MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments

 

Seventy-First Session

March 27, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 4:15 p.m., on Tuesday, March 27, 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.                     Don Gustavson

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     John Oceguera

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mr.                     David Parks

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Lee Nary, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Janine Hansen, New Eagle Forum

Chris Hansen, Presiding Sovereign and Founder of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty

Merrit Yochum, representing the Independent American Party

Lynn Chapman, Families for Freedom

Joshua Hansen, concerned citizen

 

 

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)

 

Testimony began with Janine Hansen of the New Eagle Forum who spoke in favor of A.J.R. 9, which gave Nevada the opportunity to reassert its constitutional rights in terms of the importance of the state versus the federal government.  An individual’s privacy was jeopardized because the federal government required the collection of social security numbers (SSN) on a vast number of applications in the state, from driver’s licenses to hunting, fishing and marriage licenses.  Ms. Hansen’s supporting documents (Exhibit C) included references to resolutions and the Nevada constitution, as well as several Internet articles.

 

She believed that it was a constitutional right to be secure in our “papers.”  But the issue was more difficult now because of the information collected and entered into databases.  What was the government doing with all the data they collected?  She stated there was “almost no privacy” when it came to health records.  Records could be disclosed without consent for public health research, law enforcement, oversight of health care, judicial administrative proceedings, treatment, payment, and health care operations.  There were, she claimed, no protections, and the way it was done was through the use of the social security number.

 

It had been estimated that between 500,000 and 700,000 Americans were victims of identity theft within the past year.  Everyone was a potential victim unless “we move in many areas to secure this personal information,” she declared.  The Secretary of State of Michigan had filed suit (Exhibit D) against the federal government’s demand for the SSN for a driver’s license application.  Another lawsuit (Exhibit E) challenged this law in Texas, where a SSN was required for a plumber’s license.  Another lawsuit, filed in Nevada (Exhibit F), dealt with the requirement of the SSN when applying for a marriage license.

 

In summation, Ms. Hansen encouraged the committee to expand the scope of this resolution to include eliminating the requirement for the SSN for other license applications in Nevada.  Passage of this bill served as model legislation for other states “to create a groundswell of concern” to protect privacy.  She encouraged support of this legislation.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked whether the Department of Motor Vehicles required the SSN even if the applicant stated he did not want it on his license.  Her reply was “yes.”  Assemblyman Oceguera asked Ms. Hansen how child support could be tracked without the SSN.  Her reply was that Nevada tracked these before the SSN requirement.  Michigan had a very good system, which they felt was more effective than the federal system.

 

Chris Hansen, Presiding Sovereign and Founder of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, testified from Las Vegas in favor of this resolution.  He declared federal law opened all personal information to public record.  He quoted George Washington, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  Title 42, Section 666 [U.S. Code] was the servant taking the role of the master, Mr. Hansen claimed.  The promise in 1936 was that the SSN would never be used as an identification number.  His testimony continued in this manner, providing references to similar failures of the federal government.  He opined that the SSN was never set up for just social security purposes, but rather as a means to track people.  He read from a list of licenses that required the SSN during application.  Mr. Hansen stressed that this law was “blatantly unconstitutional.”

 

Merrit Yochum, representing the Independent American Party, pointed out that in the resolutions for the Independent American Party numerical identification was addressed.  He read as follows from the party’s 2000 election edition:

 

            The Independent American Party supports all natural persons’ right to privacy.  The government, state and federal, has no authority to force any natural person to obtain any identifying number for any reason.  Specifically, we also recognize the fact that obtaining a Social Security number is not, and has never been, a mandatory system nor is it to ever be used for the purposes of identification.  The Independent American Party also supports the right of any natural person not to be denied any unalienable or natural right if they have chosen not to enter into the Social Security system.

 

He fully supported this resolution.

 

Lynn Chapman, Families for Freedom, made a statement in support of the bill in which she requested that the bill be expanded to include other licenses as well.  It was wrong, she felt, to force law-abiding citizens to put their privacy at risk. 

 

Chairman Price explained that A.J.R. 9 was a resolution not a law, and since these licenses were state issues, he was not sure this could be amended, though he did agree with them.

 

Joshua Hansen, concerned citizen in Las Vegas, claimed he had no social security number.  He had sued the Nevada Secretary of State’s office a few years ago in order to register to vote without giving a SSN.  They won the court case and the issue was turned over to the legislature, which passed it into law.  However, the new forms, without the SSN requirement, were over 18 months late in implementation.

 

Chairman Price asked if there had not been something in the news recently regarding requiring newborns to be registered for the SSN at the hospital.  Apparently this was being done, but a parent could refuse.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson commented they all realized that identity theft was a problem vis-à-vis social security numbers.  This bill addressed the driver’s licenses, which was a state issue.  But the other licenses which the committee discussed amending the bill to cover were also state issues.  It was his opinion that the state was concerned about these as well. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain read the bill as referring to only driver’s licenses, delinquent child support payments and federal funding.  This was the intent of the bill originally.  Mr. Hansen replied that Title 42 Section 666 applied to all licenses in Nevada. 

 

Mr. Gustavson, by way of clarification, stated this bill was A.B. 401 of the Sixty-ninth Session, which he and three subcommittees worked on.  Title 42 Section 666 did require not only the driver’s license have the social security number, but also every license in the state of Nevada.  He was the only legislator opposed to this bill; others supported it in fear of losing federal funds.  Assemblyman Gustavson agreed the bill should be amended to include all licenses.

 

Bob Erickson, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Analyst, believed the committee had two options to amend:  try to list all the licenses or, say “driver’s licenses and other licenses issued by the state.”  Mr. Hansen volunteered he had a complete list of all the Nevada licenses.  Chairman Price suggested he fax those to the committee [from Las Vegas] so they could be “on the record.”

 

Assemblywoman McClain, though realizing this was only a resolution urging Congress, confirmed she could not support anything that jeopardized federal funding or made it more difficult to find people who owed child support payments.  In Las Vegas, Joshua Hansen asked how he could be found since he had no social security number.  Assemblyman Gustavson replied it would be done the same way it was done prior to the passage of this federal law in 1997.  Nevada had one of the best records in collection of “arrears.”  A.B. 401 of the Sixty-ninth Session was passed to conform to federal law. 

 

Chairman Price suggested, as several members of the committee were absent, this issue should be held over for a work session.  No further action was taken and the hearing on A.J.R. 9 was closed.

 

                       

Assembly Joint Resolution 4 of the 70th Session:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to repeal constitutional rule against perpetuities.  (BDR C‑914)

 

Chairman Price opened the work session.  Additional research information had been distributed to the committee.  Bob Erickson, Research Director, explained the first handout (Exhibit G) contained examples of laws that addressed the rule against perpetuities in the four states that had laws that modified or repealed the rule against perpetuities.  Nevada had:  1) a general constitutional provision that was the rule against perpetuities; 2) a common law that also operated as a rule against perpetuities; and, 3) a statutory rule against perpetuities, a uniform act in the Nevada Revised Statutes.  The intent of the sponsor of the bill was to remove the constitutional provision so that the legislature from time to time could address the rule against perpetuities through statute.  Ten states had rules against perpetuities; the language of their statutes was short (Exhibit H).  Most states did not have this in the constitution but rather addressed it by statute. 

 

There were at this point five members of the committee present.  Chairman Price entertained a motion.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 4 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER AND PARKS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

 

Assembly Bill 325:  Revises provisions concerning rule against perpetuities. (BDR 10-46)

 

Mr. Erickson stated during his testimony on A.J.R. 4 of the Seventieth Session that A.B. 325 would be effectuated only if the constitutional amendment was passed this session and approved by the public at the polls.  It would be heard in Assembly Judiciary Committee, March 29, 2001.

 

Mr. Erickson reminded the committee that resolutions did not fall under the deadline, and with the tight time frames, he therefore suggested the committee not meet until after April 16.  This would be left up to the committee.

 

There being no further business, the committee adjourned at 5:11 p.m.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

 

 

DATE: