The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 7:18 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 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 Price, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Richard Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the first order of business was the minutes of March 17, 1999. She stated she would entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes for March 17, 1999.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 119 and asked for discussion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Bill Bradley, member, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Bradley dealt with the issue of sovereign immunity. The Nevada Trial Lawyers Association was in favor of having the current cap of $50,000 changed to a higher amount. A.B. 119 created an interim study for the purpose of changing the amount of damages that could be brought against a state, county, or city. The cap amount of $50,000 had been in place since 1979, and it was time for the amount to be changed to a higher amount. He thought it was time for the state to look at the risks, insurance, and better coverage availability. If the amounts were recalculated using today’s standards, the amount of the cap would be approximately $119,000.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Michelle Gamble, member, Nevada Association of Counties, who suggested amendments to the bill. The suggested amendments were:

• Section 1:

Subsection 2:

(a) One representative from the Office of the Attorney General

(b) One representative from the Division of Insurance of the Department of Business and Industry

(c) Two representatives from the League of Cities

(d) Deleted the section about the League of Counties

(e) Two representatives from the Nevada Association of Counties

(f) Two representatives from the Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association

(g) One resident of Clark County

(h) One resident of Washoe County

(i) One resident of a rural county of the state

Ms. Gamble stated she did not understand why the Division of Insurance and the residents were needed on the interim study committee since the Nevada Association of Counties did not know what those had to do with the issues of the bill. She stated two representatives from the League of Cities and the League of Counties were in response to the people who had been involved with drafting the bill and had attended the hearings. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she wanted to make sure she had the correct figures from Ms. Gamble. It was her understanding from Ms. Gamble the proposed amendments would delete section 1, subsection 2, (b), (d), (g), (h), (i), and changed the number of representatives in section 1, subsection 2, (c), (e) and (f). Ms. Gamble agreed. Tom Grady, executive director, Nevada League of Cities was in agreement with Ms. Gamble’s proposed amendments.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the bill had been drafted as an interim study and would need to be changed to a resolution, in order to exempt the bill from timeframes. Scott Wasserman, committee counsel, stated all the committee had to do was request the bill to be changed to a resolution, and the resolution would be drafted. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would entertain a motion to have the bill introduced as a resolution.

Assemblyman Beers stated the largest entity impacted by A.B. 119 would be the state, and he thought that might be the reason the Division of Insurance of Business and Industry was included. Mr. Bradley stated the Office of the Attorney General was capable of representing business and industry and all other agencies of the state since the interim committee would be an advisory committee. Assemblyman Beers stated he still had a problem with the amendments as the representatives from the League of Cities, the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association were smaller political organizations.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Anne Cathcart, assistant attorney general for the rational of the distribution of who was represented. She stated all of the agencies came under one insurance pool, so the Office of the Attorney General would represent the agencies, whereas the counties and the cities had varied insurance sources.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 119 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.B. 465, and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Tiffany.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked James Spinello, representing Clark County, member, Nevada League of Cities, for an explanation of A.B. 465. The bill came from Commissioner Woodbury in Clark County and was the result of placing the contents of Assembly Bill 537 into A.B. 465. A.B. 537 dealt with the redistricting of county commissioner election districts. Assemblywoman Tiffany explained the bill had to do with allowing mid-decade redistricting for county seats. It would give counties and districts a year to prepare the needed numbers. Changes in population must have at least 10 percent growth or decrease according to the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce. The boundaries could be adjusted and provided for by ordinance or election with specified districts using the proper numbers of county commissioners for a 2 or 4 year term. The number of county commissioners elected during a general election would be as equal as possible. Assemblywoman Tiffany noted there was a conflict in the type of census data available.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted on page 2, section 6, there was new language pertaining to the county commissioner election district established or adjusted. Pursuant to the section it must be composed of entirely contiguous territory and be as compact as practical to preserve natural, political, and traditional representation. Mr. Wasserman raised the issue that the language could invite court arguments. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why the language had been added to the bill. Mr. Spinello noted the question had been raised in the Committee on Government Affairs, and he thought the committee added the language when merging the two bills together.

Assemblywoman Tiffany noted a change could be made 4 years after the census data had been received. A discussion began among the committee members about the 10 percent when applied to a county or disparity. It was noted that cities already had the authority to redistrict through their city charter. The Legislative Counsel Bureau issued an opinion on which county must use the census count.

Assemblyman Dini asked if the bill applied to all counties. Assemblywoman Tiffany stated it did. Assemblyman Dini asked about a cost impact. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she thought when the bill was introduced last time that it had a local fiscal note of $1 million. Assemblywoman Tiffany stated A.B. 465 was permissive and the counties would bear the costs. Additional mid-term redistricting was authorized but not mandated. Counties did not have authority to conduct additional redistricting, and A.B. 465 made it possible for them to redistrict more often.

Mr. Spinello noted Assemblywoman Tiffany’s original bill had a fiscal amount listed, but the amended version did not.

Barbara Reed, Douglas County clerk-treasurer; president, Nevada Association of County Election Officials, stated there could be a problem in Churchill County since Churchill County wanted to have its boundaries changed. She suggested all counties be asked if they wanted to be included in the bill.

Introduced into the record was a letter from Clark County on A.B. 465

(Exhibit C). The letter pertained to the population growth in the area and different opinions about redistricting.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 465 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.B. 505 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Hettrick.

Assemblyman Hettrick explained the bill was technical and would determine whether to move the presidential primary process to March 10. The western governors were pushing for an earlier primary so the presidential candidates would come to Nevada to campaign. He felt the state would play a large part in national politics. Assemblyman Hettrick read from a prepared speech (Exhibit D) written by Kent Briggs, executive director, Council of State Governments-West. He explained by moving the primary date, the voice of the west would be heard. In his opinion, the western states had lost the focus from the candidates since the primary was later than the east. The California primary would be held on the March 7. During the last presidential primary, the would-be candidates came to Nevada after the primary.

Continuing with Mr. Briggs written testimony. Assemblyman Hettrick said Arizona would not participate in the western primaries even though the state had changed the procedure for the primary 4 years ago. Arizona Republican Caucus changed the primary date to February, and the Democratic Caucus wanted the primary in March. According to the National Democratic Party if there was a primary in early March, the electoral votes would have to be discounted. Republicans wanted the date to be changed, so there was a conflict with the dates. He mentioned New Mexico had dropped out of the Western States Conference. Idaho had introduced a bill to allow participation, but the bill was killed. Utah had passed a bill to change the primary date. The Wyoming governor had signed the bill into effect on March 11, 1999. In Colorado and Montana similar bills allowing the primary process participation had only passed in one of the houses.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the state Democratic Party opposed holding a primary election. The party wanted caucuses. She felt the taxpayer’s money should not be wasted for one party to hold an election and stressed the bill read by "caucus or election". Assemblyman Hettrick stated that in the past by the time the primary was done in Nevada, the eastern electors had determined the candidate. Therefore the candidate had no reason to come to Nevada. He felt that with an earlier date the candidate would have a chance to campaign and win electors in Nevada. Assemblyman Beers noted neither Clinton nor Dole arrived in Nevada until after the primary had been held for the Democratic Party.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked when the Republican and Democratic caucuses would be held if the bill was not passed. Assemblyman Hettrick stated he would research the dates.

Dean Heller, secretary of state, spoke in favor of A.B. 505 and distributed a handout (Exhibit E) with information about the plans for the western primary. He stated the most important dates would be between March 7 and March 14. By moving the date of the primary, the west would be finished with the primaries by March 14. The philosophy was the primary would be over before anyone had time to really think about it. Most candidates visited New Hampshire, the east coast, and part of California. The rest of the United States had some visitation from candidates. One exception was Iowa. Mr. Heller suggested a task force be formed to determine the correct process for Nevada

Assemblyman Dini wanted to know how many states were using caucuses rather than elections. Mr. Heller stated he did not know.

Chris Ferrari, legislative liaison, Office of the Governor, spoke in favor of

A.B. 505. He stated the governor’s office was in favor of moving the date of the presidential primary to March 10.

Larry Lomax, registrar of voters, Clark County suggested amendments to

A.B. 505 (Exhibit F). Those amendments included the subject of early voting, voting at multiple sites around the county, mail ballots, early voting in person timeframes, limited voting by mail, and absent ballots to 1 day.

Ms. Reed and Alan Glover, Carson City clerk-recorder, Association of Election Officials, were in agreement with the amendments suggested by Mr. Lomax. Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted Republicans had been able to use presidential primary voting in 1996. It had cost the state close to $700,000 to conduct the election for a minimal number of people. In her opinion, if the party wanted an election, they should pay for it.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted for the record that Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1, wanted to be on record in support of A.B. 505. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 505 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 170 and called on Mr. Stewart for explanations and discussion of the proposed amendments of the bill.

Mr. Stewart distributed a handout (Exhibit G) and explained the amendment would change page 1, line 6, which deleted 75 miles and replaced it with 50 miles. The amendment would allow for supplemental allowance for housing expenses for legislators whose home was more than 50 miles from Carson City.

Assemblyman Dini suggested the bill be amended and rereferred to the Committee on Ways and Means without recommendation, as the fiscal note on the bill would be $103,000. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there had been discussion about whether the bill would be in addition to the amount of allotment already received by the legislators or a total amount to be received. Assemblyman Dini suggested the bill be amended and rereferred to Ways and Means as the bill would need the fiscal note addressed if it had a do pass. Assemblyman Perkins stated the bill would become a statutory change if passed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she wanted to know what the committee wanted to do with the bill, and she would entertain a motion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 631 and called on Mr. Stewart for explanation and discussion of the proposed amendments. He referred to Exhibit G.

Mr. Stewart stated the proposed amendments were:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would entertain a motion on A.B. 631.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.C.R. 20 and called on Mr. Stewart for explanation and discussion. He referred to Exhibit G.

Mr. Stewart explained there had been no amendments suggested to the bill. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she thought the video procedure was already allowed and asked if there was a need for the bill. She referred the issue to Mr. Wasserman or Mr. Stewart. Mr. Wasserman stated there was nothing to stop the procedure currently. Many committee chairmen wanted the policy for the videotaping or videovoting clarified, and the bill would clarify the issue. Assemblyman Perkins stated it was not needed. Assemblyman Dini wanted to know if the bill applied to the Legislative Commission, as the commission did videovoting. Mr. Wasserman stated the only time videovoting became an issue was during the session. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would entertain a motion on A.C.R. 20.

Assemblyman Beers suggested making a formal request for a letter to be sent from the legal department to all committee chairs making it clear the committee could use videoconferencing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would entertain a motion on A.C.R. 20 for a letter of request.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Mr. Wasserman would have the letter written. She opened the work session on A.J.R. 12 and called on Mr. Stewart for explanation and discussion. He referred to Exhibit G.

Mr. Stewart stated there were no amendments for A.J.R. 12. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for discussion and stated she would entertain a motion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 613, A.B. 614, A.B. 615, A.B. 671 and A.B. 479 and referred to Mr. Stewart for clarification and discussion about the proposed amendments. He referred to Exhibit G.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all of the bills listed were being heard together as some of the language would be lifted from one bill and placed into another bill, some language would be deleted from the bill, and then some of the bills would be indefinitely postponed. She stated the motions would be held until all amendments had been heard.

Discussion began among committee members, Mr. Glover and Mr. Lomax talked about how each district would be changed, how each district would be affected by voter turnout, and how each district would be counted as far as absentee ballots and early voting.

Mr. Lomax distributed a handout (Exhibit H) with the estimated number of people who would be voting in 2000.

Mr. Stewart stated there was duplication within the bills, A.B. 613, A.B. 615, and A.B.671 and referred to handout Exhibit G. The language in A.B. 613 was deleted and placed into A.B. 614 and A.B. 615.

Mr. Stewart stated the proposed amendments for A.B. 614 were:

Section 3: Completely remove the penalty provisions, page 2, lines 40 through 41.

The amendment answered many of the concerns of the people who testified on the bill. If someone were to really push the issue, the person could pursue a civil penalty under the Nevada Revised Statutes 293.840. The clerks understood the civil penalty available. If there was abuse with the mailing of absentee ballot requests, the Nevada Revised Statutes 293.840 could be used.

Sections 4 through 6: No changes.

Section 7: Three amendments:

Sections 8 and 9: No changes.

Section 10: Changed the residency requirement on page 8, line 1, and page 9, line 4, back to 30 days.

Sections 11 through 19: No changes

Section 20: Deleted section 20 from the bill.

Section 21: No changes.

Section 22: Two amendments:

Mr. Stewart suggested an additional proposed amendment to A.B. 614 taken from section 12 of A.B. 479, subsection 2 of Nevada Revised Statutes 293.165, and subsection 3 of Nevada Revised Statutes 293.404.

Section 12 had the proposed language amendment of "5" votes instead of 10. In subsection 2 the language dealt with the nonpartisan nomination after the close of filing and before the first Tuesday in September. It must be filled by filing a nominating petition that was signed by at least 1 percent of the persons who registered for the office in question in the state, county, district or municipality at the last preceding general election. The petition must be filed no earlier than the first Tuesday in June and not later than the second Tuesday in September. A candidate nominated pursuant to the provisions of the subsection could be elected only at a general election and his name would not appear on the ballot for a primary election.

Continuing Mr. Stewart explained subsection 3 pertained to a recount when demanded in a county or city by using a mechanical voting system. The person who demanded the recount would select ballots for the office or ballot question affected from 5 percent of the precincts. In no case would precincts consist of fewer than three precincts. The recount board would examine selected ballots, including duplicate or rejected ballots. They would determine whether the ballots had been done in accordance with statute and would count the ballots by hand.

Mr. Stewart stated the proposed amendments to A.B. 615 were:

a. Lift the following sections from A.B. 613 and place into

A.B. 615: sections 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

b. Nothing was moved from A.B. 671 into A.B. 615.

Sections 1 through 3: No changes.

Sections 4 through 6: Deleted from the bill as duplicated in A.B. 614.

Sections 7 and 8: No changes.

Sections 9: Deleted from the bill as duplicated in A.B. 614.

Sections 10 through 20: No changes.

Sections 21 and 22: Deleted from the bill as duplicated in A.B. 614.

Section 23 through 27: No changes.

Section 28: Deleted from the bill.

Sections 29 through 38: No changes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were questions or comments for Mr. Stewart and stated she would entertain a motion on all of the bills.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee would be recessed at the call of the Chair for meetings until April 19, 1999. She noted for the record the committee would be recessed rather than adjourned. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the meeting recessed at 9:16 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: