MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments
Seventy-First Session
May 15, 2001
The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 5:28 p.m., on Tuesday, May 15, 2001. Vice Chairman Harry Mortenson presided in Room 1214 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
Ms. Merle Berman
Mr. Don Gustavson
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Greg Brower
Mr. David Parks
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Lee Nary, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Larry Struve, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy (ACPD)
Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Guinn
Donald Klasic, Member, Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy
Judith Simpson, State Coordinator, We the People
Cynthia Dunn, Member, Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy
David Byerman, Independent Consultant
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Vice Chairman Mortenson began the meeting with a presentation of Participatory Democracy in Nevada (Exhibit C) by members of the Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy (ACPD).
Larry Struve, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy, explained this was a committee established within the Department of Museums, Library and Arts (DMLA), based upon legislation passed in the 1997 Legislative Session.
Mr. Struve served with Assemblyman Bob Price and Senator Dina Titus on the Nevada Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, from 1986 to 1991. This nine-member committee learned that citizens were not familiar with the constitution and what it provided, and recommended in 1991 that the committee be converted into a Nevada Commission on Democracy to work toward greater citizen involvement in government and public policy. The effort failed but was revisited in 1995 when the Senate passed S.C.R. 38 of the Sixty-Eighth Session, reaffirming the commitment stated in the Nevada Constitution that all political power rests with the people and the only basis for government is the consent of the governed.
S.C.R. 38 of the Sixty-Eighth Session asked the DMLA to request of local governments, citizens and public officials, how participatory democracy could be improved. As a result, the 1997 Legislature passed S.B. 429 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which created a repository in the DMLA to gather materials about successful programs. It also authorized the Director of the DMLA to create an Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy. No money was allocated to support the work. In 1998, a regulation was enacted, creating the nine-member committee.
Senator Dina Titus, representing Senate District 7, exclaimed this was a great program. So many things were done in Nevada to encourage democratic participation, but the poor results reported here were discouraging. Transiency was often given as a cause for nonparticipation. Senator Titus believed it was worthwhile to do whatever necessary to instill in people that participation in the democratic process was a civic duty and a matter of pride.
Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Guinn, served on the Advisory Committee for Participatory Democracy. The bright spot on the report was that Nevada had good institutions. However, they would not remain so if people did not participate. When people did not vote, they missed something important to their communities. There was more to being a society than the “length of lines at DMV and the number of potholes in the roads.”
Assemblywoman Berman asked how many of the total population were eligible to vote. Mr. Hillerby said they attempted to determine a reasonable goal based on the number registered and those who voted. Voter registration was easy but avoided by many. Senator Titus added that the United States had the lowest voter turnout of any democratic nation of the world and Nevada had the lowest of the states. Turnout figures of 60 to 65 percent might sound good but those registered voters only represented about 50 percent of the population of voting age. When the votes were split between two candidates, only about 20 percent of the population elected the President. She would like to see that improved.
Vice Chairman Mortenson stated that recently in Peru there had been a 98 percent participation in a controversial election. He opined that complacent people did not vote. Senator Titus agreed; low turnout was a sign of satisfaction, favoring incumbents and the status quo, so those in power were not enthusiastic about increasing turnout.
In order to measure citizen involvement, Mr. Struve reported, the Advisory Commission on Participatory Democracy prepared a report card that measured four criteria: Democratic Institutions, Voter Participation, Education in Civics, and Civic Involvement. Democratic Institutions compared Nevada’s state constitution with contemporary standards of the United Nations to determine whether the Nevada Constitution possessed the basic elements for a democratic system. The founding fathers of Nevada did an excellent job; Nevada received an “A” from the ACPD. Mr. Struve felt that if Senator Titus’ figures were correct, this committee should be concerned whether a government resulting from a participation of 20 to 38 percent represented “consent of the governed.”
Donald Klasic, member of the Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy, presented the second criterion, Voter Participation, which received the lowest grade, a D minus. Tables in Exhibit C presented figures for population, eligible voters, registered voters and those who voted in primary and general elections from 1972 to 2000. The comparison of voters to eligible voters was low.
The committee’s first recommendation for improving voter participation set a goal of 75 percent of eligible voters participating in the 2008 General Election. With the goal achieved, the electorate would become a majority, not a minority, of the population.
Assemblywoman Berman asked if Mr. Struve based his information on concrete facts that could be analyzed to determine why “things break down.” Mr. Struve stated the report was based on public information such as data from the Secretary of State, the state demographer, and other statistical sources. The committee had no budget so, therefore, could not commission a professional study, but the ACPD report was validated by a number of national studies that consistently ranked Nevada low for voter participation.
Assemblywoman McClain queried whether there was something other than apathy that caused low participation. Mr. Klasic had no answer but Judith Simpson offered to obtain some documents and historical perspectives on that issue. Ms. Berman suggested she had experienced voter apathy as she walked door-to-door campaigning. Ms. Simpson commented there were numerous reasons: politicians were not trusted, the campaigns were too expensive, and citizens believed their vote did not count. Cynthia Dunn, also a member of the ACPD, interjected that 18 to 24 year-olds did not vote because their parents did not vote and because they believed their vote did not count.
Judith Simpson, member of ACPD and state coordinator for We the People, stated that civics education was her passion. There were many programs in the state, such as We the People (Exhibit D), but few schools used them. Project Citizen, a program of the National Council of State Legislatures, only had three teachers statewide who participated. Research proved that students who participated in civics programs became more involved citizens. Civics achieved a 25 percent status in the teaching of social studies, equal to geography, history and economics, but there was no money to provide the programs. In Nevada, all civics training came from three outside agencies: Street Law, The Constitutional Rights Foundation and The Center for Civic Education in California. The ACPD report graded Nevada with a C minus for civics education because, though the ideas and the desire were there, there was no successful, effective method to present it.
Cynthia Dunn, a member of the Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy, testified about the Kid’s Voting Program, which was sponsored by Channel 8 in Clark County from 1997 to 2001, with a successful pilot project for 35,000 students. Over 70 schools participated in the six-week classroom curriculum program that led up to the presidential election of 2000. Students were taught the process of voting and how to become informed voters. At home, the students engaged family members in discussions about the candidates and platforms. Students cast ballots on Election Day and published the results. Assemblywoman McClain remembered the program but had not heard results. She felt that Nevada Senate and Assembly positions should be included because they were local.
Ms. Simpson told the committee about Civitas, an international teacher exchange program, which she coordinated for Nevada and Bosnia/Herzegovina. Delegations visited Nevada five times to observe a number of classrooms. The delegates remarked how lax the educational system was, and how little Nevada demanded of the students. They compared the abundance of equipment and materials here to those of their schools and could not believe how little knowledge the Nevada students acquired, yet the delegates appreciated that Nevada students were permitted to think, to evaluate and to decide. They could not understand why this education system produced non-voters.
David Byerman, independent consultant and former Census 2000 Chief Government Liaison for Nevada, testified that, just as with voter participation, Nevada’s census participation was among the lowest in the nation in 1980 and 1990. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau constructed a campaign that recognized, validated and overcame the realities of the challenge: people distrusted government; they believed personal information would be misused, and the data would not be kept confidential. The campaign distanced itself from the federal government stating, though it was a mandate, the census was not about the federal government but rather about “Nevadans counting Nevadans for the sake of Nevada.” To the people of Nevada, the census meant power and money—power in terms of representation, and money from the federal government for education, health, highways and much more.
Mr. Byerman referred to Appendix 2 of Exhibit C, which showed response rates. As a result of major local advertising, Nevada achieved the best improvement in census response of any state, but that improvement still ranked Nevada at 27th of the 50 states; therefore, the Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy determined the grade for Civic Involvement was a C. They believed participation in the census established a blueprint for moving forward, implementing changes, and developing strategies that allowed Nevada to improve response rates. Respecting the people of Nevada and their motivations would permit continued progress and improvement.
Assemblywoman Berman found that getting people involved usually meant giving them something. Nonparticipation was pervasive throughout the states. For many years she tackled this in health care. There was no single answer to this complicated issue. She commended Mr. Byerman for the work he did.
Mr. Byerman stated that the Census Bureau used the strategy of giving out “tchotchkes,” although they believed it was more important to distribute information from a level that was relevant to individuals, such as from schools, houses of worship, local organizations, and service clubs.
Assemblyman Oceguera congratulated the committee for the excellent report. Assemblywoman Berman stated she read an article from the Washington AP titled “Bill would pool $2.5 billion to improve voting.” The states could receive millions of dollars to upgrade voting equipment. She suggested the committee might investigate the bill for possible grant money for their project. Updating voters was just as important as updating machines.
Mr. Struve mentioned the Excellence in Democracy Award, annually presented by the Nevada Association of Counties, and the Innovations in Government Award presented by the Nevada League of Cities. Both awards recognized local governments for successful involvement of citizens in government processes. In conclusion, Mr. Struve pointed out the committee’s recommendations on page 35 of Exhibit C. Not all of the recommendations could be implemented immediately, he agreed, but if the committee was willing to process a current resolution before the end of this session, nine of the sixteen recommendations would be implemented. He reviewed the resolutions and clauses of the draft resolution (Exhibit E).
Assemblyman Gustavson opined that the United States was a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The title should reflect that. Mr. Gustavson felt “the whole country [was leaning] into the guise that we live in a democracy, which we do not.” Chairman Price asked him to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. Mr. Gustavson replied the “democracy really is mob rule” and a “constitutional republic is a representative of the people.” In a true democracy, there was no election of representatives of the people.
Vice Chairman Mortenson concluded the presentation on Participatory Democracy in Nevada.
Assemblyman Oceguera MOTIONED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND INTRODUCE IT AS AN ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. [Later introduced as A.C.r. 38.]
ASSEMBLYMAN pRICE SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMEN PARKS AND BROWER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Joint Resolution 14: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to remove requirement that Legislature fix compensation of elected county officers. (BDR C-1526)
Chairman Price, representing Assembly District 17, presented A.J.R 14, which resulted from action taken in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. During hearings on similar legislation, the committee moved toward authorizing the county commissioners to set pay rates for themselves and other county committees. It was determined that by removing two words, “and compensation,” from existing law, adding “ex officio clerks,” the language of the Constitution became more appropriate. A.J.R. 14 began the three-stage process of change.
Assemblyman Oceguera asked whether, since implementation of this process required much time, salaries would be frozen for the next five years. Mr. Price responded that passage of A.J.R. 14 would not prohibit the Legislature from taking action.
Assemblywoman McClain believed A.J.R. 14 afforded them an opportunity to correct other archaic language in the Nevada Constitution. Why would the Legislature provide for the election of public administrators, auditors, and county recorders, which should be staff appointments? She disagreed with removing the compensation wording. Mr. Price recalled no opposition to A.J.R. 14 from county sheriffs. Letters came from some officials whose salary had not increased for six to seven years. This was Ms. McClain’s point: remove “the public administrators, county recorders, county administrators, auditors, sheriffs.” If they were appointed, their salaries would be set and the Legislature would not need to deal with them.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated the association took no position on A.J.R. 14. They shared the concern. These county officials had not received a pay raise in six years and would not receive one while this process continued. Though he supported Mr. Price, he stated no Legislature would vote for pay increases while the constitution was undergoing change. Pay increases had been a constant quandary throughout Mr. Hadfield’s 24 years with the association. Previous attempts to amend the constitution had failed.
Mr. Hadfield stated the elimination of some of the elected positions would meet with “serious opposition.” These local elections had high voter turnout. In the less populated counties, officials’ duties were combined in one individual and these were key elected positions. County commissioners felt strongly that the residents had a strong connection to them. He was directed to come every six years to the Legislature and request pay raises. This was his third 6th year and nothing had resulted. He expressed a desire to resolve the issue and would respect the decision of the committee.
Vice Chairman Mortenson asked Mr. Hadfield to address the question of removing elected officials. An elected official was independent of the county commissioners and could react properly to a situation, whereas if the commissioners paid him he would consider his next salary raise before determining his course of action. Mr. Hadfield confirmed that was the substance of testimony given by some elected officials at an earlier time.
Assemblywoman Berman was surprised at some e-mail she received from persons requesting a salary increase. She agreed with Assemblywoman Von Tobel, who brought forward A.J.R. 14. The legislators should not be giving pay raises to people without knowing what they did and how many hours they worked. It would be in their best interest if the counties did this. She believed this was the best way to handle the situation.
Mr. Hadfield replied that was a difficult issue. Disagreement among the county elected officials prevented consensus at NACO. He understood the difficult situation the Legislature was in and would support their decision. After 24 years of dealing with this problem, he wanted resolution, but did not want the elected officials to wait another eight to nine years for a pay increase. Assemblywoman Berman understood Mr. Hadfield’s concern but reminded him of what Assembly members were told: “You ran for the office, you knew what the salary was.”
Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Ms. Berman. These jobs needed qualified individuals who were hired and paid the “going rate.” Chairman Price equated the situation to having the U.S. Congress set the pay for Nevada legislators and elected state officials. A.J.R. 14 attempted to change that principle so that it became a local issue. Ms. McClain did not dispute that logic but felt more than this issue needed to be addressed. Article 4, Section 32, contained 1864 language, she stated. She suggested they review all of it to correct other inadequacies. Assemblywoman Berman proposed that A.J.R. 14 be taken to a work session “to clean up the language and correct what the committee would like addressed, in support of Assemblywoman McClain.”
Discussion ensued regarding how and when to proceed with the work session considering the time constraints. Assemblyman Gustavson recommended a call of the Chair.
Vice Chairman Mortenson closed the hearing on A.J.R. 14 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 9.
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)
Assemblywoman McClain firmly believed this sent the message that Nevada did not care about delinquent child support payments. She would not support A.J.R. 9.
Assemblyman Gustavson strongly supported this issue. Identity theft was a nationwide issue. Nevada removed the social security number from the driver’s license and supported a resolution the National Council of State Legislatures sent to Congress, which stated the social security number should not be on driver’s licenses. Nevada needed to send A.J.R. 9 to Congress.
Assemblywoman Berman reminded the committee that during the 70th Legislative Session a personal identification number bill passed. She favored the discontinuance of the social security number and the implementation of the personal identification number. Assemblywoman McClain stated the Legislature passed a bill to remove the social security number from the driver’s license. What the federal government wanted was the social security number to be on record for tracking persons for the purpose of collecting delinquent child support payments. Nevada no longer required the social security number for voter registration. She felt there was sufficient protection.
As several members of the committee were not present, the vote was postponed. Vice Chairman Mortenson closed the hearing on A.J.R. 9. The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman
DATE: