedures in place and in the general law cities, the procedures could be placed into their ordinances and approved by the governing body.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani questioned the nonpartisan language on page 5, section 16, that might have to be clarified if it pertained to students, and she wanted no language barriers in the bill for registered voters. Ms. Mayes stated the language would not be applied to students if they were registered to vote.

Dave Musgrove, Legislative Affairs, City of Las Vegas, wanted to be placed on record as in favor of A.B. 444 with all amendments suggested by Ms. Crowell and Ms. Mayes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 444 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 479 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Hettrick.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated A.B. 479 was drafted because of requests from the county clerks. The timelines for filing ballots were too short and the bill would move the primary time back 1-month for filing with a recount provision being the only exemption. The timeframes were too short to notify students and military personnel overseas in order for the elections department to comply with the law. He stated the section about minor parties was part of the bill and also part of A.B. 520, and he would be willing to delete the language in the section about minor parties if necessary. He asked for questions from the committee.

Assemblyman Beers wanted to know why only 1 month. Assemblyman Hettrick replied when the bill was drafted, clerks and legal staff had looked at more than 1 month. Complications arose and legal staff found the draft not practical. Assemblyman Dini stated he had not heard from clerks in his district.

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer; President, Nevada Association of County Election Officials, stated the association was in agreement with

A.B. 479. She felt the electoral procedures for ballots made it very difficult to stay within guidelines. Some ballots had to be photocopied and mailed in order for the department to comply with current laws. The 30 days would assist the department in complying with the timelines. She stated if the bill was approved, the election department would be willing to go back and change all other dates that affected dates of primary elections. She had not done so since there were more than 150 dates that needed to be changed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee would need some type of number or brief count. She thought Bob Erickson, Director of the Research Division, had placed a calendar together 2 sessions ago. The committee would take into consideration figures, dates, and times and use as a guideline when presented.

Ms. Reed stated there were two areas in the bill to be corrected. One area was section 1, paragraph 2 where it stated third Tuesday in August, the association requested the date be changed to second Tuesday in August. She felt the minor party portion could be deleted as the association was in favor of A.B. 520. The other area was in section 12 where 10 vote difference was needed to have a recount by hand or by computer, the association requested the number of votes be changed to 5. Ms. Reed introduced Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder.

Mr. Glover stated the past year had been very hard for overseas ballots, as the timeframe had been limited. He noted people requested absentee ballots from his office, and never received them. He was not sure whether the post office caused the problem or what had happened. His concern was the department had worked so hard to make sure ballots were ready and mailed in a timely manner only to find some of the ballots were never received on time. He thought the August date would help.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee had tried to deal with local clerks. Mr. Glover explained in the past, the date of ballots coincided with the start of schools. Most schools no longer started the day after Labor Day, so the reasons for the original date were not necessary. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there would be a problem with polling sites if schools were not open. Mr. Glover stated the elections department had looked at the issue and found schools would be available as voting sites when needed. Ms. Reed stated some smaller sites were available and had the same capabilities as schools.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested the change of the primary dates from Ms. Reed by the next week. She noted Shelly Delley, private citizen, and Dudley Lowery, City of Henderson, requested to be on record as being in favor of A.B. 479. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 479 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani moved for introduction several of Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) and stated she would entertain motions.

• BDR 18-1366 – Revises provisions regarding procedure upon refusal of state agency to revise administrative regulation objected to by legislative commission (A.B. 612).

• BDR 23-1590 – Revises provisions governing financial disclosure statements of certain public and judicial officers (A.B. 611).

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF

BDR 23-1590.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

**********

• BDR 24-281 – Makes various changes to provisions regarding elections

• BDR 24-575 – Makes various changes relating to elections (A.B. 613).

• BDR 24-629 – Makes various changes to provisions relating to elections (A.B. 615).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 24-629.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.J.R. 12 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Beers.

Assemblyman Beers distributed to committee members a copy of the Social Security program and the Medicare programs for 1998 (Exhibit E). He explained the reserve basis of Social Security. The State of Nevada recognized a problem with the retirement system 15 years ago and implemented a 40-year actuarial reserve plan creating the Personal Employees Retirement System, also known as PERS. There were two ways to have a retirement plan. The first option known as Social Security depended on charges paid into the system by recipients or future recipients for retired people. PERS budgets consisted of an income plan where the amount of money needed was based on an individual plan and accounted for income from that plan for at least 20 years after a person retired. PERS consisted of an actuarial reserve and could be used forever.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification pertaining to A.J.R. 12. She wanted to know if the resolution focused only on surplus money and nothing else or if it was calling on individual citizens to support diversion of money into Individual Retirement Account’s (IRA). Assemblyman Beers stated the resolution only dealt with investing the surplus and preventing it from being used elsewhere. If Congress were to make changes or reforms to the Social Security program, the resolution would anticipate it. His intent was to save the money from being used elsewhere by Congress. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she felt his main purpose was to have everyone earn the most interest on money invested by the government.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she was on the Committee on Government Affairs, and they had just passed a bill that requested the Federal Government not touch PERS. According to statistics there were only 10 states left which had a retirement system similar to PERS, and the Federal Government had been interested in the state program here. She disclosed her husband received PERS, and Assemblyman Beers stated a member of his family also received PERS.

Assemblyman Dini commented during the first 34 to 36 years of PERS there was a liability and as the years went by the liability decreased. PERS investments had been very good and would allow the system to be actuarially sound by 2024.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.J.R. 12 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session (Exhibit F) on A.C.R. 14 and S.C.R. 1 at the same time because of the similarities in the language of the bills.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Dini discussed the makeup of the committee for each house. Assemblyman Dini stated the Assembly needed to be distributed evenly and Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the exact number from each house needed to be stated in the bill. She asked the committee to look at section 3a, line 16, subsection 5. Mr. Dini suggested an amendment that the Legislative Commission would consider two members from the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and two members from the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and the Legislative Commission would appoint the chairman for the committee. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for a motion on S.C.R. 1.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND AND ADOPT AS AMENDED S.C.R. 1.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would entertain a motion to indefinitely postpone A.C.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MADE THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.C.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R. 21.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Research Division had looked into whether Assemblywoman Von Tobel’s name was listed on the original draft of the bill. It was not listed and could not be added. She stated she would entertain a motion on A.C.R. 21.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 242 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman McClain.

Assemblywoman McClain stated her original intent of the bill was to change only the Senate and Assembly seats. She noticed that even with the changes made to the language of the bill, it still had an impact upon other elected offices. She would amend chapter 218 to 293 to take care of some of the problems. She wanted the bill to have the residency requirement within the state of 1 year and the district residency requirement of at least 6 months. She felt those two requirements were essential to the bill.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. She stated by changing chapter NRS 218 the bill would place the residency requirement into the declaration of candidacy rather than the actual statutes and would eliminate the impact upon other offices. Discussion began between the committee members and opened the issue of whether the residency requirement should be 30, 60, 90 or 120 days in the district.

Assemblyman Perkins stated he knew the districts in the Las Vegas area and he would not support the 6-month requirement. He felt he could move into any district and do well as representing the district, because he was familiar with all districts.

Assemblywoman Leslie responded she would support 6 months. She related her experience in her own district where another person became a candidate for office in the 1997 session and moved from Carson City to Reno just to be a qualified candidate in the district.

Information introduced for the record only by Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary of Elections, Office of the Secretary of State, made recommendations for amendments (Exhibit G) and gave the information for elections (Exhibit H) and the qualifications for elective office (Exhibit I).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani voiced her opinion to be more flexible with the timeframe.

Assemblyman Dini stated he was more in favor of 30 days as his belief was if it was not broken do not fix it. He stated he felt the system as such was working well and qualified candidates needed to be able to run for office.

Assemblywoman Tiffany stated she was in favor of 30 days because of the candidate recruitment factor.

Assemblyman Beers stated he thought 30-day residency requirement would be sufficient. He expressed the pluses and the minuses of being an elected official and felt the bill would place a barrier for a qualified candidate.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she understood the circumstances and situations. Assemblywoman McClain was attempting to prevent "carpetbagging" but felt the committee had no desire to change the 30-day residency requirement. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was closing the debate on the bill. The work session closed on A.B. 242 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: