The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:45 p.m., on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County Assembly District No. 25

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4

Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Assembly District No. 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 40.

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County Assembly District No. 25, indicated that she and Patricia Cafferata felt very strongly about this bill. Referring to prepared text (Exhibit C), Assemblywoman Gibbons stated A.B. 40 would undo a law that was passed 2 years ago in the 1997 Legislative Session. It is their belief that this bill is about good government and empowering the electorate. Under the current circumstances, if two or more persons of one political party file for office, and no person of the opposing parties files, if one receives 50.1 percent in the primary election, that person can become the outright winner.

Ms. Gibbons further explained that she and Ms. Cafferata ran against one another in the last election, and obviously they had spent their efforts and time in trying to achieve 50.1 percent. Unfortunately, in primary elections, only approximately 14-16 percent of Nevada voters go to the polls. Nonpartisan voters are 14 percent and growing; and an even larger number of independents are now registering to vote. Well over half of the population is left out of the primaries. Assemblywoman Gibbons opined that during the primary period, in which many people feel disenfranchised, all parties should be open to the public; people do not want a one-party system.

Patricia D. Cafferata, Concerned Citizen, stated she was a former Assemblywoman from Washoe County Assembly District No. 5, former State Treasurer, first woman elected to constitutional office in the State of Nevada, and former District Attorney of Lander County (one of nine women in the state’s history to serve in the position of district attorney). She elucidated she was testifying to A.B. 40, at the request of Assemblywoman Gibbons. Ms. Cafferata stated this was a bill under which she had lost an election; therefore, anything she might say could be construed as suspect and in her self-interest. She had honored Ms. Gibbon’s request by testifying in the Assembly and before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.

Ms. Cafferata continued with the fact that there were three Republicans in the race in Washoe County. The law used to be that if the three Republicans had gone on, whoever had the top 2 votes or the top 2 percent would have gone on to the general election ballot. A plurality was needed; not a majority. The law was changed during the 1997 Legislative Session, and said if one person is a candidate in a primary, and there were no other candidates from the other parties, then that person would be elected. She further spoke on the election law, that primaries are simply nominating procedures for a party to select candidates. Therefore, in this case Assemblywoman Gibbons received approximately 2800 votes and Ms. Cafferata received 2600 votes, and the third person received about 4 percent of the vote. Assemblywoman Gibbons actually received nine votes more than the majority and so was elected. Five votes would have made a difference; Assemblywoman Gibbons would not have been elected at that time. There are about 12,000 Republicans in the district, approximately 7,000 Democrats, and 3,000-4,000 Nonpartisans. The Democrats and Nonpartisans were not allowed to vote. They did not get to choose. What occurred under this law was the disenfranchisement of a large percentage of the voters. Ms. Cafferata pointed to the number of votes she and Assemblywoman Gibbons had received; saying that out of 12,000 Republicans how few actually voted. Ms. Cafferata stated this was not a Republican bill and not a Republican problem; it could happen in a Democrat primary.

Ms. Cafferata stated, in theory, the argument in the 1997 Legislative Session was that money could be saved. If that was the only purpose, it clearly has not been achieved.

Ms. Cafferata elucidated she had grown up in Washoe County Assembly District No. 5, has many friends, relatives, and classmates that could not vote, including family members. No one knows what would have happened if they had gone on to the general election ballot. Ms. Cafferata summarized, saying that since she was in the history books for a few things, she hoped the committee would consider putting her in the history books one more time as the only person who ever lost an election under this very bad law. She urged the committee to vote to repeal.

James W. Hulse, Lobbyist, Common Cause, testified in support of A.B. 40. He continued by commending the eloquence of Ms. Cafferata and Assemblywoman Gibbons. He believes that the Legislature made a mistake in changing the law during the last session to enable the kind of race that occurred here. Not only was Ms. Cafferata denied the opportunity to carry her campaign forward, but also a very substantial number of voters were disenfranchised. The dialogue that is normally expected and entitled to in a political election was cut short. Therefore, for the reasons put forward, this bill should be passed.

Senator Raggio interjected that Mr. Hulse’s language troubled him. The act of the Legislature last session did not disenfranchise anyone. These are partisan races, particularly in the Legislature. The Democrats could have put a candidate forward, so they were not disenfranchised, and had the Democrats done so, this situation would not have developed. In a partisan race, the primary election is the method by which that party nominates its candidate for that office. Therefore, Senator Raggio stated, he would take exception to anyone saying that the legislative act in changing the law disenfranchised anyone.

Mr. Hulse thanked Senator Raggio, but stated that he would hold to his previous statement that simply because the Democrats did not put someone up, that fact should not have disallowed the possibility of voting in the general election for one of these two Republican candidates. It seemed to him that there was a de facto disenfranchisement of voters, because the Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, et al., did not have an opportunity to select between these two candidates as they had the opportunity under Nevada law prior to 1998.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, stated that she supports A.B. 40. It will allow all registered voters the opportunity to vote in the general election for the candidate of their choice, instead of allowing only primary voters in one party to elect the candidate. Ms. Chapman stated, for the record, she was submitting a position paper (Exhibit D) written by Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, in support of A.B. 40.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 40, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 518.

Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, Clark County Assembly District No. 22, stated this was a simple bill enabling people to meet, especially southerners meeting northerners throughout the state. In her opinion it had worked out very poorly. Assemblywoman Segerblom read the proposed amendment into the record and for the committee:

The assemblywoman continued that this would not include an invitation to dinner by a lobbyist. However, invitations to meet with miners, the Utility Shareholders Association of Nevada, and University of Nevada functions are not meetings with lobbyists, but rather people in those industries. If the public wants to know how much you get they can check how much you are given. Assemblywoman Segerblom went on to say she had been to other functions, the Nevada Taxpayers Association, for example. Everyone had been invited, but only 24 legislators attended, because they were worried their attendance would be used against them. That is a shame. She mentioned other group events where she had the opportunity to meet the Carson City people and the industry people. She emphasized legislators must meet the industry representatives throughout the state; not the lobbyists. Assemblywoman Segerblom noted that the legislators know the lobbyists; they are in the halls. These people are not lobbyists; they run the state, and they are the representatives of the industries. She pointed out the Lieutenant Governor hosted a party in an antique building, and still legislators were hesitant to attend. She wanted this section of the bill cleaned up so that all the legislators can attend these functions and the lobbyists would not have to keep track of who came, on whom did they spend $10, or on whom did they spend $20.

Assemblywoman Segerblom inquired of the chairman if several lobbyists could join her at the table to testify.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, noted that the association gave a function during the Legislature, every other year. It is, however, an annual function for the Nevada Taxpayers Association; in the off years the event is held in Las Vegas. The legislators are invited, and the benefit is for the members of the association who attend the function. So many of the legislators who do wish to attend, in fact, pay to attend. It becomes very expensive for some of the legislators. Ms. Vilardo stated it was her opinion that this bill should be passed. This proposed amendment says "all" legislators being invited.

Ms. Vilardo explained that for the past two sessions, the Nevada Taxpayers Association has appeared as one of the top three lobbyists in expenditures. That is incorrect, the same amount of money or more is spent in an off-session year. But, because the Legislature is not in session and the association is not lobbying, the expenditure does not have to be reported.

Ms. Vilardo continued, assuming the committee chose to pass this bill and forward it to the Governor’s Office, there would still be some functions during the session to which all legislators would be invited that would not require this reporting requirement; therefore, she asked that the act become effective retroactive to February 1, 1999. Ms. Vilardo stated that she would like to be able to return the checks paid to the association for an event to which the legislators had been invited. Secondly, she pointed out the de minimis exemption set by the Legislative Counsel Bureau by regulation/policy is $2, and that was approved by the Legislative Commission. Ms. Vilardo referred to a new brochure by the Nevada Taxpayers Association titled: Understanding Nevada’s Property Tax System. This brochure is strictly informational but the cost is $3. She added she could not make this available to the Legislature without reporting all the legislators on the expenditure item.

Ms. Vilardo related that in a discussion with Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, regarding the de minimis regulation, he reiterated the amount of $2 as being considered the amount the Legislative Counsel Bureau would allow. Ms. Vilardo asked the committee to consider raising the amount to $10, or at least set the amount at $5. But, in her opinion, $2 is ridiculous. The Nevada Taxpayers Association would like to provide information without the need to inform in person, or in writing, to advise each legislator that receipt of this will be reported as a lobbying expense and asking whether the legislator would like to accept, refuse or pay for the information.

Senator Neal posited that perhaps a cap could be set for each legislator, for example $700. Ms. Vilardo replied that she would have difficulty with that and explained to the committee referencing the seventy-fifth anniversary function, which coincided with the 1997 Legislative Session. The expenditures associated with that event were considerable insofar as the association offered a no-host bar and special table decorations; therefore, according to the reporting requirements for lobbyists, all the additional expenses became a part of that function and that function was very expensive.

Senator Neal expressed his concern pointing out a potential increase for expenditures for legislators in terms of food. Assemblywoman Segerblom interjected that the language says that "all" or "every" legislator is invited to a function. Senator Neal reiterated that this bill spoke only to those events where every legislator is invited. Ms. Segerblom agreed.

Joyce A. Newman, Lobbyist, Utility Shareholders Association of Nevada, addressed the committee stating that she had little to add, other than her amazement at picking up a newspaper and finding that she is one of the ‘big spenders.’

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), pointed out this was a bill in which NCC did not have a vested interest. The NCC has no money and they do not spend any money on anyone. The Nevada Concerned Citizens wanted to be on record as speaking in favor of common sense. The level of detail required, as outlined by Ms. Vilardo, is truly a bookkeeping nightmare. The NCC would also wish to be on the record as agreeing with the de minimis amount. She said detailed requirements have gotten out of hand and discourage participation in the process. The NCC wants the legislators to be able to hear from people of all points of view. They certainly think it is important for the legislators to hear not only from government, but also industry and private interests in the state. This restriction actually infringes on the ability to have that communication in a timely fashion. Therefore, the Nevada Concerned Citizens would appreciate the committee’s support of A.B. 518.

James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, stated that they would like to register support for this bill. Mr. Richardson said he had been asked by Joseph Crowley, Ed.D., President, University of Nevada, Reno, who was unable to attend the hearing to inform the committee that this legislation would impact the Blue and Silver Dinner, held every session. Mr. Richardson told the committee that only 28 legislators were in attendance. In discussion after the event, it had been found that some legislators had not attended because of the reporting requirement. It was their opinion that the caliber of the speaker for that function was such that having people stay away because of the ‘hassle’ of reporting the $10 - $15 was a shame. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 518.

Mr. Richardson also said he would like to be on record, although not with Dr. Crowley’s authorization, but certainly the Nevada Faculty Alliance would urge the committee to consider the de minimis issue as well. It occurred to him that he might have violated that provision at some point because he had handed things out to people that have a cost attached.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, spoke as chairman of the elections committee. She said the committee did take into consideration the de minimis account and felt that it was worthwhile to look at; but in their understanding, it was a policy matter that had been done by the commission. They had sent a letter or were going to send a letter requesting that the commission increase that amount. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani offered that information to the committee, in order to explain why that issue was not contained within this piece of legislation, but stated she was sympathetic to the groups making that argument.

Ms. Chapman stated that the Nevada Eagle Forum supports the elimination of lobbyist reporting of expenditures by a legislator for a party or social event if all legislators are invited. Reporting requirements have become ridiculous and extreme. They only hamper the honest citizen and citizen organizations from participating in the legislative process. The restrictive laws do not ensure honesty, but infringe on free speech and political discourse.

There being no further testimony the Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 518, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 130.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, explained that A.B. 130 was a redraft to repeal legislation from last session. She wished to make clear what the bill both does and does not do. She went on to say the language of the current law, in the opinion of many attorneys and editorial boards, could not stand the test of the First Amendment and, therefore, must be changed. The Assemblywoman stated, in her opinion, it was how the statute had been implemented which has had, and will continue to have, a chilling effect on free speech.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stressed the repeal of this legislation would not mean condoning lies and distortions. The voters would benefit from frank discussion of pertinent issues. It was her hope that legislators would take stock of themselves and how campaigns are conducted based on the wishes of the voters during the last campaign. However, over the last 2 years, the ethics commission’s interpretation and use of the statute had borne out the need to revisit that issue.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated her willingness to work with the committee in order to craft language that will deal with negative campaigning in a reasonable manner. It is her belief the statute is not able to do that and that is why Ms. Giunchigliani brought it back as an issue of repeal.

Senator Care noted that there were other cases where there had been violations cited by the Commission on Ethics resulting in lawsuits. He queried the status of the litigation of the other cases. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied that she believed Mr. Brown had lost his case and she did not know if that was on appeal. She continued that when the Commission on Ethics presented their budget before the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, she thought they had testified there were approximately 17 other cases where this type of issue had been brought forward. She was unaware of the disposition of those cases. It was her opinion that whichever way one leaned as to the constitutionality of the statute, the powers that were granted to the Commission on Ethics and the fact the statute defined ‘any person‘ could be impacted by this legislation. For example, someone who worked in your campaign, without your authorization, made a comment about someone else in a campaign could be taken before the Commission on Ethics, too. It had a much broader sweep than anyone anticipated.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Steve Miller used this in his lawsuit. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied that she could not recall. Chairman O’Connell asked if anyone could recall.

Allen Lichtenstein, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), responded it was his recollection that when Steve Miller was campaigning it was prior to the utilization of this particular law.

Senator Raggio interjected, saying he thought the tone needed to be set for discussing this issue. Further, that this committee in its effort to deal with the contentious issue of campaign reform last session, noted his belief that the public was fed up with negative campaigning. He elaborated, citing some races involving the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and particularly the Judicial Branch of our government that have been false and defamatory. Even the United States Supreme Court said that freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything you want about anybody anywhere. The Senator said they had worked for something that addressed public concern with negative campaigning and an alternative to filing criminal charges, which have no practical use in a campaign. Efforts were directed toward providing an efficient, timely method for someone who believed they had been defamed to bring about an expeditious resolution of the issue. Senator Raggio stated that, at this point in time and as a member of the committee, he was not ready to throw it out. He said he realized that this was not always the best solution, particularly in Bob Beers’ case, and having read the opinion that there was probably some failure to understand the issues when the commission arrived at their judgment. Therefore, Senator Raggio expressed concern there be something in law that is effective, provides recourse that does chill the idea that negative campaigning can be conducted, and at the same time, preserves freedom of speech in so much as it is lawful and appropriate.

Senator Raggio stated that by repealing the law with no alternative or an opportunity for someone to defend themselves and go to an impartial body to obtain a quick resolve, then he would not deal with this unless there is a solution. The public is entitled to know, and there needs to be some fair and objective source to which a candidate can turn.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied, perhaps this bill could be used as a vehicle; but unfortunately, in her opinion, the way in which interpretation has occurred of the statute, especially in the example of Assemblyman Beers’ and Constable Brown’s situation where it was misapplied. What is missing here is due process. It has to be a decision within 2 days. She agreed that there was a need to move with caution, but if there is some other mechanism, it should be explored.

Senator Raggio concurred, the commission tried to build due process in the statute to the extent they were able; but it is not due process, if a system is devised that makes the determination after the election, and that was the reason for expediting the issues. The Legislative Counsel had told the commission that there was a due-process situation.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the filings with the Commission on Ethics may simply allow someone to say they had filed an ethics complaint against someone for negative campaigning. That was an issue regardless of the 2-day hearing.

Senator Neal queried Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s statement that the present statute was misapplied. He asked if there was a misapplication of law, would it not be better to deal with that than just an outright repeal of that law. Senator Neal also asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to relate testimony she had heard that would illustrate this law had been misapplied.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied, not only did she think the statute was misapplied, but she also thought it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore, her repeal was based on those two premises; most importantly, the issue of the First Amendment. She suggested that Assemblyman Beers could speak to how it had been misapplied even more directly. The Commission on Ethics was supposed to make a finding of "nonfactual," and they did not. They even admitted that they did not, and yet still issued a penalty as well as a fine against Assemblyman Beers. That is a misapplication. They did not even meet what the statute demands as far as making findings.

Senator Titus offered that people have to look at the differences between lies and negative campaigning; the twisting of the truth or perceptions. Lying is not protected by the First Amendment. She pointed out if the purpose of this law was to do away with negative campaigning, Senator Titus said she did not believe it had.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she would be remiss if she did not point out lies are unacceptable, but individuals lie now when they file as to whether they have a job or a business, etc. Unfortunately, there is that type of activity.

Senator Raggio brought out the fact that if you are a public official and someone lies about you, unless it is deemed malicious, you cannot even sue for liable. When you say how do we know whether this deterred anyone from saying something untrue or negative. The Senator stated that from discussions with other candidates this did deter candidates from saying things they otherwise would have said during the last election.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani summarized that at the least this bill can be used for the dialog that has begun. None of the political parties wants negative campaigning. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani also stated that she wanted to save the state from litigation because she does believe this will be challenged and this would save the taxpayers’ money. If there is some way to arrive at an independent body with less broad powers, with some access or opportunity to file a complaint, perhaps that is something that could be explored.

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4, noted that it appeared the committee was familiar with his story. He was of the opinion that the Commission on Ethics made a series of both legal and factual errors in arriving at the decision in his case. His thought was that the committee and the other bodies of the Legislature wrote these laws in an attempt to quell citizen cynicism. In his case, both Las Vegas newspapers agreed that he had been ‘railroaded.’ In fact, this law had increased citizen cynicism at least in Las Vegas. He provided an overview of his experience with Nevada’s truth-In-campaigning law, along with a copy of his campaign brochure and various newspaper articles (Exhibit E). Assemblyman Beers said he was reminded that altruism is not universal and socialism does not work. The need for a fast-track resolution and fast-track application for the standards set by Sullivan v. New York Times is admirable, a good goal. Certainly, it was not reached in his case.

Senator Care stated that Assemblyman Beers had filed suit in federal court against the commission and asked Assemblyman Beers what he had asked for in the suit. He noted a court had not ruled on the constitutionality of what is contained in the statute.

Assemblyman Beers replied a civil rights complaint had been filed; that his First Amendment rights had been violated in that he had told the truth and sought to have that administrative decision vacated. He further stated that he was not seeking to have this law overturned specifically, although that may well be within the judge’s purview.

Senator Neal questioned the importance of Sullivan v. New York Times to Assemblyman Beers. Assemblyman Beers replied he had attended the University of Nevada Journalism School at Reno, and had spent 8 years as a professional journalist. Therefore, he is fairly well familiar with the standards of liable and slander. Sullivan v. New York Times was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, and essentially a body of case law has developed through that ruling and subsequent rulings. The rules basically say in matters of political debate, if you believe you have been lied about, you have to prove that the person who lied about you did so with malice. The bottom line, for example, if he (Assemblyman Beers) lied about Senator Neal in a campaign, but did so innocently (that he truly believed that which was, in fact, untrue, then his speech would be protected.

Senator Neal asked what if someone lied and did not give him the opportunity to respond. Assemblyman Beers replied that you will have the opportunity to respond and, in fact, that happened in his case. He elaborated they had sent a flyer out approximately 2 weeks before the election. The newspaper asked what his opponent’s answers were, and published the response.

Assemblyman Beers, also in reply to Senator Neal’s query regarding statements made in such a way that preclude a response and, therefore, would speak to the malice issue, said he did not know what could be done with a last-minute attack. The last-minute attack was probably one of the targets of the legislation. He said the penalties are increased the closer the infraction occurs to the election. Assemblyman Beers reiterated that, in his case, there were a series of legal and factual errors in arriving at the conclusion. Most learned people who have looked at the case have said no, he had not violated the statute, in fact, what he had done was totally permissible. The fact that it was done 2 weeks before the election speaks also to the issue of fairness.

Assemblyman Beers continued by asking, can people who must be judges be successfully appointed to the Commission on Ethics. People who must be capable of making the legal and factual determinations that historically judges have been relied upon to do. The reason Assemblyman Beers was in support of A.B. 130 is he has serious concerns about the likelihood of an appointed panel capable of consistently and quickly rendering decisions where historically reliance has been on the entire judicial system.

Senator O’Donnell stated it was his belief the Commission on Ethics, set in place by the legislature, is unconstitutional in its’ standing. He also noted that it was his opinion there could be an ethics committee comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on each side of the Legislature. If that were the situation, there would be actual knowledge and experience of campaigning and a better opportunity for fairness.

Assemblyman Beers said he heard an interesting idea put forth, to have an Commission on Ethics composed of equal numbers of partisan legislators from other states to remove it from the realm of familiarity developed working together. Chairman O’Connell acknowledged that in looking at that idea, there have been problems with legislators being familiar with the laws of other states.

Ms. Chapman noted the Nevada Eagle Forum supported A.B. 130, which would repeal the "ethics" commission’s power over campaigns and volunteers. Ms. Chapman pointed out that Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum (NEF), had mentioned that the NEF supported this bill when she testified on the Governor’s ethics bill, S.B. 478. The so-called ethic law violates the constitutional protections of freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to trial by jury, due process and many other fundamental rights and guarantees.

According to Ms. Chapman each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in the federal and state constitutions. Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures unconstitutionally burden the fairness and accountability of the political system.

Allen Lichtenstein, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), referring to the number of questions raised regarding the Sullivan v. New York Times case, expounded the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for what states, municipalities and the federal government can do insofar as sanctions on political speech. Therefore any ordinance, or any law, including this one that would contravene the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, is unconstitutional. Mr. Lichtenstein spoke to the fact the Commission on Ethics could sanction people for false statements, even those that are not defamatory. A defamatory statement has to cause some harm. It has to be shown in any kind of defamation case that there was actual harm to one’s reputation.

Mr. Lichtenstein continued the U.S. Supreme Court has set the threshold for public officials at a pretty high level in order to have a cause of action for ruining their "reputation." It is not a question of trying to micromanage election campaigns. America has a long history of negative campaigning. Historically, it would be difficult to find anything more vitriolic, with more mud slinging, and more false claims and statements than in the presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. Lichtenstein commented on America’s history of rough and tumble politics and there is a reason for that; not because negative campaigning is good or politicians deserve to be lied about; but for every person who wants to lie and may be deterred, there could be several others who may be so afraid of any kind of criticism, for fear of being brought before the ethics commission, that they will censure themselves. The ‘chilling’ effect of self-censorship is the reason in the realm of politics (which is core, fundamental free speech) that the U.S. Supreme Court has set a very high threshold that we do not want a ‘chilling’ effect. He noted it has been mentioned time and again that the purpose of this particular law is to ensure that someone does not take an unfair advantage by saying something that is untrue. As an aside, any kind of truthful negative campaigning or opinion-negative campaigning is not covered by this at all. This is not about negative campaigning, but rather about the opportunity to respond.

Mr. Lichetenstein pointed out if the issue is simply setting the record straight; then there can be a number of mechanisms whereby parties who are in disagreement about a particular fact, can present those facts and have an opinion rendered as to what is the actual truth. That is far different from someone saying "you are guilty, here is your $5000 fine, $10,0000 fine, or $30,000 fine," when someone has 2 days in which to prepare a defense for themselves. He said one issue is can we have a mechanism to help the public understand what the facts actually are, if there are disputed facts. The law that is on the books now does not do that. (The present law is micromanaging political campaigns and creating a ‘chilling effect’; a totally unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ that would make things nice and pleasant, which that will not occur, because we will retain the rough and tumble politics.) He urged the committee to pass A.B. 130, and work on other mechanisms to aid the public in obtaining more information; as opposed to what is essentially the ‘truth squad’, with a politically appointed body that is going to make these kinds of determinations again on the whim that was seen with Assemblyman Beers’ case. Finally, Mr. Lichtenstein said that one way or another this law will disappear because it is unconstitutional. It will either be done legislatively or through litigation; and, as much respect as he has for the committee, he also understood that the committee did not have the ability to supercede the U.S. Supreme Court rules and that is what this bill does.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Lichtenstein, as this was a field with which he was very familiar, if he was familiar with any cases where an elected official has been able to sue and clear their name. Mr. Lichtenstein replied, yes, in many cases, but the threshold is high. Again it is the balancing test between the individual’s right to have their reputation kept clean against the public’s right to have as full, free-flowing and unfettered public debate as possible.

Chairman O’Connell then inquired if there were other cases in Nevada that Mr. Lichtenstein could cite. He responded with the Brown case. Chairman O’Connell thought the case had settled, Mr. Lichtenstein replied that was correct, but after it had gone to the appellate court. He added he had not researched the number of politicians in the State of Nevada who have sued or been sued for defamation, but he said the lack of a great number of those probably is an indication of ‘that is not really the way in American politics.’ The Chairman stated that money was part of it. Mr. Lichtenstein answered, yes, money was part of it, but let us be honest, every candidate, certainly every elected official may say they do not have the money to respond; but compared to average citizens who really do not have the opportunity to respond. If a public official feels that they have been defamed, you can call a reporter and get their story in the press. The system and the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court do not provide perfect protection for politicians, absolutely not, but that is part of balancing the rights of individuals in public life versus the rights of the public to have as free and unfettered public debate as possible. These are not standards the ACLU set; this was the United States Supreme Court, the law of the land.

Chairman O’Connell asked if there had been any consideration of the ACLU to take this matter to court, and if so, why not if Mr. Lichtenstein felt so strongly that it is unconstitutional. Mr. Lichtenstein responded the answer to the first question is yes, they feel strongly. He continued the ACLU had attempted to intervene in Assemblyman Beers’ case, but the ACLU has held off filing suit hoping in this legislative session that this particular bill, A.B. 130, would be passed and that it would be unnecessary. Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU does not like to institute lawsuits and litigate federal cases if they do not have to. They are time-consuming, money-consuming and the ACLU would much rather work with the Legislature to arrive at constitutional laws than simply going to court all the time. He did stipulate that if the issue got to the point where that was the only way to resolve this issue then they would do so.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Lichtenstein if he was aware that, according to the legislative legal staff, the law is constitutional. Mr. Lichtenstein said he had heard that, but he could only respond that the ACLU could not depend solely on the opinions of the legal staff of any legislative body; they would never challenge any law. The ACLU challenges many laws and are very often successful. He said while the ACLU understands that is the position of the legal staff, they respectfully disagree. Mr. Lichtenstein did point out, however, that the ACLU challenged a similar law in the State of Washington and the Washington Supreme Court struck it down; so this is not unprecedented. Senator O’Connell did inform Mr. Lichtenstein that the legal staff had reviewed the law again in reference to the case in Washington, and would respectfully disagree with the ACLU on the basis of that case.

Senator Care queried in looking at the Sullivan case and its progeny, if there was any way that current law could not be repealed, but amended. Was it possible for the State of Nevada to contrive an apparatus to govern political speech and still remain constitutional. Mr. Lichtenstein said he thought it was possible and had tried to allude to that earlier, saying if there are no sanctions, where there is not a politically appointed body being able to punish people, that would eliminate a good portion of the problem. If there is a body or different bodies that could be used to adjudicate issues as to whether something was factual or not factual, in an advisory capacity, it was Mr. Lichtenstein’s opinion that this would be within the bounds of constitutionality. When arriving at the point of punishment in a quasi-judicial proceeding, which is not really the case because of all the due process problems and differing standards, that is when the problems arise. He reiterated, that yes, in terms of an advisory opinion, in terms of what is fact and what is not fact, that probably could be worked out. That is, again, a different approach than what is being taken at the moment.

Senator Titus commented that Assemblyman Beers had mentioned "unintended consequences" earlier, and it was her thought that the rise of negative campaigning in recent history is an unintended consequence of campaign finance reform. It was after the Campaign Finance Act of the mid-70s was put into place that limited the amount of money an individual could donate to the candidate of their choice, but did not limit the amount an individual could spend independently against the candidate who was not his/her choice. There was an increase in negative campaign spending because it could be financed and not fall under the caps. Unless that whole issue is revisited of how campaigns are funded and how to limit contributions, Senator Titus did not see this issue going away, no matter what kind of ‘truth squad’ was in place.

Mr. Lichtenstein submitted that even if campaign-financing laws were not in place, that negative campaigning would not go away because it is part of our culture. He urged the committee to look at the campaign of Adams and Jefferson; it was not about issues as much as it was about personalities, mudslinging and the like.

Senator Neal asked if it is the ACLU’s position that freedom of speech is absolute. Mr. Lichtenstein replied, of course not. However, it was their position in this realm that the limits of protected speech have been set by the United States Supreme Court in the New York Times v. Sullivan case. And that any law that attempts to deal with political speech, particularly by candidates, has to adhere by those standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which are not absolute at all, but again have a pretty high threshold for what could be actionable. Senator Neal asked why the courts had decided that student newspapers are not protected by freedom of speech.

Mr. Lichtenstein responded that student newspapers may or may not be protected by the First Amendment with different First Amendment standards, depending on whether it is a high school newspaper or a college newspaper; whether it is a private school or a public school; and whether the newspaper is part of a class or an independent project run by students. There are a myriad of rules, regulations and court decisions concerning student newspapers that have to do with a particular factual circumstance of a particular newspaper. There is no blanket rule that says student newspapers are not covered by the First Amendment.

Senator Neal queried, is it not true then that principals and officials of high schools have the authority to dictate societal values as to what a student newspaper can print. Mr. Lichtenstein said that because of the nature of the high school newspaper as a school-controlled and school-sponsored function, as a class or as part of the school’s educational purpose, the courts have said that the principal is, in effect, the publisher of the newspaper. On the college level, with differing kinds of structures, including independent student newspapers, there are different circumstances.

Mr. Lichtenstein said that he hoped the Senator was not equating the Legislature with high school students, and Senator Neal said that he was referring to the societal value. Mr. Lichtenstein stated the courts, in ruling about high school newspapers, have talked about the fact that they are students, in a particular role of high school students, operating a newspaper that is run by the school. Therefore, the school has ultimate editorial control of its own newspaper, upon which its students are assigned to work as part of the school’s educational process. It is not a circumstance where there is a regulation by anybody about somebody over whom it has no control.

In the case of political speech the line is drawn at the New York Times vs. Sullivan case and its progeny. Can a legislature be more restrictive than that, no. The courts have said no legislature, Congress, the President, or governmental body can go beyond that particular line drawn by the courts. Senator Neal asked if that line was malice. Mr. Lichtenstein answered that malice was one element of the test. It is a multipart test, and malice simply means that even if all the other elements are there, even if it is false, even if it is harmful, etc., unless it is either done with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, it is not malice. If it is just mere negligence, for example, it is not actionable. So as he had said before, the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing the value of unfettered political debate, has set the bar at a high level.

Chairman O’Connell noted that she would like to take advantage of Mr. Lichtenstein’s expertise a little further in regard to Senator Care’s question. If there was a Commission on Ethics that did not have the ability to penalize, a determination could be made, and if something was found to be amiss, they could turn it over to the proper authority, the courts.

Mr. Lichtenstein replied he did not think he had gone that far. What he had said was a commission that would be able to look at a particular dispute about truth and falsity and say, their belief is this is where the truth lies. This was their advisory opinion, that the commission would probably not run afoul of the constitution, because it is doing no more than offering an advisory opinion about whether there is an objective fact or not; not looking at motivation or malice or other conditions that the court would require in terms of punishment.

Kent Lauer, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association (NPA), said the NPA represents 40 newspapers across the state. The NPA supports this bill for one reason; it upholds the First Amendment. He expounded there cannot be candidates who are afraid to criticize their opponents because they might be hauled in front of an ethics commission. There cannot be candidates who have to have their statements scrutinized by a lawyer to avoid being hauled in front of an ethics commission. He went on by asking the committee to imagine being hit with an ethics commission complaint for an opinion one of them expressed on the floor of the Senate. He said he did not see any difference between political speech during a campaign and a political speech on the floor of the Senate. Both should be robust and free. He did not have a solution for what many see as the problem of negative campaigning. He did say that the answer is not trampling on the First Amendment. We should do anything in our power to stop any erosion of free speech, particularly in the political arena. The First Amendment cannot be treated lightly. Mr. Lauer pointed out the Truth in Campaigning Law does not just apply to candidates. This law applies to any person. And that person could include a citizen who writes a letter to the editor or a citizen who makes a comment at a political debate; so for that reason this law is very flawed. It applies to everyone, not just candidates.

Ms. Lusk told the committee she was there in support of A.B. 130. She suspected, by now, the committee was aware the Commission on Ethics lacks the expertise to deal with the real issues of defamation, slander and liable. Although the NCC was convinced this was unintended by the Legislature, it has become another forum to defame one’s political opponents by making accusations to the Commission on Ethics that are nicely timed to affect a campaign. Ms. Lusk said she had also been the victim of those cheap shots, that this system has simply created another place to take another kind of cheap shot. She urged the committee to consider if the ethics commission’s rulings really were unbiased on these subjective issues. From the NCC’s observation, the answer is no. They inject another set of biases into the decision. From a citizen point of view, it appears, at times, in the few cases where there is real corruption at issue, as if the Commission on Ethics stands as a buffer between the politician and the real court system where real penalties could be imposed. The NCC does not believe this helps in the arena of public cynicism, but that it is harmful. In any case, Ms. Lusk said the nastiest campaign tactic she had ever seen was what she calls the whisper campaign. The process of starting a rumor that can never be traced to its source. It can never be addressed by any truth law, and it has taken down many good people. It can only be responded to by honorable people who refuse to believe undocumented rumors. Ms. Lusk referred to an earlier suggestion that the legislative houses each have an ethics committee. It is possible that might be appropriate for dealing with malfeasance while in office, but she would submit that no such committee should have power over campaigns. Campaigns are a decision by the voters. When that decision is made, and that judgement rendered, no elected body should overturn that judgment. Those individuals should be permitted to serve. The people should watch them while they are serving as we attempt to do, and make another decision the next time around.

Ms. Lusk continued those legislators who have been here for some time, the people have made that decision in their favor a number of times, and those legislators who are newer have to look forward to whether the voters will make that judgment in their favor next time. It legitimately lies in the arena of the voting citizen to decide who they wish to have serve them. If a person gets too carried away with diatribe, the voting public has the right to say they do not think that person will serve them well. On the other hand, why do people engage in negative campaigning. They often engage in it because it works, but that decision cannot be taken out of the voters’ hands. The legislation passed previously has done some of that. She concluded the NCC would urge the committee to support A.B. 130.

Senator Neal asked if he understood that the voters should always get the person for whom they voted, no matter what. Ms. Lusk responded that when the term "no matter what" is used, it implies the absolute limit. In virtually everything, there is some level of judgment to be imposed. Ms. Lusk said the NCC were great believers in the three branches of the government; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They think the Judicial Branch of government is there to answer that question. When something goes so far that it is criminal, that it is genuine slander, genuine liable, and genuine defamation; the courts, where the expertise lies, should deal with that. The NCC does not believe the Commission on Ethics serves the purpose.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 130, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 169.

Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Assembly District No. 21, stated that A.B. 169 came about because of a constituent, Joshua Hansen, who when he was 18, wanted to register to vote. Mr. Hansen, for religious reasons, does not have a social security number, driver’s license or Nevada identification. These are the three items that are allowable forms of identification according to the voter registrar. Mr. Hansen sued and Assemblywoman Tiffany informed the committee that she had gone to the court hearing. Judge Porter was the presiding judge and at that point he said that the 1999 Legislature needed to address this issue, so that the voter registration laws would allow the flexibility needed with these unusual cases. In speaking with the voter registrar, Ms. Tiffany was informed that, by statute, only those three pieces could be used. In addition, the voter registrar said the computer program would not allow it. Only certain identification (ID) numbers could be entered into the program. In going through the process, Ms. Tiffany said she had found that in the federal Privacy Act of 1974, as well as the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993, it had been ruled that the social security number could not be used for ID. Therefore, we had a case where the federal government says you should not be able to use your social security number for ID. Yet, in the State of Nevada, one of the three items happened to be the social security number, and that is illegal if you look at some of the court cases.

Assemblywoman Tiffany explained she brought the bill to the Legislature and would ask that if the person chose not to provide any of those IDs, the voter registrar would then allow the individual to have a unique number. She went on to explain why there was an amendment. After some testimony, and there was agreement on what the alternative process would be, it was found that Clark County again does not have a software program that allows 12 digits instead of 14 digits. So she did some computer homework and found that changes to the coding would have to be extensive, and she would be happy to accommodate the amendment.

Alan H. Glover, Lobbyist, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, and Nevada Association of Election Officials (NAEO), stated that what Ms. Tiffany had begun really does need to be done. They had attempted to eliminate the requirement for any kind of ID numbers. It did not work; therefore, they were back to basically the original bill, which will work. Pamela Crowell, with the secretary of state’s office, has developed proposed amendments, which everyone can work with and are most happy to accept.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the problems had been found after the bill had been passed on the Assembly side. She also asked for confirmation that all registrars have signed off on the bill so that the committee would know that it would work.

Ms. Chapman stated the Nevada Eagle Forum (NEF) supports this bill which removes an individual’s social security number as a requirement to register to vote. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 specifically prohibits the government or any of its agencies from denying the right, benefit or privilege to an individual whom refuses to disclose his or her social security number. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1993, that requiring social security numbers as a way to limit voter fraud was an impermissible infringement on the right to vote. Voter registration forms are public information and readily accessible to anyone.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 169, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 444.

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, asked for the Chairman’s indulgence in giving a brief overview of the development of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 293C, City Elections, and then she would walk through A.B. 444.

Reading from prepared test (Exhibit F), Ms. Crowell stated over the years Nevada’s election law expanded in size again and again until in 1997, anyone concerned with city elections had to sort through the pertinent chapter or chapters of NRS Title 24 "Election Law" to find that one necessary statute to give directions or to resolve a dilemma. Oftentimes the search resulted in further confusion. In response to the pleas from the city clerks for a separate chapter in Title 24 for City Elections, action was taken during the 1997 Legislative Session, primarily through two bills, A.B. 414 of the Sixty-ninth Session and S.B. 447 of the Sixty-ninth Session; and NRS chapter 293C was created.

The results of numerous meetings and conferences since the last session are presented through A.B. 444 as basic, true housekeeping proposed amendments to city election law.

Ms. Crowell stated, as a point of information, there are 17 cities in Nevada which hold their elections in the spring of odd-numbered years. Of those 17, 11 have city charters. Those 11 are Boulder City, Caliente, Carlin, Elko, Gabbs, Henderson, Las Vegas, Sparks, Wells and Yerington. Although with charter, the City of Reno holds its municipal elections in the even-numbered years at the same time as the primary and general elections. Ms. Crowell then walked the committee through the proposed changes to A.B. 444.

Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Crowell why these revisions were being moved to different sections of the same NRS chapter.

Ms. Crowell replied that when chapter 293 of NRS was created, it was a given that all of the city clerks would have preferred having their whole own NRS Title 24 and there was so much work put into the question of what statutes from chapter 293 of NRS and the additional chapters in NRS Title 24 would be necessary for the accomplishment of city elections. The list, which was desired, was incredible, it was literally lifting entire chapters and repeating them. The secretary of state’s office said it wanted to deal only with those necessary statutes which the city clerks need for a city elections chapter. There were several more that were found for clarification so they do not have to go looking all over for them.

Ms. Crowell said, in closing, that the proposed amendments within A.B. 444 were developed through the joint efforts of the city clerks and the secretary of state’s office. Ms. Crowell informed the committee that Vicky Mayes, City Clerk of Boulder City, and President of the Nevada Association of Municipal Clerks, had hoped to testify in support of this bill; however, the city election cycle, now at the point of early voting, precluded her attendance. Ms. Mayes sent a supporting letter, which would be read into the record by Thomas Grady of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, stated he had the letter (Exhibit G) from Vicky Mays, City Clerk, Boulder City, and President of the Nevada Municipal Clerk’s Association. Mr. Grady went on to say that the letter was addressed to Chairman O’Connell. Mr. Grady proceeded to read the letter into the record.

Senator O’Donnell queried as to why the "second degree of consanguinity" had been chosen rather than the third degree of consanguinity. He continued that all the other statutes of which he was aware used the third degree of consanguinity. Ms. Crowell responded she had not selected that; it had been there. Therefore she could not give a definitive explanation as to why it exists in Title 24 of NRS as second as opposed to third.

There were no further questions on A.B. 444. Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 444, and opened the work session discussion on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 95.

The Chairman recognized that Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, was not present to testify before the committee. Chairman O’Connell drew attention to the fact that Mr. Leavitt had expressed concern that A.B. 95 would not provide for the inclusion of lighting in the beautification project. Chairman O’Connell asked Carole Vilardo to come forward and speak to A.B. 95.

Ms. Vilardo stated she had not been present for the hearing on the bill and had originally opposed the bill. Ms. Vilardo explained that because of opposition to the language, A.B. 95 was in first reprint. She went on to say that the hardship provision had been amended. Further clarifications were made to the beautification provision. Ms. Vilardo emphasized the limitations of this bill. After discussion, it was found that the amendments offered had expanded the bill. The functions would fall to the local governing body and be paid for with revenues from normal property and sales taxes.

Senator Raggio commented that he did not understand why the Sparks’ request for the inclusion of lighting caused the opposition to the bill. Senator Raggio elucidated on the items included in A.B. 95; he queried again why lighting for a street was a departure from the items included. Senator Raggio iterated that landscaping, tree planting, waterfalls, retaining walls, benches, rest rooms, etc. are part of the normal process. Senator Raggio suggested that A.B. 95 be held for further review.

Chairman O’Connell agreed with the suggestion, and closed the work session on A.B. 95. She opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 129.

The Chairman noted that an amendment had been requested and there had been

no opposition on the bill. Chairman O’Connell inquired whether Ms. Guinasso would comment on the conflict amendment.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied the conflict was with A.B. 128, but that it was not a substantive conflict. NRS 226.110 was amended in A.B. 128.

Ms. Guinasso stated the language was added after the bill passed out of the Senate and provided a new subsection 4, which read, "may employ any necessary investment and financial advisors to render advice and other services in connection with the investment of money of the State." In order to address the conflict, the language would be added to alleviate a problem when codified.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 129.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the discussion on A.B. 226.

The Chairman suggested that if the committee decided to act on the bill that it be placed on the consent calendar. The Chairman noted that A.B. 226 referred to towns with populations of 300 or less.

The Chairman remarked that A.B. 227 was being interpreted narrowly by the district attorney. The Washoe County District Attorney recommended this legislation to codify what is current practice.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The Chairman stated A.B. 260 regards the difficulty in obtaining physicians to serve on the board. This is not limited by population, and therefore would be applicable throughout the State.

Senator Titus drew attention to the ethics bill and questioned whether that relieved any of the burden of reporting for a public office. It was Senator Titus’ opinion that this type of legislation should fall under that rather than deal with each position or town separately.

Senator Raggio queried the legal counsel regarding existing law and whether this was for the purpose of the public officer who had to file the disclosure statements. Ms. Guinasso replied that it did control that, but also controls the entire NRS chapter 281. The limited purpose in terms of filing the financial disclosure form is met by this, but more than that it exempts the public officer from the code of ethics. Senator Raggio referred to the list of people who do not have to file. For example, any member of the board, commission or body that is an advisory board. It was his thought this was what Senator Titus referenced, that the committee might want to expand the list and perhaps this was the vehicle. Senator Raggio suggested the bill be held for a week for further additions and information.

The Chairman asked Ms. Guinasso, if there was anywhere in current law, language pertaining to everyone covered by the ethics law as to who has to report. A list of the number of people serving on boards and commissions that would be impacted by this bill. The Chairman thought that perhaps a list could be obtained from the Office of the Secretary of State. Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 260.

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 261, and remarked that this was a Lander County bill regarding that the county commissioners be allowed to take action on a measure while traveling outside the county seat.

Senator Care commented this bill would apply to Clark County, as well. He recalled a discussion where concern had been raised with final action being taken outside the county seat. Senator Care had given thought as to how that might occur. The chairman responded, naming Overton and Sandy Valley. The chairman reminded the members that this was applicable to the state.

Senator Raggio thought perhaps the committee read the bill incorrectly and the existing law does now allow it, except in zoning matters. Page 2 of the existing law refers to a meeting outside the county seat on zoning matters. Otherwise, Senator Raggio thought final action could be taken.

Senator Titus queried how this bill would change what was allowable now. Ms. Guinasso noted that apparently the Churchill County District Attorney was taking a conservative view of this. A.B. 261 is not changing the law, but rather clarifying the law.

Senator Raggio clarified by saying the board of county commissioners had to meet at least once in the county seat or within 10 miles of the county seat.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 299.

Senator Titus remarked that the definition referenced a loophole whereby a property tax increase could occur without a vote of the people, would this enlarge that loophole. The Chairman replied it would close the loophole.

Senator Raggio commented this bill also mandated identification of the source of revenue, etc.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 299.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 350, noting that the bill simply states the official colors of the state seal.

ASSEMBLY BILL 350: Designates official colors for reproduction or facsimile of state seal. (BDR 19-1440)

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The Chairman opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 375.

Senator Raggio queried the reference to S.B. 39 during the hearing of this measure.

Chairman O’Connell replied, explaining that S.B. 39 was Senator Amodei’s bill and had been heard in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. The bill allowed counties to do business with credit unions.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.J.R. 18, and suggested the

committee indefinitely postpone the measure.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.J.R. 18.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator Raggio suggested to the chairman that the committee take action on A.B. 444 because the changes would apply to the upcoming spring elections. Chairman O’Connell stated she would accept a motion.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.444.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

There being no further business, Chairman O’Connell formally adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Julie Burdette,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: