MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments

 

Seventy-First Session

April 24, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 3:53 p.m., on Tuesday, April 24, 2001.  Chairman Bob Price presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Bob Price, Chairman

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     John Oceguera

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.                     Merle Berman, excused

Mr.                     David Parks, excused

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Lee Nary, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Chief Justice Bill Maupin, Nevada Supreme Court

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Families Eagle Forum

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 12:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to establish intermediate appellate court and revise term of person appointed to fill vacancy in office for Supreme Court justice, court of appeals judge or district judge. (BDR C-523)

 

Chief Justice Bill Maupin of the Nevada Supreme Court testified in favor of A.J.R. 12, a resolution designed to initiate the process of placing the creation of an intermediate appellate court in Nevada on the 2004 election ballot.  The resolution must pass in two successive sessions of the Legislature to appear on an election ballot.  In 1997 and 1999 resolutions similar to A.J.R. 12 were passed by the Legislature.  At the request of the court, the 1999 resolution and the 2001 resolution were treated as first resolutions. 

 

With the addition of two justices in 1999, productivity figures at the Supreme Court increased.  Without the intermediate appeals court the Supreme Court resolved all appeals from the 56 district courts throughout the state.  Comprehensive case management measures had been implemented to handle the load.  In the Supreme Court the measures included the fast-track program for criminal appeals, the civil settlement program, specialized teams to handle death penalty cases and prison litigation, and the upgrade of the case management computer program.  In the district courts, the court-annexed arbitration programs were monitored and refined, specialty dockets were created, and mediation of complex cases was encouraged.  These measures accomplished increased productivity, but the continued growth of Nevada translated to greater demands on the system.  Annually, there were between 1,700 and 2,000 new appeals. 

 

The Supreme Court’s backlog had been reduced to 1,700 cases, and over 2,000 matters were resolved each year since 1997.  The cases were increasing in size and complexity, the Chief Justice said.  The seven justices resolved a majority of matters each year in the panel system, generally cases in which claims of error were litigated under existing case doctrine.  Only about 30 percent of the justices’ time could be spent on full court cases in which important precedent was set. 

 

The Supreme Court, therefore, acted as an intermediate appeals court, vis-à-vis the panel system, and as a supreme court of final appeal.  An intermediate appeals court would not slow the process.  Important cases, including death penalty decisions, would be directly screened to the Supreme Court and the less serious appeals would be screened for handling by the intermediate court.  Petitions for full court review would be handled without change, though possibly faster. 

 

The court deferred progression to the second leg of the resolution process until after further assessment of the capabilities of the seven-justice court.  Renewing the resolution as the first leg of the process for ratification gave the court the option of moving forward.  The total process entailed approval by the 2003 Legislature, approval of the constitutional amendment by the voters in 2004, funding by the 2005 Legislature and implementation following the general election of new judges in 2006.

 

Chief Justice Maupin concluded his remarks stating only ten other states operated without an intermediate appellate system:  Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.  U.S. census figures indicated that only Nevada dealt with massive population and caseload increases.

 

At the conclusion of the presentation, Assemblyman Gustavson requested that the Chief Justice explain the differences between A.J.R. 12 and A.J.R. 22 of the Seventieth Session.  In essence, Chief Justice Maupin replied, it was the same language, the same concept.  Due to the reduction in inventory since 1999, an ongoing reassessment of the quality of the caseload, and a desire to continue measuring the effect of the seven-justice versus the five-justice format, the court preferred to delay voter approval for one year. 

 

Robert Erickson, Research Director and Committee Policy Analyst, compared the language of the two resolutions and noted in Section 1 it stated “a panel of not less than three” where the previous resolution stated “a panel of three.”  He asked if the court was satisfied that the bill drafters had not changed something that should not have been changed.  The Chief Justice confirmed the court was satisfied.  It gave the option to have a panel larger than three for some cases.  Chairman Price believed there were other minor changes, but Chief Justice Maupin replied that some of those were to ensure the two resolutions were not identical. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked what happened if Nevada were to lose population and then had too many judges.  Chief Justice Maupin said A.J.R. 12 amended the Nevada Constitution to create the court.  He assumed the Legislature had the power to fund this at three, six or nine members, or even zero.  The basis for the request was the population projection for Clark County, which indicated an increase of one million in the next ten years.

 

Chairman Price closed the hearing on A.J.R. 12.  [A vote was taken later in the meeting.]

 

 

Senate Joint Resolution 11 of the 70th Session:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to authorize abatement of property tax for certain owners of single-family residences (BDR C-1435)

 

Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, introduced S.J.R. 11 of the Seventieth Session on behalf of the sponsor, Senator O’Connell, and expressed the association’s support.  As this passed in the 1999 Legislative Session, if successfully passed in 2001 it would appear on the November 2002 ballot.  The changed language appeared on page 2 at lines 27 to 30. 

 

Ms. Vilardo explained this legislation was in response to issues that arose regarding constituents who lost their homes when they could not pay their property taxes.  Also, when there was a shortage of revenue, property taxes were the revenue of choice because of the stability of the revenue screen.  While it might be viable and true that property taxes were a stable revenue system, to increase the property tax any sizeable degree presented a hardship to a number of people.  The purpose of S.J.R. 11 of the Seventieth Session was to provide abatement to property taxes if the owner occupying a single-family resident suffered a severe economic hardship.  The abatement and the method to abate the taxes would be the subject of legislation, and it could be a changing legislation.  For example, if the economy was good and there was no need to raise taxes, enabling legislation would not be needed.  However, if the state needed property tax revenue, the use of the language “abatement of the tax” without a specified type of abatement, allowed the Legislature the discretion to determine the most efficient means to provide relief if a hardship was created for the owner-occupant of a single-family home.

 

Ms. Vilardo encouraged the committee to pass this legislation saying it was “as general a policy statement as could be found to be put in the constitution.”  This was an enabling tool that would be in statute if and when it was needed.

 

Assemblyman Brower commented he was sensitive to the intent of the bill but feared it may open a “huge can of worms” for the Legislature.  Hardship was difficult to define.  Ms. Vilardo agreed.  But she felt this would be easier than attempting to legislate a $.05 increase for property tax for the state.  The language of lines 27 to 30 was originally presented in a resolution in 1991 when the state faced a parallel situation.  There was considerable concern about state property taxes so the sales tax was increased, which resulted in a greater economic problem because the revenue did not materialize.  Ms. Vilardo disclosed that several legislators asked to have the tax abatement legislation reintroduced because they had made a mistake voting against it.

 

The 1991 language, reconfirmed with Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division, spoke to a severe economic hardship of the owner of the residence, not commercial property.  The intent was to assist people who might face losing their homes for delinquent tax bills.  Ms. Vilardo related a hardship story that occurred in Las Vegas when there was a voter-approved increase in property taxes.  A retired couple expended all their savings when the husband battled cancer and the wife also became ill.  Though she had retirement income and received some assistance, the wife still could not make the increased tax payments. 

 

Assemblyman Brower said she provided an excellent example of how this might be applied.  Another example he thought of was the residents at Lake Tahoe who lost their property because they could no longer pay the taxes.  He inquired whether this situation might be addressed by S.J.R. 11 of the Seventieth Session.  Ms. Vilardo felt it definitely would.  She normally never asked for exemptions because that narrowed the tax base.  She asked the committee to ponder whether the abatement or exemption served a legitimate social purpose and had a social benefit.  If people can be prevented from losing their homes, this saved social service funds.  The trade-off was well balanced. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 11 of the SEVENTIETH SESSION.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

**********

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 12.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 9:  Urges Congress to repeal provision of federal law requiring state to record social security number of citizen on application for driver’s license for state to receive certain federal funding. (BDR R-1290)

 

Chairman Price opened the work session on A.J.R. 9.  He recollected the committee discussed making an amendment to line 8.

Janine Hansen, Nevada Families Eagle Forum, believed the language suggested by Mr. Erickson was “other licenses,” an open amendment which included any licenses offered by the state.  Mr. Erickson confirmed this and explained the bill drafters had no trouble crafting the language to address this.

 

Assemblywoman McClain stated she “had a problem with Nevada looking like we don’t care about collecting child support, etc.”  She could not support A.J.R. 9.  She disapproved of the entire concept.  The federal law requiring the social security number made it possible for Nevada to receive federal funds and track deadbeat parents owing child support.  She did not want to be on record as supporting A.J.R. 9.

 

Chairman Price interpreted A.J.R. 9 as dealing more with personal information than with child support payments.  Ms. McClain referred to lines 9 and 10, which stated, “to aid in the identification of parents who are delinquent in child support payments.”  That was why the federal government required the social security number.  A.J.R. 9 would jeopardize federal funding for programs.  Ms. McClain realized this would not repeal the federal law but it sent a message she did not want to send. 

 

In response to Ms. McClain, Assemblyman Gustavson recalled they had all heard testimony on this issue.  The main reason for A.J.R. 9 was to prevent identification fraud; people stole social security numbers and used them for illegal purposes.  Mr. Gustavson felt the number should be private, it was intended to be private, not to be used for identification purposes.  He strongly supported the measure to send a message to Congress.  Before A.B. 401 passed in the 1997 Session, which required the social security number on all licenses, Nevada was one of the best states on record for the receipt of payments from deadbeat parents.  He strongly supported A.J.R. 9.

 

Also in strong support was Assemblyman Mortenson who estimated there were thousands of people whose lives were stolen, run into bankruptcy, victimized by someone who stole their social security numbers.  However, Assemblyman Brower hesitated to support the resolution.  He realized stories were heard from time to time about identity theft, but he knew of no one who had been so victimized.  Banks made mistakes or people stole credit card numbers, but that would happen regardless.  He was unaware of any epidemic of social security number abuse sufficient to warrant this action.  What Congress had done was common sense, he said.  The use of social security numbers was a part of life in America.  He felt the bill was well intentioned, but he did not feel compelled to support A.J.R. 9.  Nor did Assemblyman Oceguera feel there was reason enough for him to support the bill.  He suggested identity could be stolen in many ways; A.J.R. 9 would not prevent the theft.  His social security number was printed on his checks; it was not a great concern to him. 

 

There were no other questions or concerns.  Chairman Price closed the work session and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

 

 

DATE: