The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 6:55 p.m., on Monday, March 22, 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:

Assemblywoman Genevieve Segerblom, District 22

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 518 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Segerblom.

Assemblywoman Segerblom expressed concern about the lobbyist expenditure report. She stated there were large organizations who had functions for legislators every year and all expenditures were required to be reported by both parties. She distributed a handout (Exhibit C) explaining to the committee that the areas she felt should be exempt from reporting. Lobbyist who took one legislator to lunch or gave a gift should report that expenditure as should the legislator. When every legislator in the Assembly was invited to a large function, the bill would exempt the lobbyist from having to report the expense. A.B. 518 gave the lobbyist an option of not having to worry about reporting expenditures. One of her areas of concern was the organization for the Humboldt River Basin which gave a large function each year. She felt the areas of exemption should be those sponsored by an educational institution, an organization that the Secretary of the Treasury had determined to be an exempt organization under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c), or a function to which every legislator was invited. The bill would become effective upon passage and approval by both houses. She had asked other people to testify in favor of

A.B. 518.

Ms. Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in favor of A.B. 518. Some legislators who chose to pay and some legislators who chose to attend free of charge attended the Nevada Taxpayers Association function. Until legislators were paid a higher salary, she felt a real problem existed. Some who wanted to attend could not as they had no other source of income available. It created a hardship when they tried to support two households on the current salary. She noted for the record that people attended those functions not as a political function but as a social function to get to know the legislator. The bill became a point of equity where some functions need not be reported while others would fall under the normal regulations for lobbyist reports of expenditure. She suggested an amendment to the bill on page 3, section 2. The amendment was that the bill would become retroactively effective upon passage and approval.

Ms. Vilardo suggested a second amendment to the bill that would pertain to the amount of gifts given without being reported. She gave as an example an informational booklet published by the Taxpayers Association on understanding property taxes. The cost of the booklet was $3, and the cap set by the Legislative Counsel Bureau was $2. If a legislator wanted the booklet she needed to ask for payment. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a $10 cap would be agreeable as an amendment to the bill. Ms. Vilardo stated that amount would be agreeable.

Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 518 and stated the Nevada Manufacturers Association was in the same position as the Taxpayers Association. He was rated in the top four in lobbyist expenditures on the latest report. He pointed out the top lobbyists were rated at zero expenditure, and he wondered how that had happened. His group had hosted a social event to which all legislators were invited, and had itemized for each legislator.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Jim Richardson, member, Nevada Faculty Alliance, representing President Crowley of the University of Nevada Reno (UNR). He stated President Crowley could not be in attendance. President Crowley wanted to have his support of A.B. 518 noted for the record. Mr. Richardson explained UNR gave the silver and blue dinner every year and an invitation was sent to every legislator. He felt the function was well attended and made the issue of what to report a concern for the university.

Margaret McMillan, Director, Government Affairs, Sprint, spoke in favor of

A.B. 518. She stated every year there was a telecommunications affair in which people from the rural areas went to the function just to meet and get acquainted with their legislators.

Assemblywoman Segerblom explained that usually a constituent had given a verified amount of money to the legislator’s campaign. To ask those same people for $20 here and there for a dinner was asking too much of them when everyone was invited to the same function. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblywoman Segerblom if the $10 amount suggested by Ms. Vilardo was acceptable, and she stated yes.

Janine Hansen, President, New Eagle Forum, stated she had several concerns about the bill even though she was in favor of A.B. 518. She had spoken to the attorneys for Nevada New Eagle Forum and they stated that on page 2, lines 39 to 40 of the bill it defined what organizations were exempt under 501(c). She distributed a handout to the committee with all of the organizations listed (Exhibit D). She stated an organization need not always apply to the IRS for a letter of exemption. The larger organizations applied and received a letter under the IRS rules giving them an exempt status and the cost of that procedure was $200. She suggested the language in the bill be amended to state an organization described in the 501(c) could claim exemption. The proposed amendments would mean an organization, regardless of size, could be exempt and no discrimination would be involved. She felt more people would not have to report rather than the opposite, so the committee needed to look at the other organizations to make sure it was equitable and suggested lines 34 to 37 be deleted from the bill.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 518 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.C.R. 27 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall testified the bill addressed a need for the Legislative Commission to do an interim study of the elder facilities and distributed a handout to the committee (Exhibit E). She stated most elderly people had no option except to live in a group home due to loss of income or an illness requiring more assistance than the normal care. Group homes had become a problem and the legislators and the public needed to assure the necessary mental and physical needs of the elderly person wherever they might live. She felt many of the people were losing privacy. When her constituents started calling about elderly care, she found several factors disturbing. One factor was there were no regulations for obtaining a license for a group home. Other factors involved the degree of care received by a person, how much the care cost, and the ratio of the staff to the elderly people. She had other people attending in favor of A.C.R. 27.

Edwin Fend, Vice Chairman, Legislative Committee, American Association of Retired Persons, testified in favor of A.C.R. 27. He felt everyone should report an unsatisfactory condition involving an elderly person and explained the need for group home care. If regulated, the cost of care could be about $1,200 per month. In some group home facilities, the cost of care could be between $2,000 and $4,000 per month. He felt the state needed to look at the

long-term care issues. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that during the 1997 session she had written a long-term care study. The bill passed, although the standing Committee on Health Care ran out of time to adequately study the issue. She suggested increased payments for people on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and programs to provide better and adequate care.

Gillda Haus, member, Clark County Senior Citizens Task Force, was in favor of A.C.R. 27. She explained the task force represented one person per district in Clark County. Good regulations created a good understanding of the residential care system, and there was a need for an interim study on the issue of elder care. She stated that two out of three elderly people would spend time in a residential care facility for one reason or another. She recommended the study be done on long-term care and have some type of watchdog organization oversee it.

Thelma Clark, member, Silver Senator, National Silver-Haired Congress, spoke in favor of A.C.R. 27. She stated elder care in residential homes was 1 out of 10 resolutions written while she had been in Washington D.C., for a conference. She gave all 10 resolutions to the Senators, Assemblymen, the President, and everyone who represented the public. She felt the elder care issue needed to be regulated for proper care, and elderly people needed appropriate care in those group homes (Exhibit F).

Gilda Haus distributed to the committee members a written statement by Bobbie Gang, lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby (Exhibit G) in favor of A.C.R. 27 since she was not in attendance. Chairwoman Giunchigliani recommended the people interested in long-term care and the licensing of the facilities look at A.B. 62 and A.B. 373. Both of those bills had been presented by Chairwoman Giunchigliani to help in regulating group home care. A.B. 62 made changes to residential facilities for groups, and A.B. 373 made changes concerning health care facilities and mentally retarded persons.

Included for the record was a statement from Douglas Jydstrup (Exhibit H) in favor of A.C.R. 27.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Rick Panelli, Chief, Bureau of Licensure and Certification, State Health Division in favor of A.C.R. 27. He distributed a handout (Exhibit I) explaining how licensing was done, and how many homes were licensed, and how many homes were only registered and not licensed. His concern was homes were inspected only when there were complaints. Even though regulations for residential homes were completely revised in 1997, he felt the current regulations were of minimum standards. The regulations did not require information related to the specific individual care be provided and disclosed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 27 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.B. 520. She made the public and the committee aware that her intent with the bill was a sensitive issue to minor political parties. She felt it had always been the intent of the committee to attempt to work closely with all minor parties. Her intent was simply to have minor parties close filing the same time as major parties and make it easier for minor parties to qualify.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani testified her whole intent of the bill was the closing date for filing of minor political parties for the general election. She distributed a section-by-section analysis of A.B. 520 (Exhibit J). The bill as stated "would make it necessary to revise certain provisions that govern challenges made of the registration of a voter; reducing the length of the period for early voting; changing the label for unaffiliated voters from nonpartisan to independent; enacting certain provisions governing the reporting of election results; requiring the county clerks to provide access to the secretary of state to certain voter information; revising the procedure for consolidating precincts and for designating a precinct to be a mailing precinct." The sections discussed were:

• Section 2: Specified in statute that clerks would report turnout without the inactives.

• Section 3: The law was currently silent about allowing a person who made a challenge to withdraw the challenge. That established procedure.

• Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7: Made qualifications easier for minor parties to qualify in order to made close of filing the same as major parties.

• Section 8: Referenced statute in section 7.

• Section 9: Deleted nonpartisan and inserted independent as a designation of a political party affiliation.

• Section 10: Currently drafting language for the section.

• Section 11: Changed the 1 percent of total votes cast to 200 statewide or 20 signatures and changed dates for receipt of petitions so candidate filing closed the same as major party candidates.

• Section 12: Required clerks to provide a public notice and to notify senators, assemblypersons, or public officers 2 weeks prior to consolidating precincts.

• Section 13: Required public notice and notice to senators, assemblypersons, or public officers prior to making a precinct a mailing precinct.

• Section 14: Changed early voting dates to 7 days prior to the election.

• Section 15: Allowed for information sharing but prohibited the secretary of state from making any changes to a local voter registration list.

• Section 16: Once again changed nonpartisan to independent

• Section 17: Clarified a procedure for challenging a person’s registration.

• Sections 18, 19, 20: Once again changed nonpartisan to independent

• Section 21: Paralleled section 2 which prohibited inactives from being counted in the total turnout.

Introduced into the record for information purposes was a study of the ballot access by minor parties compiled in April 1998 and distributed in January 1999 by the Legislative Commission and compiled by Michael Stewart, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit K).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized James Dan, member, Libertarian Party of Nevada. He stated the Libertarian Party was in favor of portions of A.B. 520 if the bill was changed as to the minor political parties as the sponsor stated. He suggested the party had no problem with the filing date deadlines or the ballot access dates. He distributed all of the proposed amendments (Exhibit L). His overall concern was that he wanted minor political parties to still qualify under one of the 1 percent methods for candidate selection as in current law. He felt making person obtain 200 signatures at a convention was unrealistic. He also wanted the presidential selection process to be the same as in current statute.

Janine Hansen, U.S. Taxpayers Party, National Ballot Access Coordinator Chairman of Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 520. She was in favor of creating the same closing date deadlines for filing if the parties had adequate ballot access or, otherwise, leave the current statute in place. She was not in favor of the 200 signatures and the right to petition and was opposed to the 25 signatures in each district because of the convention requirement. She felt minor political parties should be able to have a convention in lieu of a primary due to the financial stress of a smaller party. If the presidential primary dates were changed, it would create a major problem for minor political parties. Ms. Hansen felt language of "nonpartisan" was better than the use of "independent". Nonpartisan meant no party affiliation and to change to independent would only confuse voters.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was not her intent to change the Independent American Party. She asked Ms. Hansen if removing conventions would help. Ms. Hansen suggested by securing 200/25 signatures there could be an alternative method of qualifying. Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted to know if ballot access was an issue as the Reform Party had lost ballot access. Ms. Hansen was more concerned with candidate access than party access.

Mr. Dan stated 200 signatures would eliminate the problem of having ballot access without having different dates for the filing of parties.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Richard Winger, member, Coalition for Free and Open Elections, who spoke in opposition to A.B. 520. He stated court cases in New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island had been overturned due to early deadlines or petitions being ruled unconstitutional for violation of the 1^st and the 14^th amendments of the United States Constitution. He proposed three methods for solving problems with deadlines and handed committee members a copy of the proposed amendments (Exhibit M). The first option would be to provide an earlier deadline for already "established" minor political parties in order to submit its list of candidates and he recommended the same June date be kept for "new" qualifying of minor parties. The second option would be to move the candidate list deadline from June to May for all minor political parties. He stressed a need for newly formed minor parties petition deadline to be left in early July. The newly formed minor party would submit the candidate lists before petitions. The third option would be to move the Democratic and Republican deadline from May to June.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Scott Wasserman, Chief Committee Counsel, concerning constitutional issues of the bill. According to Mr. Wasserman, the bill was drafted using language from a Washington state statute. Factors that Washington had examined were how easy it was to qualify as a minor political party. The decision was upheld in the US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals was a higher court than the United States District Court. Each statute must have a rational basis and A.B. 520 had that. According to Mr. Wasserman the statute in Washington required minor political parties to have 200/25 signatures, a convention, and 1 percent of the primary. The bill before the committee would eliminate the 1 percent and the bill would be constitutional.

Assemblywoman Tiffany related a story that she had been receiving letters and phone calls from people asking her to vote in opposition to A.B. 520 stating that a third party would not have a chance. She wondered what made the people think they had no chance. Mr. Dan explained the major problem would be that the convention for those 200 signatures must be done within a 1-week period. He felt it was very hard for any party to accomplish that goal in the state, especially a minor party. The minor party would need at least 200 or more people at the convention. Ms. Hansen stated the paperwork problem would be large because there would be 17 different petitions for 17 different districts and the signatures must be notarized and authorized for each candidate.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she thought there was a misinterpretation of the bill as to the petitions and referred to Mr. Wasserman. Mr. Wasserman stated the only time a candidate must gather 17 petitions for 17 different counties would be if that candidate had a petition in all of the 17 districts. As far as the convention and the date, it was based on the time period needed for signatures to be verified. The county petition must be notarized, not each and every signature.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated A.B. 520 would be scheduled for a work session. She recognized Barbara Reed, Alan Glover, and Harvard "Larry" Lomax.

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer; President, Nevada Association of County Election Officials, stated the association was in favor of most sections. The timelines requested in the bill would create problems if a person withdrew the day before the election. There would be no time to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot, so timeframes needed to be discussed in a work session. The other opposition to the bill was in section 14. She noted the number of machines available for early voting would create a problem as the same machines used for early voting were used for the regular election.

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, Election Department, voiced his opinion about early voting as he read from a prepared speech (Exhibit N). He stated if the process was reduced to 1 week it would create a problem because of the counting machines. Early voting started on Friday night and went through Monday. There would be no time to have the same machines used for the early voting procedure and the regular election due to the reprogramming of the machine. The county would need 700 additional machines at a cost of $4 million. Mr. Lomax explained the process of printing and cost of the ballots for early voters, and the bill would cause an unnecessary impact upon each county.

Ms. Reed suggested the weekend be left in the bill. Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, Association of Election Officials, stated section 16 of the bill, which referred to NRS 293.518 might cause the Carson City charter to be amended. Ms. Reed stated work was needed on the amendments with the committee, elections, and the legal staff. She was concerned about voter secrecy in the smaller counties.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Daniel Hansen, State Chairman, Independent American Party. He spoke passionately in opposition to A.B. 520 as printed. The bill, he said, would be like a death sentence to the Independent American Party. The party had enough trouble staying together without trying to change regulations or the language changing "nonpartisan" to "independent." The Independent American Party had been a trademark for 30 years and the bill would eliminate that trademark in Nevada. Without the known trademark voters would be confused and not vote, and the Independent American Party would probably file a lawsuit at that time. He felt the language of "nonpartisan" used for a voter of no party affiliation was fine as stated currently in statute. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was not trying to negatively impact the Independent American Party. She recommended the proposed amendments be discussed during a work session.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblyman Dini. He stated the original language on the ballot was "independent" and not "nonpartisan" before the Independent American Party was founded. The language was changed in the 1960’s, and Assemblyman Dini requested Mr. Wasserman to research dates and the legal history of the term independent.

Included for the record were written statements of opposition to A.B. 520 from Chris Azzaro, State Director, Libertarian Party of Nevada (Exhibit O) and Marjorie Kiikka, member, Independent American Party (Exhibit P).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 520 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.C.R. 29 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Von Tobel.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel explained the bill had been introduced because her constituents had asked her to seek maintenance for three state parks in her district. The lack of funding for state parks maintenance had resulted in the unpleasant appearance of some of the parks. She explained the parks in Nevada were some of the most beautiful in the United States. The bill would allow an interim study to be done on the parks system and an audit to locate shortages within the system. The audit and study would not reduce the general fund. She had tried to come up with different ways to help the funding and found that 10 years ago an interim study and an audit were done. She suggested the evaluation of the parks maintenance fund. She mentioned there was a rental car fee in Washington that went to the parks system in that state. She wondered if the method would work in Nevada and stated by using $1 per car each time a car was rented would add to the parks maintenance fund. She introduced Wayne Perock, Administrator, Nevada Division of State Parks and Barbara Curti, Chairman of the Advisory Board of the State Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Perock spoke in favor of A.C.R 29 and gave suggestions for amendments or ways to help eliminate the problems of the parks system. He quoted from a prepared speech (Exhibit Q) and discussed part of the 1992 interim study on the park system. The areas of concern were:

• Criteria for establishing capital improvement project priorities
• Criteria for establishing acquisitions priorities
• Establishment of the maintenance account
• Establishment of the utility surcharge
• A resolution supporting the establishment of a State Park Foundation
• Fifty/fifty sharing of the Marina Fuel Tax fund with the Division of Wildlife

• Department of Transportation taking over maintenance of paved roads with the state parks

Since the issue of staffing and equipment were not addressed, Mr. Perock suggested an amendment to the bill. Operations needed to adequately operate and to be able to maintain existing or future parks and their facilities. He suggested a proposed amendment adding a fifth evaluation on page 2, line 25, to the bill stating the staff, equipment and operating expenses should adequately meet current and expanded needs.

Barbara Curti spoke in favor of A.C.R. 29 and read from a prepared speech (Exhibit R). She felt the state needed more parks and good maintenance programs as well as a funding program. She addressed the issue that

24 percent of user fees were derived from state parks.

There was a discussion among committee members about the different parks that had been visited and the conditions of those parks. Assemblyman Beers and Assemblywoman McClain discussed where some of the hidden park trails were and parks about which the public might not know. Both voiced their concerns about the beauty of the parks and the need for maintenance funds. Assemblyman Dini commented about the Nevada’s beautiful parks and how some areas were limited for building space. He stated the parks system had always had a problem with funding.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 29 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 355 and A.B. 444 (Exhibit S).

Chairman Giunchigliani commented the fiscal note on A.B. 355 was too low and there had been introduced in the Senate an identical bill (S.B. 471). S.B. 471 revised provisions governing legislative measures which require local governments to establish, provide or increase programs or services.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested the committee might want to wait for the fiscal note to be returned and see what the Senate bill did. She closed the work session on A.B. 355 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 444 and referred to the work session sheet distributed (Exhibit S). The proposed amendments to A.B. 444 were:

• Delete section 30 from the bill.
• Add a new section in the measure amending NRS 293C.110 to clarify the conduct of early voting in city elections was indeed optional. In addition, add language to the amendment clarifying that the governing body of a city shall, if desired, provide for both the conduct of voting absentee ballot in the city clerk’s office and the conduct of early voting.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that she would entertain a motion on

A.B. 444.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: