The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:23 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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 Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Assembly District No. 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell called the committee’s attention to Amendment No. 709 proposed by the Assembly to Senate Bill (S.B.) 532.

The chairman indicated it was up to the committee to concur or to not concur with the amendment, noting it concerned the deposits of the division of parks. Chairman O’Connell indicated the Senate committee had discussed very clearly that they intended the money be deposited when it reached an amount of $1,000. She noted the amendment would change this requirement to "not less than $10,000."

It was the general agreement of the committee to take the issue to a conference committee and to not concur with the amendment. Senators Titus and Care were absent for discussion.

At the direction of the chairman, the committee addressed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 615.

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, read from a prepared amended section-by-section edition of A.B. 615 (Exhibit C). She noted the proposed amendments reflected the end product of work sessions with the city clerks, county clerks, registrars of voters and the Office of the Secretary of State. She noted all but a few sections of the bill contained housekeeping measures.

Reading from the prepared testimony (Exhibit C), Ms. Crowell noted sections 2 and 3 proposed new language. Section 2, subsection 1 of A.B. 615 would permit a county to hold a special election by mail, which, she noted, is supported by state election officials. She pointed out section 2, subsection 2, would allow the secretary of state to adopt regulations to carry out this provision. Ms. Crowell explained changes in section 3 would clarify when a person is qualified to sign a petition. She continued, noting section 4 adds a notification requirement to a public officer in the event of an appeal of the secretary of state’s ruling regarding insufficiency of a petition to recall that public officer.

Continuing her explanation (Exhibit C), Ms. Crowell indicated section 6 of A.B. 615 clarifies that a major or minor party nomination to fill a nomination vacancy applies only for a partisan office. She pointed out sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the bill include language, "for partisan office" to clarify the provisions for minor party candidates. Section 12 of the bill, she noted, also add the words "for partisan office," though it is used to clarify eligibility requirements of a person wishing to be a candidate. Ms. Crowell explained the section would also change the registration date to after September 1 of the year preceding the closing date of filing, noting the language "for partisan office" was added in response to litigation for specificity to what instance the prohibitions apply. She said there is a date certain at which time the prohibition clock begins, but there is no stopping time; hence the addition of the words "and ending on the date of that" election.

Reading from Exhibit C, Ms. Crowell drew the committee’s attention to section 13 of the bill which would change the date, by which the secretary of state’s office must forward the certified list of candidates, to after the last day for a candidate to withdraw his candidacy. She proposed this would ensure an accurate, certified candidate list the necessity of minus future amending. Section 14 of A.B. 615, she commented, attempts to remove specific seat designations to accommodate the changes made for family court seats of the district court. Ms. Crowell commented section 15 of the bill references Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.200 pertaining to the means by which an independent candidate for partisan office becomes qualified for the ballot. She drew attention to the addition of dates for filing and submitting the petition and eligibility requirements to sign the nominating petition.

Continuing her summary as set forth in Exhibit C, Ms. Crowell made reference to section 17 of the bill which would make the separate reporting of early voting returns mandatory. She pointed out section 18 of A.B. 615 clarifies the date by which a county clerk shall forward the certified abstract and the mechanized report of the abstract to the secretary of state. Section 19 of the bill, she noted, expands the scope of what may be solicited by a person in the name of a political party thereby providing protection to those parties. Ms. Crowell told the committee members that removal of redundant language and reordering of phrases in section 20 works to clarify who tests the voting equipment. She noted adding the words "recording device" in section 21 would ensure all voting equipment is tested before and immediately after an election. Section 22 of the bill adds language to reference the inclusion of all voting equipment having a program. She explained a proposal made in section 23 of the bill would allow a city to conduct a special election by mail, and she emphasized support for this provision by the city and county clerks.

Ms. Crowell continued her explanation of the bill (Exhibit C), noting sections 24 and 25 of the bill would change the city primary election date from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May to the same date in April. Section 26 of the bill, she said, excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays from the calendar in determining when a candidate for a city office may withdraw his candidacy. She noted section 27 was necessary to ensure conformity with the calendar for mailing absent ballots.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason for changing the dates of the city primary elections as set forth in sections 24 and 25 of the bill. Ms. Crowell stated currently cities of the first and second class hold a primary election by ordinance and they have 30 days between the primary and the general elections to prepare for the election. She indicated the city clerks have requested the extra time to allow for recounts, ballot preparation, and absentee ballot mailings.

Referring to the summary of A.B. 615 (Exhibit C), Ms. Crowell continued her testimony, pointing out section 29 of the bill proposes to expand reporting requirements for contributions to capture recall election efforts despite court findings the petition is insufficient. She explained section 30 of the bill clarifies to whom a potential candidate is to file the "campaign contributions in excess of $10,000" form. Additional changes to this section include changing the due date to January 15 following December 31 of the previous year which is the closing of the reporting period. Ms. Crowell drew attention to section 31 of the bill, noting currently any candidate or elected official with remaining campaign funds must file a "Disposition of Unspent Campaign Contributions" by January 15 with the secretary of state. She expressed the belief that a candidate or elected official needing to, should file the documents with his or her filing officer. Section 32 of the bill contains a proposal equivalent to that in section 29 concerning the reporting of expenditures in a recall election effort despite a ruling the recall petition is insufficient. She noted section 33 adds instances under which a candidate is mandated to file "Campaign Contributions and Expenses Reports."

Commenting further on the bill, as set forth in the prepared summary (Exhibit C), Ms. Crowell indicated section 34 of A.B. 615 amends chapter 295 of NRS to include a challenge to the secretary of state’s finding of a petition’s legal sufficiency. Section 35 of the bill clarifies that certain petitions filed with the secretary of state will be submitted to the county clerk for signature verification. She pointed out the changes in section 36 would clarify major and minor party processes regarding Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate names on the ballot. Section 38 provides clear direction as to with whom a recall petition is to be filed and directs this petition be submitted thereafter to the county clerk to begin the signature-verification process. Section 39, she noted, provides further clarification of submitting, verifying signatures, and filing of a recall petition. The time period in which a person may request his or her signature be struck from a recall petition is set forth in section 40 of the bill while providing that without a complaint filed, the call for the special election shall be issued. In addition, she pointed out, this section would bring to conformity the exclusion of certain days in determining necessary activities of the recall. Ms. Crowell drew the committees attention to section 41 through 45 which were added to the bill by the bill drafter as a matter of procedure, noting each pertains to a specific city charter.

Senator Raggio questioned the law in Nevada regarding holding elections by mail. Ms. Crowell stated Nevada does not presently hold elections by mail; however, she noted, every election is technically an election by mail in terms of absent ballot consideration.

Senator Raggio pointed out after long discussions Nevada has chosen not to hold elections by mail. The senator commented that A.B. 615, in part, would allow a special election to be held by mail. Ms. Crowell confirmed the bill would allow counties and cities the option to hold a special election by mail.

Senator Raggio questioned the changes made by amendment in the bill. Ms. Crowell indicated she could submit the work session document which would show the changes made by the Assembly.

Senator Raggio drew attention to section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of the bill in which a petition must be signed by "voters equal to or more than 10 percent of those votes cast at the last preceding general election …." He questioned how the number 10 percent is determined when the language has been made plural; "… for the offices of Representative in Congress." Ms. Crowell stated number would be determined by adding the votes cast in Congressional District No. 1 and Congressional District No. 2 and then taking 10 percent of the total number.

Chairman O’Connell asked for specifications regarding the qualifications for special elections by mail. Ms. Crowell indicated special elections would include a recall election in a city or county where the governing body has declared an emergency and has a ballot question. She called attention to Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 9.

Ms. Crowell indicated S.J.R. 9 is a proposed constitutional amendment specifically declaring a special election shall be held in June 2001. She pointed out this would be a special statewide election. Prompted by the chairman, Ms. Crowell indicated special elections would also include ballot questions such as proposed in S.J.R. 9, as well as in an instance where the governing body of a city or county has declared an emergency and there is going to be county or city ballot question separate from the normal ballot.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether there was opposition to the issue of elections by mail in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated there was no opposition in the Assembly. She noted there was some discussion regarding a general election by mail in which there was the possibility of potential fraudulent cases. Because of the narrow scope of A.B. 615, she explained, there was not the same opposition as there would have been had it referred to a general election rather than to a special election.

Chairman O’Connell asked about the changes made to the original bill. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated it was the final product of merging four different bills. She pointed out A.B. 615 had the least amount of changes of the four bills. She reiterated Ms. Crowell’s offer to provide the committee with the work session document from which the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics took action.

Chairman O’Connell introduced David W. Turner, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Accountancy. She explained he has been hired by two different legislators for purposes of campaign finance reporting. She explained he had suggestions as to how the reporting information could be improved. The chairman called attention to recommendations suggested by Mr. Turner (Exhibit D) and requested he explain his suggestions to the committee.

Mr. Turner testified he had filed campaign reports for two legislators during the last election. He said he had been in correspondence with the secretary of state’s office at this time in regards to the goal of filing reports and the best way in which to approach the task. He expressed frustration with the process in regards to the report on January 15 for unspent campaign contributions. He indicated the process is inconsistent and creates difficulty in subsequent years as to when the report must be filed; noting the same person may not be preparing the report on behalf of the candidate after each election. He suggested providing a date of December 31 for reporting unspent campaign contributions. He indicated this would provide 15 days in which to file, and subsequent disbursements would be picked up from December 31 through the next year. He stressed this would provide a cutoff point for purposes of consistency.

Mr. Turner drew the committee’s attention to his proposed amendments (Exhibit D) regarding reporting dates. He also proposed to add a new section to provide that all of the reports contain a complete reconciliation. He explained currently the first report of the year contains a campaign balance for those that have balance forwards from their campaign accounts, but, he noted, this requirement is lacking from all of the subsequent reports. He expressed belief that those numbers should reconcile with the bank account balance which is not apparent from looking at the instructions on the forms. He pointed out receipts and payments do not necessarily tie to a balance. Mr. Turner recommended the committee consider providing a process for amending reports in which an error becomes apparent after it has been filed.

Mr. Turner referenced revised forms, noting his version of the "Summary of Campaign Contribution and Expenses" adds the "balance forward" and "ending balance" lines as set forth on page 2 of Exhibit D. He called attention to a revision of "Report of Campaign Expenses" on page 3 of Exhibit D. He said the section "Dispositions" is not contained in the normal campaign reporting during the election. He explained when preparing reports for a candidate who is running unopposed, most of the disbursements during the campaign period will fall under the disposition category rather than in campaign expenses. Currently these disbursements, during the campaign period, are falling under "Other expenses." He suggested using the statutory definition of permissible other expenses on the reporting form. Mr. Turner indicated he had redrafted the "Disposition of Unspent Contributions" form, as provided on page 4 of Exhibit D, for more complete reporting for candidates who are very active subsequent to the election. He suggested the secretary of state’s office provide the statutory disposition categories on this form as well as reconciliation of beginning and ending balances.

Senator Raggio questioned the form changes concerning disposition of unspent contributions. Mr. Turner said the current form does not provide the disposition categories while the revised form would have these disbursements listed to show proper disbursements are being made and to provide a reconciliation to the beginning and ending balance.

Senator O’Donnell stated the reporting forms were the antithesis to general accounting practices. Mr. Turner further explained the revised forms which, he indicated, would more closely follow accounting practices. He indicated the statute defines what are permissible expenses though the categories provided on the campaign reporting forms are provided by the secretary of state’s office in their drafting. He stated the categories for inclusion on the forms are provided by regulation.

Senator O’Donnell said the total figures are not referenced in reporting procedures, noting he gave contributions to charitable organizations. Mr. Turner indicated his revised form proposes dispositions be itemized rather than be categorized under "other." He stated the beginning bank balance, minus the contributions and interest reported as received, minus the amount reported having been "paid out," should equal the ending bank balance. He expressed agreement with Senator O’Donnell regarding the necessity of accounting expertise in filing reporting forms.

Senator O’Donnell suggested the committee adopt standard accounting practices. Mr. Turner commented segregating statutory reporting requirements and putting them into a separate statute would be an alternative to be considered in another session.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether aggregating contributions had been considered for review. Mr. Turner stated he did not know whether an unspent contribution from one campaign needed to be reported in the next if the combination of the contributions from one contributor equaled over $100. Senator O’Donnell indicated this would be the case. Ms. Crowell explained the disposition of unspent campaign contributions is in a category known as old money which is from the previous campaign.

Senator O’Donnell asked if a candidate received a $50 campaign contribution from a person in 1995 and received $75 contribution from the same person in 1998 whether the first contribution would be made reportable by the second contribution. He suggested the candidate would have to report the first contribution because the aggregate amount in one election cycle exceeds $100. He voiced concern the candidate would be violating the law in the case of a mistake. The senator questioned the reason candidates should not fully report all contributions instead of aggregating the amounts of money received over the election cycle. He suggested candidates report every contribution, expressing concern the candidates could be charged with a misdemeanor for an unintended mistake.

Ms. Crowell stated lowering the threshold from $500 to $100 was done in the 1997 Legislative Session and said the secretary of state’s office will follow the decision of lowering thresholds as dictated by the Legislature. She commented on the disposition of unspent campaign contributions, stating the category page designating "other" has been noted as needing an amendment to regulations. She noted with every 2-year campaign cycle, there are changes and different areas of interest. She expressed awareness for the need to separate the categories, as mentioned by Mr. Turner.

Chairman O’Connell requested Ms. Crowell review the changes suggested by Mr. Turner, with the secretary of state. Ms. Crowell said their office was pleased to have input, recognizing the difficulty of campaign contributions and expenses reporting. She said of the almost 1,000 candidates who filed for office in Nevada in 1998, the majority were individuals running for small offices and did not have staffs. She stressed every 2 years the Office of the Secretary of State makes revisions to the reporting forms, and she indicated they hoped to make the forms available on disks to candidates who have accountants filing their reports for formatting consistencies. Ms. Crowell stated she would review Mr. Turner’s suggestions with the secretary of state.

Senator Neal said candidates do not have to report how money is expended, but they do have to report money contributed, as defined in Buckley v. Valeo. He noted limitations could be put on contributions, not on expediters. He said the Legislature has attempted to report what is expended and how it is expended by reporting forms. He restated it is not a requirement that a candidate should follow any type of standard accounting procedures in reporting how money is being spent. He stated, legally, candidates must only report money they have received in contributions.

Ms. Crowell pointed out specific provisions in chapter 294A of NRS mandate expenses must be reported. Senator Neal stated, legally, candidates do not have to report what they expend. He said it can not be mandated how candidates spend their money. He recognized candidates do have to report contributions, but do not have to report the way in which contributions are spent.

Senator O’Donnell suggested the only people concerned with the expenditures of campaign dollars are the candidates’ opposition. He expressed concern with unintentionally making a mistake on a report and being punished. He questioned the frequency of requests for candidate expenditures.

Ms. Crowell responded the secretary of state’s office receives many requests for contribution and expense reports, noting all of the documents in their office are a matter of public record. She pointed out this information is available on the web site and is often accessed by people not affiliated with political parties, but with "citizen watchdog groups." She indicated often requests are received from college students for information for term papers and as well as from the media.

Senator O’Donnell suggested the expense reporting is not necessary. He stated the public is interested from where the contributions originate and who is attempting to influence politicians.

Senator Titus expressed agreement with Senator O’Donnell stating the public good is served by reporting contributions as a way to ensure there is not undue influence on candidates by contributors. She suggested there is no public service met by reporting the way in which contributions are spent.

Mr. Turner stated statute restricts the way in which campaign contributions can be used for candidates who receive more than $5,000. He pointed out the justification for reporting expenses is to determine that the contributions are used properly. Prompted by Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Turner indicated itemizing expenditures would provide accountability regarding proper expenditure.

Senator Raggio expressed concern regarding the number of reports needing to be filed. He said he found it difficult to keep track of all the reports, noting to serve the public interest the number of reports should be limited.

Senator Porter questioned whether there is a threshold on money regarding recall elections, as is the case in running for office. Ms. Crowell stated the constitutional amendment on contributions is for primary elections, general elections, and ballot questions. Senator Porter questioned whether a person could raise $1 million for a recall election which has no threshold. Ms. Crowell verified this could occur. Senator Porter questioned whether this would take a constitutional change. Ms. Crowell indicated setting the contribution limits was the constitutional change enacted in 1996 by the vote of the people. Senator Porter questioned whether the reporting was similar in a recall election. Ms. Crowell indicated the reporting was the same. Senator Porter clarified one person could contribute any amount of money in a recall election. Ms. Crowell concurred. Senator Porter noted in a regular election, a candidate had thresholds on contributions. Ms. Crowell verified this to be true.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, had requested if the committee planned to amend A.B. 615, then they also review an antiquated law requiring the press association to maintain a record file of every "piece" ever bought within their newspapers. She indicated the maintenance of this information can be redundant as the records are kept on microfiche.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the accounting issues raised by Mr. Turner had been discussed in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics though no final decision was reached. She indicated Mr. Turner’s suggestion concerning the December 31 filing date would be well received by the Assembly committee. The Assemblywoman expressed agreement with Senator O’Donnell’s desire to lower the threshold from $100 to $0 so as to lessen the burden of aggregating contributions.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested a document be created on the computer to be made available to those filing for office with a simplified version for races run in smaller township elections. She indicated this could be made accessible and consistent for both candidates and interested members of the public.

Senator Neal restated concerns regarding constraints on expenditures as to the probability of conflicts with the First Amendment.

With no further testimony on A.B. 615, Chairman O’Connell requested testimony on A.B. 520.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained A.B. 520 changes the candidate filing period for minor party candidates to the period between the first Monday in May and the third Monday in May to coincide with the filing period of the major party candidates. She pointed out the bill would create an additional process by which minor party candidates can appear on the general election ballot. In addition to the three existing methods of ballot access by minor parties, she noted, the measure permits a minor political party candidate to appear on the general election ballot if the party files petitions on behalf of each candidate to be nominated for office, with the secretary of state. Assemblywoman. Giunchigliani stated the bill would require an abstract of votes to be prepared, not including inactive voters, when determining the total voter turnout. The bill establishes a procedure by which a person may withdraw a written challenge of a registered voter and changes the time frame during which a written challenge may be filed. She explained the bill would also require the county clerk to notify legislators, county commissioners, city council members, or town board members prior to precinct consolidation or the creation of mailing precincts.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the problem with filing conformity. She said options previously reviewed would have been challenged based on constitutionality, noting a staff study had found, in Washington State, it had been made easier for groups to qualify as a minor party while having the close of filing be in conformity. She pointed out A.B. 520 simplifies Washington State statute, explaining minor parties can either secure 200 signatures of registered voters on a petition for a candidate for statewide office or 25 signatures of registered voters for a candidate running a race other than statewide. She pointed out the current law would still exist, but the measure would provide a fourth procedure for a petition of candidacy.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the Libertarian party and the Independent American party worked well with the Assembly committee to amend the bill. She pointed out the presidential and vice presidential process is currently within the same time frames which are not affected by filing dates. In addition, she stated, concern was expressed on behalf of the county clerks regarding providing the inactive status with the voter turnout reports. She indicated A.B. 520 would disallow the counting of the inactive voters in reports so as obtain an accurate picture of voter turnout.

Chairman O’Connell noted the federal law prohibition on purging files and questioned whether the bill would conflict in any way with this law. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there would be no conflict with the federal law as the clerks would still maintain inactive voter records. The bill, she explained, would just affect the numbers reported to the secretary of state.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated there is currently a procedure for challenging someone based on "not residing." She noted, however, there was not a procedure for withdrawing the challenge upon the finding of a mistake. The clerks, she pointed out, had requested the time frame for withdrawing a challenge be shortened, due to mailing deadlines.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the bill would also provide notice prior to consolidating, indicating clerks sometimes consolidate precincts without input. She said if the precinct is contiguous to commercial property, changing the precinct, without research, could change the community of interest. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated A.B. 520 would require clerks to notify the legislator or county commissioner to provide the opportunity to file a notice of disagreement. She stated the same thing would occur with a mailing precinct, noting there are times when, if two coterminous precincts were merged together, a new precinct could be had rather than having to move to a mailing precinct. She pointed out this would allow the elected official the opportunity to argue for another alternative. This does not prevent the clerks from moving forward, she stated, if they believe changing the precinct is the best option.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the bill would establish a procedure of jurisdiction for a voter who has been habitually challenged as to registration. She indicated section 12 of the bill would outline at what point the district attorney would be involved in the matter and what process would be followed.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the registrars had any comment as to how many people are considered inactive voters. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the registrars requested this change, noting this was thought to have been covered by regulation in the previous session but it did not occur. She stated the number of inactive voters differs in each county though the average number is 20 percent of active voters. Chairman O’Connell asked whether voter turnout figures were as low as numbers would show. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani concurred voter turnout is not as low as numbers would indicate.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether testimony indicated voter turnout is comparable to that in other states. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated this was not discussed and suggested the clerks could provide further information.

Harvard Larry Lomax, Lobbyist, Clark County Government, testified currently in Clark County there are 505,000 active registered voters and approximately 50,000 inactive registered voters.

Senator Care stated an inactive voter is not a voter that has been purged but is a voter who the department of elections has reason to believe may not be residing in the area anymore. Mr. Lomax confirmed an inactive voter is someone to whom election-related mail has been sent only to be returned to the county as undeliverable. The second course of action, he noted, is to send a forwarding postcard, and if this postcard is not returned, the county does not know where the person lives. He indicated they would stop sending mail at this point although they would still be considered eligible voters who are able to vote.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the option had been available to purge the voter list after every presidential campaign until the process was changed by the federal government. She said when candidates receive voter lists, many of those included have moved from the district. She noted when a mailing is conducted by a candidate, it can be expensive because of the number of inactive voters included on the list. The chairman indicated there is currently no other recourse for removing people from the voter list.

Mr. Lomax pointed out if after the voter has been declared inactive by not voting in two consecutive federal elections, then the county registrar is allowed to purge them from the list. He indicated 28,000 inactive voters have just been purged from the rolls in Clark County. He recognized the 4-year lag time between purging voters.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada, indicated she was also testifying on behalf of the U.S. Taxpayers Party. She expressed thanks for the work put into the bill by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, noting almost all of their concerns on the proposal had been resolved. Ms. Hansen referenced section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) of the bill which would allow independent candidates to be included on the ballot with a petition signed by 200 registered voters for a statewide office or 25 registered voters for an office other than statewide. She drew attention to section 4, subsection 3, paragraph (c), subparagraph (1) of the bill which would allow minor parties to obtain 200 signatures of registered voters to add a candidate on the ballot for a statewide office. She pointed out the provision of allowing the petition be signed by 25 registered voters for an office, other than statewide, was intended to be added for minor parties as well as for independent candidates.

Ms. Hansen indicated the minor parties did not oppose changing the deadlines to match the major parties, explaining the courts have upheld that when parties are attempting to be placed on the ballot, they need additional time in order to be able to field candidates. She pointed out the Independent American Party of Nevada was already on the ballot, so the deadline would not significantly impact them. She suggested parties currently on the ballot should have the same party deadlines, and those attempting to be placed on the ballot should have a later deadline for filing candidates. Instead of following this suggestion, she said, the Washington State law was used allowing 200 registered voter signatures on a petition for ballot placement. Ms. Hansen expressed concern regarding the impact of this provision. She named and drew attention to the numerous minor parties. She suggested 200 signatures will open ballot access to anyone, indicating in the past courts have required minor parties show a "modicum of support." She drew attention to section 9 of the bill dealing with the statute pertaining to minor parties. She indicated the added provision would cause a flood of independent candidacies; candidates who are not part of a major or minor party. Ms. Hansen stressed the requirements are so significantly reduced from what they have been in the past, noting the difficulty the Independent American Party of Nevada had meeting the old requirements. She indicated she has been a part of ballot-access efforts across the country. She stated she was not necessarily opposed to the provision allowing greater ballot access, but she warned the committee of the possible consequences.

Ms. Hansen expressed support for bringing the filing dates together as well as for the current process in the law to stay on the ballot once qualified. She suggested an alternative to the obtaining of 200 signatures for ballot access would be to extend the deadline for minor party inclusion on the ballot. She pointed out the current deadline for minor party inclusion is in August but the deadline for candidacy is in May, and she noted the potential problem this would cause in terms of new party interest in filing for candidacy.

Senator Raggio questioned if the bill was passed in its current form, what candidates could still qualify after the usual date for major party candidates. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated, "None, everyone would be closed." She indicated the Assembly had decided to add the fourth step, set forth in section 9 of the bill, for an emerging party to be able to qualify for ballot inclusion. She indicated this provision would still be subject to the May filing date.

Senator Raggio stated the qualifying terms are simplified, noting there may be an influx of candidates on the ballot. He questioned whether the signatures needed to be from registered voters. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted those signing the petitions did not have to be registered within the party the candidate was affiliated.

Senator Raggio questioned whether the 25 registered voters had to be obtained from within the district to which the candidate is seeking office. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated this would be the case, noting the language in section 4 of the bill referencing minor party candidates was intended to parallel section 9 referencing independent candidates. She noted it was an error that language referring to requirements for petitioning non-statewide offices was left out of section 4 of the bill.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained this was a typographical error as this language was included in the approved amendment. She pointed out the bill would read in section 4, subsection 3, paragraph (c), subparagraph (2), "25 signatures of registered voters if the candidate is to be nominated for any office except statewide office."

Senator Titus pointed out this language does not indicate the registered voters who sign the petition must be in the district in which the candidate was running for office. Senator Raggio pointed out language on in section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (1) of the bill would limit the petition to the district. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained it was intended to be narrowed to the district.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 520 and opened the hearing A.B. 611.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained A.B. 611 stipulates that only the public or judicial officers who are entitled to receive compensation must file the statement of financial disclosure. She stated it also permits a public officer who holds more than one public office to file a single statement to fulfill the filing requirement for all offices held. She noted the bill requires the public officer to list, on the statement of financial disclosure, each member of his household who is 18 years of age or older and allows the commission to waive or reduce civil penalty for late filing.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the bill incorporates a variety of issues which have arisen over the last few years. She said there were people serving on the mosquito abatement boards who were uncompensated, and, she noted, they have requested the Legislature consider removing the disclosure requirements for nonpaid officials. In addition, she explained, the bill allows flexibility regarding the waiving of penalties for the instances of errors made on the financial disclosure form. She pointed out a concern had been raised regarding people serving in several different official capacities who are currently required to file many forms. Ms. Giunchigliani restated A.B. 611 attempts to clarify and to provide greater flexibility to current practices.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether any of the language in A.B. 611 matched the language changed by S.B. 544 concerning the waiver provisions.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated she did not believe the language in the two bills matched. Chairman O’Connell suggested this be further reviewed so as to avoid a conflict. She commented S.B. 544 contained a provision for waiving penalties concerning candidate financial reporting.

Senator Porter questioned the provision in section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (h) of the bill in which "the name of each member of his household who is 18 years of age or older" must be included on the financial disclosure statement.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated this was an addition based on a national committee which reviews campaign filing statutes, noting Nevada’s statutes did not have the necessary disclosure standards. She pointed out this area was chosen for disclosure because those under 18 should not have to be reported as to their source of income. She suggested this change was proper for disclosure consideration and would bring Nevada statutes in conformity with other states.

Senator Porter clarified this provision would include disclosing "live-in" parents or grandparents. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani concurred, noting concern had been expressed regarding the reporting of someone residing with a public officer within the last 6 months. She stated if someone is renting a room from a public officer, both the person and their source of income need to be reported for purposes of abiding by current law as set forth in section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (b), subparagraph (3) of the bill.

Senator Porter questioned whether frequently returning college students would need to be included in the disclosure statements. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated this was currently covered in section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) of the bill regarding a person who does not live in the same home but is dependent upon the public officer.

With no further testimony on A.B. 611, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. Next, the committee addressed A.B. 614.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani testified A.B. 614 creates new provisions permitting registered voters who are disabled, elderly or unable to go to a polling place to obtain an absent ballot to designate a person to assist them in marking and signing the absent ballot. It also clarifies, she noted, that a written request for an absent ballot may be made by a person who is confined in a hospital, nursing home, or dwelling on election day and states that the request may designate a person to assist them in completing his or her ballot. She explained the bill would set up the procedure for allowing the ballot to be returned to the county clerk’s office. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the bill would direct the county clerk to make reasonable accommodations at the polling place for the voter with a physical disability who wishes to vote in person. A person who conducts a mailing of absent ballot request forms to more than 500 registered voters during the 6 months prior to the election must first notify the county clerk of the mailing in accordance with this proposal. She pointed out this provision was amended in the Assembly, noting the penalty has been removed as the clerks wanted notice of this mailing because they ran out of ballots in several of the counties. She said if this remains a problem, it should be considered in a future session. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the measure clarifies Title 24 of NRS that all petitions relating to recall on election vacancies occurring in nonpartisan nominations are subject to the same signature verification and content requirements as to other petitions. She mentioned this change was as a result of a "glitch" in the system, noting no one verified the nonpartisan signatures on the petitions were actually legitimate. She explained this language would parallel other petition requirements.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated A.B. 614 would change the period for filing a vacancy occurring in a nonpartisan nomination and moves the nominating petition deadline to the fourth Tuesday in August. She noted the bill clarifies the residency requirements for all candidates must be "actual" as opposed to "constructive" residency in a state, district, county, or city to which the office pertains. She mentioned the measure addresses the issue of advanced ballot boxes by removing statutory references to "locks" on the boxes and puts in "seals." The bill also changes the time frame during which a written challenge against a registered voter may be filed and clarifies when a hand count must take place after a recount is demanded using a mechanical voting system.

Chairman O’Connell asked for clarification regarding the issue of conducting a mailing of absentee ballot requests. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani called attention to section 3 of the bill, noting the county clerks are requesting that if a "person," as defined by statute, during the 6 months proceeding an election wishes to mail a total of 500 absentee ballot requests or mail in ballot requests to registered voters, they must first notify the clerks of the mailing so that the clerks can request additional ballots and have knowledge of the potential impact.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the procedure for requesting 500 absentee ballots and asked for related requirements.

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, and Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Election Officials, explained this provision was included because, in the previous election, both the Democratic and Republican parties did mass mailing with the absentee ballot form included. He noted the provision would provide that if a candidate or a party mailed out 500 or more of the absentee ballots, the clerk must first be notified. He indicated the form used needed to be standardized as developed by the secretary of state, noting through regulation the clerks are asking additional language be included on the form to provide early voting and election dates and times. He mentioned with the amount of absentee ballot requests received as a result of the mass mailings, the clerks had to order new ballots at a great expense.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the procedure involved in requesting absentee ballots to ensure voters only vote once. Mr. Glover indicated the ballots are tracked by numbers. He stated they do not know who mailed out each absentee ballot request form, pointing out many absentee ballot requests are hand written. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the ballots are numbered, noting there is a system by which the request cards and the ballots are cross referenced. She stated a person cannot vote by mail unless they have the signed affidavit or have voted at least one time in an election.

Senator Raggio questioned the reason the number 500 was chosen for notification on absentee ballot requests mailings. Mr. Glover said this number was considered reasonable for necessitating planning of ordering more ballots. He suggested the number could be set at the discretion of the committee without argument from the clerks.

Senator Raggio indicated a philosophical issue was involved regarding whether to encourage absentee voting or to use absentee voting only as an alternative for someone who cannot physically go to the polls. He expressed concern for conducting a mail-in election, noting the Legislature has taken the position against encouraging this because there is not the same amount of control over verification as in a regular election.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the number 500 was chosen upon review of all counties and the printing of new ballots necessary in the case of absentee ballot requests. She expressed agreement with the concerns expressed by Senator Raggio, noting early voting has added to campaign costs. She pointed out her concern regarding early voting was compromised upon in the Assembly due to the number of machines which would need to be purchased by Clark County if early voting was eliminated. She indicated the criteria regarding absentee ballot qualifications should be carefully reviewed.

Senator Raggio questioned how early voting could take place under the existing law. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Mr. Glover verified early voting could take place 2 weeks prior to the election.

Mr. Glover indicated he personally believed absentee ballots should be restricted to those over 65 years of age or those out of the district during the period of early voting or on election day. He noted statute reflected anyone wanting an absentee ballot can request one, stating the previous election had been essentially turned into a mail-in election because of the number of people requesting absentee ballots. He suggested the absentee ballots be restricted based on need with the alternative for others being early voting or election day voting. He noted it has played to the advantage of certain groups to use mail-in ballot forms.

Senator Raggio indicated the committee had discussed the issue of residency in the 1997 Legislative Session. He stated the language regarding residency in A.B. 614 does not solve the problem attempting to be alleviated. The senator pointed out it was not the intent to prevent someone from being a candidate because they do not live in a house in the district every day of their life. He questioned the interpretation of the language intended by the bill. He pointed out a person can have a number of physical residences, and he questioned whether a candidate would still have a choice of where they could run for office.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated:

With no further questions from the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 614. She asked for testimony on A.B. 465.

Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Assembly District No. 21, explained the bill was initiated by Clark County out of the desire to do a mid-decade redistricting. She noted legal opinions found there was not sufficient case law regarding data needs. She indicated the Legislative Counsel Bureau found the information needed to be decennial census data while the attorney general’s office indicated it could be based on comparable population data. Assemblywoman Tiffany pointed out A.B. 465 would clarify the data needs, noting "special census" had been chosen with the statute clarifying what this is and who can provide the special census. She indicated the bill allowed mid-decade redistricting, and mentioned the enabling legislation was statewide. She mentioned redistricting could take place 4 years after receiving the data, noting the redistricting would be done in 2003 thus making it available for the 2004 election. She explained redistricting would occur if any district has, by population, greater than 10 percent difference than other districts, noting the population information would come from the state demographer.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out Washoe County had presented a bill which the committee had indefinitely postponed. She questioned whether the special census referenced by Assemblywoman Tiffany was a "head count" or an "estimated count."

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, said NRS 244.183 contains permissive language. He explained if a board of county commissioners determines it is advisable to have a special census taken, it may contract with the Bureau of Census of the United States Department of Commerce to have a special census conducted under federal supervision. He indicated the statute sets forth the way in which the costs of the special census are borne. He stated the statute is unclear as to whether county commissioners could conduct their own census.

Chairman O’Connell indicated it was the committee’s concern the census would not be a head count. She expressed concern regarding the case before the supreme court and the proposed system by the administration are two different types of counts. She questioned whether the special census referenced in A.B. 465 concerned a head count or an estimated count.

Mr. Spinello indicated his knowledge of the term of the census would require a head count. He stated clarification may be necessary in NRS. 244.183, noting currently the board "may contract with the Bureau of the Census." He suggested it be changed to add "may a county conduct its own" with additional language indicating the count must be as reliable as the census. He explained the board looked at the issue of whether or not to do a census now due to the growth in the districts. He said because of the differing legal opinions, they determined that when and if a census is conducted, it would be based on a census or something as reliable as a census.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this statute has ever been used. Senator Raggio told the committee the statute was added in 1963 and it says, "if any board of county commissioners determines that it is advisable to have a special census taken, it may contract with the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce, to have a special census conducted under federal supervision." He stated he did not see any annotations as to whether or not it had ever been used. He commented as to the large undertaking it would be to do a head count of the whole county.

Senator Neal said the Nevada State Constitution only permits the census be taken by head count. He indicated this is clearly set forth, noting the Legislative Counsel Bureau has expertise in this area and has determined a special census must be "as reliable as" the Census Bureau’s census. He pointed out the Nevada Constitution allows the Legislature and the county commission to reapportion every 10 years.

Assemblywoman Tiffany stated the whole State of Nevada is not growing as fast as Clark County, noting the importance of reapportioning this area. She said she has 44,000 registered voters in her district, though another legislator in the same county has a district with 6,000 registered voters. She indicated the special census was chosen for its integrity and it was the closest they could come to the data they felt would meet any possible challenge. Senator Raggio suggested staff find out where this is done, what process is used, what the cost is , and the procedure by which this is done.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the same issues were discussed in the Assembly. Assemblywoman Tiffany indicated the bill had a 100 percent support in the Assembly committee and on the Assembly Floor. Prompted by the chairman, Assemblywoman Tiffany confirmed the Nevada Constitution was not brought up in any of the discussions.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. She pointed out Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 15 had been scheduled regarding statistical sampling.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the resolution would request the United States Congress to keep the head-count qualifications regarding the conducting of a census. She said this bill had been scheduled three times without a real hearing.

Senator Raggio indicated it was important to be consistent on the issue.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 15.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)

*****

The committee discussed organizational strategies in which to schedule bills and hold further meetings.

With no further business before the committee, Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: