MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
May 15, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Price, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Ms. Vivian Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, District 36
Senator Valerie Wiener, Senatorial District 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel
Michael J. Stewart, Senior Research Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Polly Hamilton, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, Secretary of State’s Office
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Registrar
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer
Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, representing Clark County
Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order as a subcommittee at 3:58 p.m., because several committee members were attending a special meeting of the Select Committee on Energy. Chairwoman Giunchigliani announced the first bill for committee consideration would be S.B. 27.
Senate Bill 27: Makes various changes relating to voting. (BDR 24-504)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District 3, advised the committee the original draft of the bill had been quite simple; however, there were some concerns voiced by the various registrars and clerks, which caused the bill to be amended. Senator Wiener explained presbyopia, or difficulty seeing things up close, showed its first signs in people when they reached their forties, sometimes sooner. According to the Nevada Division of Aging Services at the next election Nevada would have 241,000 residents over the age of 65, with at least 30 percent of those residents reporting a visual problem or impairment. Senator Wiener noted that would mean approximately 73,000 Nevadans would suffer from severe eye problems, and would have trouble reading ballots as currently written.
Senator Wiener indicated that number would grow even larger when the younger population, also affected by presbyopia, was included. According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), there were 442,000 people over the age of 55 living in Nevada, which comprised 39 percent of the population. Senator Wiener noted that including persons aged 50 years and older in the demographics revealed that Nevada was home to 584,000 persons in that age group, which comprised approximately 58.5 percent of the voting population.
Continuing, Senator Wiener indicated the aforementioned statistics covered the senior population, and did not include those who might suffer from other vision challenges, either due to medical conditions, or as a result of work factors, i.e., computer work. Working with computers could be visually demanding, often compromised the visual environment, and could cause discomfort, eye strain, blurred vision, difficulty in changing focus, and impaired reading vision, as would be required on a ballot.
Senator Wiener referenced the page included in Exhibit C, which depicted the variation between 6-point type and 30-point type. She then reviewed each section of the bill for the committee (Exhibit C).
Assemblyman Beers questioned the effective date and asked whether a discussion had been held during Senate hearings regarding the existing stock of voter registration forms. Senator Wiener explained that a representative from the Secretary of State’s Office was present and would respond to that question. Discussions had been held regarding the new form when the proposed dates of release were chosen.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether the Secretary of State’s representative would address the fiscal note. The answer received from the gallery was the clerks would address the fiscal note.
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, indicated the only concern of the Secretary of State’s Office was the requirement for boldface 20‑point type, and other than that, the office would voice support for the bill. She provided a copy of the voter registration form as developed by the Secretary of State’s Office over the past six months (Exhibit D). The concern with the 20-point type was referenced on page 3 of the exhibit, and Ms. Morandi explained the largest font used on the new form was 12-point bold. She requested discretion in using the font of choice on the form in order to alleviate redrawing and restructuring of the form itself.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced the registration form contained in Exhibit D, with a mix of 12-point font styles. The bill dealt with 20-point for sample ballots, which would be handled by local jurisdictions. Ms. Morandi stated the Secretary of State’s Office prescribed the voter registration format, which was distributed to the county clerk’s offices for printing. In response to Assemblyman Beers’ question regarding the number of forms in stock, they were ordered in batches of 100,000 or more, depending on county size, which saved money on printing costs. The counties incurred the printing costs rather than the Secretary of State’s Office. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated it was her understanding the issue was the boldface, and point sizes of 20, 14, and 12.
Senator Wiener indicated there were a couple of options, though they would require the 20-point bold print. One was that the self-mailing registration form would be printed in 20-point bold on the address side of the card. The other was that if the font was reduced to add more flexibility, Senator Wiener would request it not be reduced to less than 14-point size, because that would be the point size required on larger sample ballots and the minimal point size that the visually challenged could easily read. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether there had been a problem with the voter registration form. Ms. Morandi answered in the past there had been no complaints received as to readability of the form.
Assemblyman Anderson said it appeared the largest print on the form (Exhibit D) was 12-point. Ms. Morandi answered in the affirmative. Assemblyman Anderson asked whether the focus should begin with the smallest font rather than the top end. He requested information regarding the smallest font used on the form. Ms. Morandi replied that currently, an 8-point font was the smallest. Assemblyman Anderson remarked that if the point size was to be statutorily set, both the bottom and top ranges should be established. The concern was that the local entities would incur an enormous cost, but did want the public to be able to have a form that was easily read. Assemblyman Anderson noted the smaller font was easily read where there were larger blank spaces, however, when the writing was tightly placed, an 8-point was more difficult to read. Ms. Morandi realized there was a great deal of information contained in the application, which had been difficult to organize and present, not only in a readable fashion but also in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. The form contained in Exhibit D was the final product of the Secretary of State’s Office after struggling with development of the form. Assemblyman Anderson pointed out the 12-point bold type on the form did not match that on the example contained in the exhibit. Ms. Morandi stated that was part of the reason she had asked for discretion, because 20-point type in different fonts changed in size as well. He asked whether she was requesting discretion regarding the font style but not to size. Ms. Morandi stated discretion was requested for both the font style and the size.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted A.B. 295 specified the use of 12-point type for postings and absentee ballots. That allowed for flexibility while setting the minimum at 12-point. She asked whether that was what Ms. Morandi was requesting. Ms. Morandi replied in the affirmative.
According to Senator Wiener, her preference would be 14-point but she understood the limitations and noted some of the variables concerned other than the font, which related to the thickness, lightness, darkness, and spacing between letters and words, as well as spacing above and below. Clark County had already utilized the information for the sample ballot without contraindications.
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder, testified the clerks’ only concern with the bill was Section 1, which dealt with the 20-point bold type on the voter registration application. That was also a concern of the Secretary of State’s Office in the development of the form and he noted that the clerks were required to pay for the printing of new forms. According to Mr. Glover, the main concern was creation of a multi-page document with use of the much larger font. On the voter registration application, he would ask the box be checked to allow flexibility. Mr. Glover reiterated the counties were required to pay for the printing of forms, as did state agencies. The forms utilized by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) were extremely old as the return address for the Carson City office was the former address. He was not sure whether that had been corrected, however, had notified DMV of the conflicting information.
Regarding the sample ballots, Mr. Glover pointed out that going from 12- to 14‑point type would cost Carson City approximately $2,100. The price increased from 46 cents to 54 cents each with the increase in font size. Mr. Glover also mentioned the postage rate would increase with additional pages. Carson City would increase from 28 pages for the last sample ballot to 32 pages, which would incur a slightly higher mailing cost.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, representing Clark County, thanked Senator Wiener for the time spent working on concerns regarding the ballot. There appeared to be no problems regarding the provisions within the sample ballot, as previously mentioned. She had been informed by Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar, that the statement, “Large print versions are available,” was printed on the document. Ms. Wilson-Pappa indicated such versions had always been available but perhaps that information had not been communicated well enough to the public.
Regarding the fiscal note, Ms. Wilson-Pappa explained there had been a note attached when the bill was first developed (Exhibit C) and, depending upon how the registration form was developed, i.e., either a one-page or two-page document, the cost would be affected since the county did order those documents. Ms. Wilson-Pappa informed the committee she did not have any further information at the current time.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification from Mr. Lomax regarding whether his office would be required to increase from a two-page to a three‑page ballot. Ms. Wilson-Pappa advised the committee that she and Mr. Lomax had conferred with Senator Wiener, and he was in full agreement with all of the changes on the sample ballot; she would provide the requested information.
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer, echoed Ms. Wilson-Pappa’s comments regarding Senator Wiener and her work with the clerks in the development of the bill. Fiscally, Douglas County would incur costs over $10,000. Upon meeting with Senator Wiener, she and Mr. Glover were very pleased with the results.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.B. 27 and opened the hearing on S.B. 466.
Senate Bill 466: Makes various changes regarding ethics in government. (BDR 23-716)
Polly Hamilton, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics, announced she was present to answer questions from the committee regarding S.B. 466 and offered the commission’s support of the bill.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that a piece of legislation she had presented included a section regarding the Ethics Commission, which attempted to redefine individuals. The language was removed from Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s bill because the Ethics Commission had requested legislation that mirrored the language, which was S.B. 466. The bill dealt with realignment of the language, which defined a public officer and employee, regarding contracts and compensation. According to Chairwoman Giunchigliani, it appeared to be a housekeeping bill that reviewed maintaining statutory ethical standards, requirements, and financial disclosure statements. She asked about the actual civil penalty. Ms. Hamilton said the change to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) in 281.561 was quoted in Section 6 of the first reprint of the bill. It reflected that any civil penalty imposed for failure to file a financial disclosure statement would be kept at the annual compensation for that office. There had not previously been any cap and the bill would establish one. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood it would increase commensurately from $25 to $50 to $100, and top out at the annual compensation rate. Ms. Hamilton indicated it could not be any higher than the annual compensation. Chairwoman Giunchigliani remarked legislation had been passed during the 1999 Legislative Session, which indicated those individuals who served on commissions and advisory committees and received no compensation, were not required to fill out a financial disclosure. Ms. Hamilton stated that was correct.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether that had proven to be feasible. Ms. Hamilton replied that during January, February, and March, the commission had received a substantial number of phone calls requesting clarification. It had been easy to confirm in each instance that individuals who were not entitled to compensation would not be required to file a financial disclosure statement. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about individuals who served on more than one board, and were compensated for one and not the other. Ms. Hamilton advised that only one financial disclosure form would be required, except where NRS 281.561 required that a statement be presented from the person filing to advise the commission it was being filed for two separate offices.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani gave an example of a member of a local board of supervisors or a county commissioner, who happened to serve on the Tahoe Regional Planning Association, along with a regional planning board, and asked how that person would be impacted. She wondered whether it would be necessary for that person to file only one financial disclosure, and notify the commission of membership on the other two boards, which the one disclosure would also cover. According to Ms. Hamilton, NRS 281.561, Section 2 as currently codified, indicated a public or judicial officer would notify the commission in writing of his intent to use a previously filed statement to fulfill a present requirement. Addressing the January disclosure, which was filed in March, Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether individuals were to provide notification if they stood by the first disclosure done in March of that year. Ms. Hamilton answered that was correct, and explained the annual filing was due on March 31 or the following business day after March 31. If a person who was required to file filed an initial statement not more than three months before March 31, it would satisfy the requirement. But, strangely enough, Ms. Hamilton noted that the law still required that person to notify the commission in writing of his intention to use the earlier filed statement to satisfy the later requirement. Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether that language needed to be addressed. Ms. Hamilton replied that she shared all available information with persons who contacted the commission. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, LCB, to work toward simplification of the language.
For clarification purposes, Assemblyman Anderson indicated he had been appointed to the Sparks Charter Committee, where he served without compensation, and asked whether a financial disclosure form was required of members of that committee. Ms. Hamilton stated committee members not entitled to receive compensation, did not have to file; however, members of boards and commissions who were entitled to compensation, but chose not to accept it, were required to file. Assemblyman Anderson referenced school board members who chose not to accept the compensation allowed by law, and asked whether those members would be required to fill out a financial disclosure. Ms. Hamilton replied in the affirmative. Assemblyman Anderson then noted that if no salary was set for a commission or a board member, a financial disclosure would not be required. Ms. Hamilton agreed, and noted there was no provision in the law for compensation of such members. She emphasized that compensation did not include expenses. Assemblyman Anderson then asked if there was a planning commission that was uncompensated, would members be required to provide a financial disclosure. Ms. Hamilton stated that was correct as long as there was no provision in the law for compensation, nor would disclosure be required if the function of the position was purely advisory.
Assemblyman Anderson stated that issue disturbed him because of the power some individuals held who were appointed and not elected to the position. Even though the positions were advisory, those positions were often ratified as a blanket recommendation by elected bodies. Ms. Hamilton stated the Commission on Ethics had not proposed a change to the definition of a public officer, as depicted in Section 3, subsection 2, of the bill. Her only suggestion had been to tighten the language by saying, “The exercise of a public power, trust, or duty means. . . ,” rather than “includes,” because the commission felt that opened it up to other interpretations that were very confusing.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said Assemblyman Anderson brought up a good point when mentioning planning commissions that had such advisory power. Ms. Hamilton felt Section 3(a) covered advisory committees because they took actions that involved a substantial material exercise of administrative discretion. She stated if their functions were only advisory, then they were not defined as a public officer as currently codified.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani remarked that most planning commissions would not, in her mind, meet only in an advisory capacity because they would make actual recommendations that were then passed to the board. That was something, which might be worthwhile to review, because of the multitude of rural and advisory boards throughout the state, which the bill drafters did not want to penalize for a voluntary position. It was possible that a loophole had been created for some advisory committees that affected public policy, and she felt it was wise to know the income stream of those people for the purposes of any possible action. Personally, Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt advisory committee members would fall under Section 3(a), because they would formulate public policy. For example, if she were to ask for a zoning change, she wanted to be assured the planning commission had an affiliation with the developer or something along those lines, which could be gleaned through the financial disclosure statement. Ms. Hamilton stated she did not mean to affirmatively state that a planning commission’s functions were only advisory, however, if they were, they would not be required to file because they would not meet the definition of a public officer.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out that Chairwoman Giunchigliani clearly understood and summarized the statute. Basically, advisory committees were listed in the bill as being mutually exclusive, and when taking action in an official capacity, which involved a substantial material exercise of administrative discretion in the formulation of public policy, then the individual was, in fact, a public officer. Subsection 2 excluded anyone who took advisory action, and Mr. Wasserman felt it was something for the Ethics Commission to determine on a case-by-case analysis as to which of the two applied. The bill could also be amended to clarify that statement.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she would rather allow the Ethics Commission to formulate that decision, yet did not want someone who should have filed to be missed. Possibly, via the initiation of the commission, a determination could be made of which areas should be addressed.
The hearing on S.B. 466 was closed and Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.B. 565.
Senate Bill 565: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-608)
Ms. Morandi, Deputy Secretary for Elections, stated the 24 sections of the bill fell into two basic categories. The first were cleanup provisions that were promulgated by the Secretary of State’s Office based on the United States Supreme Court decisions on issues that arose during the 2000 election and general issues that had arisen with the county clerks. The second area of concern was the more political provision inclusive of statewide voter registrations and a cap on the compensation and expenditure fines of $100 for those individuals who had no expenditures and received no compensation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what was meant by a statewide system for management of voter registration. That issue was attempted during the 1999 Legislative Session, and legislators had not agreed with a statewide voter registration program through the Secretary of State’s Office.
Ms. Morandi commenced testimony, which advocated a statewide voter registration system, stating there were 11 states that had initiated similar systems, though they varied minutely as to their functionality. The idea was to have the Secretary of State’s Office act as a central repository only for registered voters, and she emphasized that office would not accept, add, or delete voter registrations; such process would remain with the county clerks. According to Ms. Morandi, the process would not change for the county clerks, with the exception that the Secretary of State’s Office would be available as a check and balance arena, i.e., when a person registered in Carson City that registration would be transmitted to the Secretary of State’s Office, at which time the name would be checked against those in the remaining 16 counties. If a duplicate was found, a notice would be sent to the appropriate county clerk. The process would be automated and the memo would indicate that the person was also registered in another county, and request a check. As far as deletions and additions were concerned, those issues would be left in the hands of the county clerks. The language of the bill provided no funding and strictly enabled the Secretary of State to access the various systems. Ms. Morandi felt the system was necessary, as there was no current process by which to ascertain whether individuals were registered and/or voting in more than one of the 17 counties. With early and absentee voting there was a potential for an individual to register in all 17 counties, and within the two-and-one-half week early voting period, cast ballots in all 17. Ms. Morandi testified that voter fraud was very serious, and in light of the events that occurred in the state of Florida during the recent presidential election, it was something Nevada should take very seriously. The system would also enhance the removal of “dead wood,” or individuals who were registered in more than one county, and would save the counties money regarding production costs for each election cycle for ballots (sample and regular), along with mailing costs.
According to Ms. Morandi, the bill had been amended to ensure the non-sale of voter registration lists. One concern voiced by county clerks was they would be giving up whatever costs and profit they realized because the Secretary of State would have control of the lists. There was no interest by the Secretary of State’s Office in making money from the lists and that office, it was the chief election officer’s position to prevent fraud and maintain viable lists.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the bill was a modified version of what she and Secretary of State Dean Heller had discussed during the 1999 Legislative Session, and was somewhat more acceptable to the clerks. She asked what equipment was now in place to allow the plan to move forward. Ms. Morandi answered there was none and relayed that the bill was only enabling legislation. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether most of the counties were still utilizing a “tape” system. Ms. Morandi responded they all utilized different systems, but it was her understanding from talking with vendors, that there were systems that would be compatible with whatever systems were presently in place within the counties. Some counties were reviewing the possibility of improving their currently antiquated systems. There were programs whereby the Secretary of State’s Office would provide a system that would bring the clerks offices up to a more technologically advanced state. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether federal dollars had been allocated for the program. Ms. Morandi stated she did not feel there would be federal dollars forthcoming.
Assemblyman Beers felt it would be convenient to have “one-stop shopping” for registered voter lists for all counties statewide. Ms. Morandi noted one of the items discussed with county clerks was statewide list availability with input of a statewide voter list program through the Secretary of State’s Office. The counties were currently reimbursed or shared costs, a process the Secretary of State’s Office did not find problematic. Assemblyman Beers asked about the counties that had not progressed to electronic records. Ms. Morandi stated all records throughout the state were kept via some form of electronic system.
Assemblyman Anderson indicated it was a fascinating concept, and asked what would happened if there was a Bernard J. Anderson, Jr., in Washoe County, Carson City, and Clark County. He asked whether a numbering system would be used to keep all of the “Andersons” correctly identified. Ms. Morandi explained that systems currently operational in other states utilized specific identifiers, such as a date of birth, and social security numbers were used in those states that still allowed such use. There were a number of different identifiers, which could be used for matching names, and if an investigation proved the names were in fact all separate individuals, an identifier would be attached to each within the system, in order to alleviate problems with registration and voting. Assemblyman Anderson asked whether the social security number was anticipated as being an identifier utilized in Nevada. Ms. Morandi stated that option was no longer allowed nationwide. The voter registration form made disclosure of a social security number optional and focused on the first, middle, and last names, as well as date of birth, for specific identifiers.
Ms. Morandi remarked that an additional plus would be when dealing with reapportionment, making it a much easier process if the system were in place, because it would provide statistical, current, and thorough records on voting histories. Chairwoman Giunchigliani concurred, however, noted those factors could not be considered when processing the redistricting figures. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated, as she understood Ms. Morandi’s testimony, Section 1 of the bill contained enabling language, even though the word “shall” was used, and there was no phase-in date. Ms. Morandi said the Secretary of State’s budget included an allocation request for the system. Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that state agency budgets would experience drastic cuts.
Continuing, Ms. Morandi recapped the bill for the committee as follows:
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced Section 6 and asked whether it was assumed that names were placed on the ballot for a general election; she thought it was rather obvious. Ms. Morandi answered when it pertained to a legislator or she herself, yes. She was unable to relate the number of calls received from individuals, the press, and county clerks, wanting to know what happened and what it meant. From a user-friendly standpoint it was easily included in the bill to make it specifically clear to everyone. Ms. Morandi noted that within Section 4 the currently written legislation was inaccurate, i.e., “ . . . only one major party had a candidate for a particular office, and no minor political party had nominated a candidate for the office, and no independent candidate had filed for office.” All three of those factors had to be included. She stated “and” and “or” were reversed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked who made the decision to reverse them and understood that a semicolon sometimes meant “and” and sometimes “or.”
Mr. Wasserman interjected that legal counsel had looked at the language and stated that was the way it had always been interpreted. The section was included as cleanup language, and pointed out the proper language for use in that section. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated she was glad they were using words instead of semicolons, which would lessen the confusion. She addressed Section 8 where NRS 293.368 was deleted and asked whether that was done because the length of time was too extensive, or did it simplify the process for the clerks and posting a notice of a candidate’s death at the polling place. Ms. Morandi remarked that was the most effective way to achieve the goal. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood there remained an allowance for removal of a name for a deceased candidate, but it had to be within a certain time period for reprint of the ballots.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about the reference to teachers in Section 19. Ms. Morandi stated that cleaned up the language to say, “submitted with the county clerk” versus “filed with.” The Attorney General’s Opinion number 2000‑24, dated September 8, 2000, addressed the issue (Exhibit F).
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether the timelines listed in Sections 20 and 22 related to petitions, and asked whether a 30- or 45-day timeline would be preferred. Ms. Morandi thought the bill addressed a different provision. Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified NRS 295.115 and NRS 295.215 for the cities, and noted if the Secretary of State wanted 30 days, the bill had to be amended and if they preferred 45 days, the earlier bill needed to be amended. Ms. Morandi’s understanding was the days were originally set at 30 and, in Senate discussions with the city and county clerks, 45 days worked better for them. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated A.B. 637 passed out of Government Affairs without changing the 30 days to 45 days.
Mr. Glover returned to the witness table to address Section 12, page 8, line 36, and stated Mr. Lomax provided the amendment and at the bottom explained why Clark County could not meet the 10-day requirement. At the Senate hearing Mr. Glover indicated they had not provided sufficient explanation to the committee regarding why the clerks wanted the 3 days compared to the 10 days. Senator Raggio and Senator Titus had suggested the bill be amended “on the other side” to read, “Not later than three days.” Mr. Glover was personally dedicated to the idea of getting sample ballots out prior to the start of early voting. However, if someone did not receive a sample ballot, they had 12 days to early vote at the county clerk’s office. His experience was when voters appeared on Saturday morning to vote, they knew who they wanted to vote for. He stated most early voters were probably better voters as far as being familiar with the issues and the candidates than many people were.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood Mr. Glover’s request addressed Sections 12 and 14. Mr. Glover agreed and stated the other reason was if there was a dispute over a candidate who did not qualify for the ballot, the issue had to be resolved in court, which made it difficult to meet the mandated date. By allowing “10 days,” the clerks were bombarded with calls asking why they did not get the information out on time. There were very legitimate reasons for not meeting the timelines due to printing schedules. Yet, the public demanded action according to the letter of the law.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for a firm answer on what day the clerks preferred. Mr. Glover stated the third day.
Assemblyman Beers understood the concern did not lie with the printing of the sample ballot but the compilation of the mailing list because of last minute registrations.
Mr. Glover answered in the affirmative and continued by discussing Section 1 as it pertained to the statewide voter registration program. The clerks had attempted to address the problem of duplicate registrations and voter fraud. Comparisons were made within Carson City, Douglas, Storey, and Lyon Counties to see how many were duplicated, which resulted in 130 during 1999. In 2001, there were only seven duplicates and none of those individuals voted twice. The clerks were not terribly concerned about problems in that immediate area, nor felt there was a weakness in the system for voter fraud. He stated the proposed system made the clerks quite nervous.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani reminded Mr. Glover the testimony regarding Section 1 was enabling language, but suggested the word “shall” be changed to “may,” and asked whether that would provide a better comfort level. She knew there was some justification for concern, having spoken with the clerks during their association meetings. It also was not a new issue, having been dealt with for the last four years. She stated clerks and registrars were elected officials, and the area addressed by the bill was within their jurisdiction and she realized it was more or less a “territorial” interference, to which Mr. Glover agreed. She stated in talking with Secretary of State Dean Heller over the past four years, it was suggested the clerks send the information as a cross-match with a notification returned, and left the total responsibility with the clerks. With “shall” in the language the clerks were mandated to do something that required extensive, unavailable funding.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether the clerks preferred 30 days or 45 days in the other sections. Mr. Glover stated he could not recall the provisions of A.B. 637. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there did not appear to be a severe problem, because a conflict notice could be processed in the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
Mr. Glover asked that the language of the bill be amended in the Assembly, and prior to the amendment, he would check with the city clerks to glean their preference. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Glover to report back prior to the committee’s scheduled work session on May 17, 2001.
Assemblyman Beers felt the possibility of duplication was greater between Douglas County and Carson City, and asked to what the clerks attributed the marked improvement in just two year’s time regarding the research for duplicate registrations.
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer, indicated such a process had not been initiated prior to research in 1999. The 130 duplicates involved many years. Assemblyman Beers felt that a one-time central check went further toward fixing the problem than setting up a continual check. Per Ms. Reed, the cost was very low at $100 for each county. An outside vendor had matched and complied the four-county information, and found the duplicate registrations. Assemblyman Beers asked whether the 130 duplicates were within all four counties. Ms. Reed advised the duplication was within Carson City and Douglas County. Assemblyman Beers suggested there could be duplicates within three counties when residents in small counties moved from county to county for work. Ms. Reed stated she shared a Topaz Ranch Estates zip code in Lyon County and a zip code from Carson was shared with people who lived in Douglas County. She felt confusion arose when people registered to vote, i.e., with a Wellington zip code though their residence was physically located in Douglas County.
Mr. Glover stated very few duplicates were found in three counties. Carson City shared a zip code with Lyon County and he felt more trouble was experienced with juror lists rather than voter registration; there did not appear to be a definite problem. Assemblyman Beers asked whether the number of duplicate registrations was expressed as a percentage of the population within the four county area. Mr. Glover replied within the four counties there were 75,000 registered voters with approximately 200 duplicates. No one had voted twice and the fraud rate was zero.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was commendable. Ms. Reed explained that when duplicates were discovered, they checked to see where the person voted during the previous election. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether county clerks had change of address cards similar to that of the U.S. Postal Service. Ms. Reed explained change of address cards were sent out on Election Day, and requested they be returned with the new information provided. Change of address cards were also located on the counters in the clerks’ offices, as well as notices being placed in the newspapers. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked whether that was done in Clark County, stating she had never seen such a card or notification. Michael Stewart, Senior Research Analyst, LCB, noted there was such a service in Washoe County. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that process be checked into for southern Nevada. While people often thought about changing their address with the post office, they often failed to think about voter registration.
Ms. Reed concurred with all of the suggestions and felt comfortable with the change in wording from “shall” to “may.” She suggested changing the wording “organize and manage” as well, reflecting the program was only a receiving and compiling area for the information. Some clerks were concerned about the wording, “Upon request of the Secretary of State, the county clerks shall provide in the form required by the Secretary of State.” They felt that might incur a large cost to the counties for programming to comply with the request of the Secretary of State, especially if the counties were not automated. Ms. Reed stated it was her understanding there were a few counties that were not automated, and she requested that “shall” be changed to “may” in that section as well.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that Ms. Reed had referred to Section 1 where the enabling language mandated “shall” and assured her that the committee would consider changing the language to “may” during the work session on Thursday, May 17, 2001.
Ms. Morandi commended Storey, Douglas, Lyon Counties, and Carson City for cross-referencing and was unaware they had done so during the past two election years. Unfortunately there were 13 counties that were not performing that research. Though they had taken the initiative, the counties that performed the service would not discover all potential voter fraud across the state. Ms. Morandi stated Nevada would be working with California in a program entitled “Double Voter,” which California had been using for the past three years. John Watts-Smith, the individual in California who mirrored Ms. Morandi’s position in Nevada, had developed the following three-step process approximately three years ago:
1. Identify all individuals registered in more than one county;
2. Identify all individuals who had actually voted; and,
3. Prosecution of persons who voted in more than one county.
The California Secretary of State’s Office recently contacted Nevada’s Secretary of State and requested participation in an interstate program. They were working with the eight counties that bordered California, which included Washoe, Clark and six other counties. The results of the participation would provide a reference across state lines regarding persons who had double registered and double voted. The statewide voter registration system could potentially interlink not only with California, but also with Utah, Oregon, Arizona, and Idaho.
Ms. Morandi addressed the change of address question, and advised there was a new change of address form for voter registration.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee did not want to encourage fraud and hoped the other 13 counties would follow suit. She then closed the hearing on S.B. 565. Since a sufficient number of committee members were present, she requested the minutes be approved for the meetings dated: March 8, 2001; March 13, 2001; March 26, 2001; March 29, 2001; April 3, 2001; April 13; 2001; and May 8, 2001.
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session with S.B. 57.
Senate Bill 57: Requires employers to grant leave for legislators to attend certain meetings during legislative interim. (BDR 17-157)
Mr. Stewart briefed the committee on the information provided in the work session document (Exhibit G) pertaining to S.B. 57. Senator Carlton presented the bill and there were no amendments offered.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 57.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani disclosed for the record that public employees would not be affected differently than citizens employed in the private sector.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
The next document to be addressed was A.C.R. 3 as outlined in Exhibit G. Chairwoman Giunchigliani announced only one interim study bill had been passed.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 3: Directs the Legislative Commission to conduct an interim study concerning misdemeanors.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 3.
SPEAKER PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assemblyman Anderson asked how many interim studies were allowed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated three but a fourth could be allowed for each house. Assemblyman Anderson asked whether the committee had committed to two interim studies. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that was correct, and again relayed there was a potential for three to four within each house. She emphasized the standing committees were not included in the three to four interim studies to be assigned. Chairwoman Giunchigliani also noted there was a four-page document listing both the Assembly and Senate studies under consideration (Exhibit H).
Assemblyman Anderson confirmed the committee had committed to Assemblyman Carpenter’s Assembly Concurrent Resolution on misdemeanor studies. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative. He then asked whether the committee was going to evaluate all of the potential interim studies or whether it was the Chair’s intent to select those she preferred. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was open for discussions and would hold all interim study requests in abeyance until all were heard. Assemblyman Anderson believed that Assemblyman Carpenter’s interim study was very important and one that he would be more than happy to see included, as the Committee on Judiciary had addressed it twice. He stated there were a couple of other studies that held concern. Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt the same and asked for the committee’s desire. Assemblyman Anderson voiced concern about insuring there was a fair opportunity for all studies. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the makers of the motion whether they wanted to rescind the action on A.C.R. 3. With their agreement, she called for a vote of the committee, who affirmatively agreed to rescind the motion.
The Chairwoman adjourned the work session, and announced the presentation of the Republican Assembly presentation on redistricting. The Republican Assembly members had not had an opportunity to present their plan because the Senate still had not introduced their maps. Therefore, the Chair granted them an opportunity to present their ideas at this meeting.
Assemblymen Hettrick (Assembly District 39) and Beers (Assembly District 4) shared with the committee a Power Point presentation. Exhibit I reflected the verbatim narrative of their presentation.
Assemblyman Anderson asked whether there was a breakdown by Assembly district of the minority population percentages. Assemblyman Hettrick responded that the information he requested could be viewed on the maps displayed in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building.
Assemblywoman Freeman understood from the presentation that the incumbents were protected, and saw no evidence of that in the decision. Assemblyman Hettrick said there was no way to include such protection because of the two seats lost in the north based on the population expansion in the south. She asked whether he based the information on Hispanic or community of interest numbers, and if not, what criteria was used. He answered, “pure population.” Assemblywoman Freeman stated that she and Assemblywoman Smith’s numbers matched up better by combining their districts and pitting them against each other. Assemblyman Beers explained there were two issues:
1. With a 46-seat assembly, the minimum number of seats to be combined was two, which was what they had done. With a 42-seat assembly, the minimum number of seats to be combined was three. The list was one‑third shorter than it would have been otherwise; and
2. Once the decision was reached to combine two seats, the two to be combined had to be chosen. He stated it was more the “luck of the draw” than anything else, along with the manner in which the districts flowed together.
Assemblyman Hettrick remarked the previously drawn districts from 1991 were compact for Democrats because of the way the districts worked out, being relatively close together. When expanded by 70 percent, the Democratic incumbents happened to live closer to each other and therefore, it was difficult to draw maps that did not overlap. It was also difficult to draw non-overlapping lines in the south even though that area of the state had the advantage of six new seats. They did not have to combine incumbents because of the six new seats. Eliminating two seats in the north left little that could be done. Assemblyman Hettrick tried to impress upon the committee they were not singling out anyone, and presented an example of possible combinations minimizing the impact of combining opposite parties in heavily weighted districts.
Speaker Emeritus Dini referenced the Assembly district created for himself and Assemblyman Neighbors, stating they forgot the factor of “community of interest.” They had placed him in a position of getting “scalped” over the Walker River issues if he ran in that district, and he was not anxious to “play that game.” Also, they took the second fastest growing county in the state and split it in half. He did not favor the plan presented. Assemblyman Hettrick stated he understood the concern, but recalled the map previously presented had split the district as well. Unfortunately, when the plans were drawn they had to include from 46,000 to 48,000 people within each district. He stated that the Democratic Party did not set out to draw him into a shared district any more than the Republican Party; it had just happened.
Addressing the Hispanic districts, Assemblywoman Buckley asked how they accounted for the fact that there was a high percentage of the population under the age of 18 and unable to vote, as well as the low numbers in registration, yet contended that 50 percent would provide a community of interest to elect a candidate. Assemblyman Hettrick indicated they understood the rules and the allowance to increase the percentage factor because of age and registration numbers. They looked at the growth rate of the Hispanic population, and emphasized the plan was for a decade. They were better advantaged over time and would have increased to over 60 percent before the end of the decade. That was an advantage to the Hispanics. When the committee went to Fallon the Hispanics reported they had not been part of the process in the past because it was not felt they could participate and compete. If there were districts where Hispanics were at least competitive, they would get the population registered and to the polls. Taking them at their word, and after looking at the decade issue, it was believed the present lines better served the Hispanic community.
Assemblywoman Buckley commented that the testimony from Fallon was directly contrary to other testimony received in Carson City. She would not attribute one individual’s testimony to an entire group, especially when there were other individuals that had testified to the contrary. She asked on what objective considerations they based the presumptions that the population in those districts would grow, i.e., empty parcels or growth factor of a certain rate. According to Assemblyman Hettrick, the precincts and the percentage population from the 1990 Census had been reviewed, and were compared to the 2000 Census to estimate growth rates. There were no mathematical calculations. They simply looked at most districts that, as he recalled were at 22 percent and now 50-plus percent because they had drawn them that way. Within two-and-one-half to four years, Assemblymen Beers and Hettrick estimated the Hispanics would be a community of interest over 60 percent and, therefore, believed they were advantaged. Assemblywoman Buckley understood the districts chosen were based on numbers from the last census as opposed to looking at neighborhoods, moving patterns, or growth patterns in the district. Assemblyman Hettrick answered based upon the current census the patterns indicated where the population was located. The Hispanic population was young with increased growth projected within those districts, and the plan fit all criteria for the Hispanic community.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all were aware of the various court case issues but what had to be considered, without confusing the facts, was that an effective majority had to be provided for. An “effective majority” was defined as a language minority such as the Hispanic population, and “citizens of voting age.” That was why “packing” was not a question for Mrs. Chowning’s district of 70 percent, because they were no citizens of voting age at that point to constitute an effective majority.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired about the population within each drawn district. Assemblyman Beers indicated the population was 42,000 to 46,000. She then asked the standard deviation. He answered 2 to 2.5 percent. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she recalled the computations worked out were over 10.5 percent for a total deviation, whereas the Democratic deviation was well under 2 percent. She stated the 10.5 percent violated the rules and jeopardized the plan of “one person, one vote,” a major point of consideration for equal representation.
Assemblyman Hettrick remarked, the program that developed the Republican Caucus maps had a table generator that did not show the decimal point. The individual who developed the map drew the maps according to the decimal points that showed “zero” and it was 10 percent or less. He said when the error was discovered they searched the program and manually generated the correct figures. The maps were then redrawn to indicate a 2.5 percent deviation. The tables developed were to be distributed at a later date.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani saw the maps as being drawn with straight lines instead of the actual shape of the district when lines followed the streets and fences, and asked why the numbers were changed. Assemblyman Hettrick answered they did not deal with the numbers when drawing the districts. She asked whether District 7 remained that of Assemblyman Morse Arberry. The answer was yes. In reviewing the maps more closely, Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented about the straight lines and square corners, and noted that was where the crossing over into districts might have developed.
Assemblyman Hettrick explained that in Districts 6 and 7, the African-American districts, the plan maintained the current percentages of 35 percent and 31 percent. The districts in question contained relatively high Hispanic populations as well, figured at approximately 20 percent for each district. Districts 10, 11, 12, 28, and 41, were blocked together to achieve at least 50 percent Hispanic population. They then drew around that for the remaining districts. It could be reversed to 360 degrees if it was decided to reverse, making them prettier districts by drawing them smaller and tighter. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the shape of a district could call attention to possible allegations that the district had not been drawn for compactness, community interests, and other various differences. She pointed out the district depicted in blue was a perfect example. Districts 6 and 41 called negative attention and posed the question that the six factors used in drawing the district lines were not dealt with. Assemblyman Hettrick commented that compactness was mentioned in the presentation, and nationally known consultants had been working with them and indicated the districts should be drawn as depicted. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was not an issue of pretty; the issue was “what” would send up a signal as far as what was an inappropriately drawn district.
Assemblyman Brower interjected that the districts Chairwoman Giunchigliani had recognized as being slightly awkward looking, based on the case law in which gerrymandered districts were challenged, were no where near what had typically been the type of district to cause a challenge or a second look by the courts. He stated they were relatively “boxy” looking compared to others throughout the country that had been challenged in the courts. Chairwoman Giunchigliani appreciated Assemblyman Brower’s comments and was not arguing the point of gerrymandering. She recalled the issues dealt with during the last redistricting where courts automatically reviewed “weird” districts created by the process. It was not an issue of pretty, gerrymandering, or anything else, but rather was a matter of justification, which was essential.
Assemblywoman Buckley referenced Districts 10, 11, and 12 on the maps where Hispanic districts were supposedly created, and asked whether race was the predominant factor, which would account for the strange shapes of the districts. Assemblyman Beers stated he had attempted to put people who shared a common heritage, language, and community of interest, within each district. Assemblywoman Buckley inquired whether the Republican Caucus proposed the Assembly districts be “nested” into Senate districts, and was that part of a bill yet to be heard from the Senate, which would include the senatorial and the congressional seats. Assemblyman Hettrick stated the Senate was preparing a bill, however, he did not know when it would be presented. He presumed the bill would encompass the congressional seats, as well as the Board of Regents and State Board of Education, when the maps were presented to the committee. Assemblywoman Buckley inquired whether the maps presented would be part of the Senate bill. Assemblyman Hettrick answered in the affirmative. She then asked when that bill was to be introduced, to which he responded he did not know.
Assemblyman Anderson indicated he was somewhat protective of the City of Sparks, and was curious how the incumbent rural districts of Humboldt, Pershing, North Sparks, Lander and Eureka fit into that small growing area. He asked why Assemblywoman Freeman would pick up a section of Sparks, while the traditional area of the community was being broken in half. He asked how the proposed district would be beneficial to the Hispanic population. Addressing the township question, which would have included more of the Sun Valley area, Assemblyman Anderson said his particular community was broken four ways. Assemblyman Hettrick explained the population issues were addressed when drawing the district lines. An attempt had been made to give every seated incumbent a district, which was a part of the accepted rules and/or court cases within the redistricting criteria that was followed. According to Assemblyman Hettrick, one Democratic district in Washoe County was 44 percent Hispanic, which appeared to be a community of interest. With the closeness of the resident incumbents, it was difficult to separate them. He said he and Assemblyman Beers felt it was more equitable to put two Democrats in a Democratic district instead of splitting the parties in one district.
Assemblyman Beers stated the maps presented on Thursday put Assemblymen Humke and Brower within the same districts via a strip of land that ran on opposite sides of metropolitan Reno. Assemblyman Anderson stated Hidden Valley was located in Reno. Assemblyman Beers responded, the land was on opposite sides of metropolitan Reno. He reiterated that two seats in the north had to be combined with a 46-seat plan.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that despite negotiations, some lines would cause concern because of the proximity of residence of the incumbents, plus community of interest and compactness. She noted that part of Clark County had been drawn into Pahrump, Nevada. Assemblyman Hettrick stated that at the time, it had been required to “reach out” in order to compile enough people to create a district, and Pahrump was ultimately placed within one of the Clark County districts. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there were no further questions and reiterated that 42 Assembly and 21 Senate seats was the better option for southern Nevada.
********
Chairwoman Giunchigliani reconvened the work session, and requested committee review of A.B. 665.
Assembly Bill 665: Revises districts for state legislators and representatives in congress. (BDR 17-1542)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 665.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Speaker Emeritus Dini indicated he would vote in favor of the bill, but protested the 42/21 option. He felt increasing the seats would allow for districts comprised of communities of interest, rather than districts, which encompassed thousands of miles. He hoped with negotiation the right numbers could be agreed upon.
Assemblyman Brower understood the Chairwoman had the votes to pass the motion, however, committees generally had work session agendas that included the bills to be addressed. He stated this was “sprung” on the committee but knew the vote would be the same no matter when the issue was addressed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she understood his concern but a hearing was held, as well as public hearings with testimony regarding the issue, and the vote was the first step to moving forward on the reapportionment issue.
Speaker Perkins appreciated the presentation on the 46-plan and the efforts that went into that plan. He disagreed on how the Hispanic community would benefit one way or the other. Within the 42-plan, Speaker Perkins felt the Hispanic concerns would be taken into consideration, especially since it was a young community which was experiencing voter registration issues. He emphasized that former Assemblymen Sandoval and Herrera were not from Hispanic districts and had done very well for their constituents.
Assemblyman Beers remained convinced that A.B. 665 was unconstitutional and stated he would be voting against it. Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked him for his honesty, but strongly disagreed with his belief. She stated the bill was not in any way, shape, or form, literally unconstitutional.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A MAJORITY VOTE. THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR WERE ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON, ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY, SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI, ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN, SPEAKER PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE, AND CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI. OPPOSED WERE ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS, ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL.
********
With no further business to come before the committee, Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 6:06 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: