MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
February 22, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:56 p.m., on Thursday, February 22, 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.
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Dean Heller, Nevada Secretary of State
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections
Renee Lacey, Deputy Chief, Office of the Secretary of State
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting and called attention to BDR 24-917.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 24-917.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN, ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER, AND SPEAKER PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she authored the BDR due to a situation that occurred in Clark County. The action recommended in the BDR would simplify the language in the statute.
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, shared with the committee the contents of the handout (Exhibit C) placed at each member’s desk. Included were the replacement pages for the Committee Brief presented on February 8, 2001, and an update on BDR 817, as adjusted during the February 8, 2001 hearing by Assemblywoman Freeman. He also included in the packet newsletters entitled Ballot Access News and Election Administration Reports. The newsletters were distributed as they arrived, either biweekly or monthly.
Nevada Secretary of State, Dean Heller and his deputy, Susan Morandi came forward to present a review of Nevada and federal election issues. Each committee member was given a brochure (Exhibit D), which outlined the subject of Mr. Heller’s presentation.
Mr. Heller introduced Alan Glover, Carson City Elections and members of his staff, Ken Caldwell and Sue Merewether. The Douglas County Clerk Barbara Reed and Dan Burke from Washoe County were also present.
He assured the committee that during the 2000 election process, considering the problems seen in other parts of the nation, Nevada was not highlighted on any map as having such difficulties. He gave credit to the registrars and clerks throughout the state for the smooth voting process during the 2000 presidential election.
Mr. Heller referred to the Election 2000 in Nevada as well as the results throughout the United States, especially Florida. During a meeting in Washington, D. C., he had the opportunity to meet with Florida’s Secretary of State. He was also invited to meet with California’s Secretary of State and attended their legislative hearings on election reforms and hoped today’s presentation would provide insight for meaningful changes within Nevada.
The recap of Nevada’s Election 2000 showed a total registration of active voters to be 874,304, with a voter turnout of 613,360. The turnout percentage was 70.15 percent with Douglas and Eureka counties each reporting a 100 percent turnout in some precincts. The overall turnout in the general election was considerably higher than in the primary, the latter averaged about 20 percent. Early voters numbered 206,013 while 116,837 absentee ballots had been requested. He voiced concern over the lack of voter turnout for the primaries considering the 50 percent increase in turnout for the general election. As for recounts, there was one in the 5th Judicial District Court, Department 2. On the recap overall, Mr. Heller pointed out that for the 1998 through 2000 statistics the inactive voters were not tallied in the final count.
On the U.S. election recap map the problem states were Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida. Mr. Heller stated Oregon’s problem related to their mail-in voting process, which took longer than anticipated in totaling final results. Iowa and Wisconsin were potential problems, President Bush having indicated he would have requested a recount in those states had the vote in Florida gone in Mr. Gore’s favor.
There were three key issues in Florida that held the nation’s attention. The punch card ballot in Florida revealed high under and over voting, complicated by lack of well-defined laws to cover such discrepancies. On the subject of under votes, confusion centered around difficulty determining the intent of the voter and there were no standards for determining voter intent. In respect to the over votes, the ballots were deemed confusing in regard to alignment of names with holes (punch cards) and butterfly ballots. Throughout Florida, each county made their own determination of the law’s intent.
Mr. Heller indicated the second area of confusion was Florida’s lack of uniform standards. The Florida Secretary of State spoke before of group of Secretaries of State and shared that deadlines as well as conflicting election laws were very gray and difficult to understand. Election officials were subjected to multiple recounts, the statute stating that if the result was within one percent between candidates, there would be an automatic recount. That differed greatly from the Nevada election laws where a recount took place only after a canvas by the Supreme Court
Justices, as happened the day before Thanksgiving. If the vote was close, the losing candidate would then ask for a recount and paid for the expense of the recount procedure.
In Florida, that was not the case. There was an immediate recount, and in some counties a third recount, which caused a tremendous amount of confusion. The military overseas votes were also a problem in Florida due to the lack of postmarks when mailed, and date received.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani interjected the absentee ballots for Nevada had to be received by Election Day. Mr. Heller indicated that was correct.
The third complaint in Florida was that of voter access. Concerning the absentee ballot applications, party workers added voter identification numbers, a process used in Nevada. Once that information was added, the applications were forwarded to the registrar’s office. In some cases the applications were misfiled, (possibly discarded) because the party affiliation was mismarked by the requestor; thus an absentee ballot was never sent. There were allegations of voter intimidation in Florida. Mr. Heller indicated he called Gene Collins of the NAACP, and asked if there were any concerns about the way the elections were handled in Southern Nevada. Mr. Collins’ response was there were no complaints statewide of allegation, intimidation, or lack of access to polling sites.
Voters were turned away because their names were not listed. Those voters stated they had registered at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or some other service but for some reason the card was never forwarded to the county clerk or registrar.
Mr. Heller continued, sharing the two questions he was asked daily: 1) Are you glad you are not the Secretary of State of Florida, and 2) Could what happened in Florida have happened in Nevada. The answers were no and yes, respectively. He stated California took several weeks before their absentee ballots were counted. He felt there was no overwhelming attention paid to Nevada as opposed to Florida due to the difference in electoral votes. Nevada had four; Florida had 25. Also, Nevada, because of its recount laws, did not have overlapping recounts.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani
interjected that with past recounts there had never been more than a one or two
vote difference, if any change at all. That factor alone showed Nevada’s
procedures and voting equipment were working properly. Within
the Judicial District 5 recount, which covered three separate counties, Mr.
Heller, shared there was only a difference of five votes. The modern electronic
system in Clark County reduced the problems seen with the punch card system in
Florida. He shared there were standards in Nevada that determined voter intent
on punch cards, the law explaining exactly how to handle a “chip.” Also, Nevada
did not use butterfly ballots.
Yes, according to Mr. Heller, what happened in Florida could have happened in Nevada due to the following three reasons:
Regarding a state voter registration system, it was Mr. Heller’s and Ms. Morandi’s position that such a procedure was critical to help clean up the lists within all counties. The point was individuals moving from county to county could register to vote in each county of residence with no check or balance in place even though there were legal ramifications for such actions. Thus, with an appropriate data base in place, if registration was processed in one or more counties where the same name, date of birth, and social security number was used, a red flag would be raised to alert county clerks and registrars that the individual was already registered.
In Mr. Heller’s discussions with other election officials, all had the same conclusion that there was no quick fix for the election process, the problems of the past, or those that would occur in the future. All agreed the true solution was the education process, i.e., there was a generation of disconnected voters, thus the reason for the low voter numbers. Within Nevada, of all age-eligible voters, only 50 percent registered to vote and an average of only half voted on Election Day. The concern was what could be done to reconnect voters to the privilege of voting. The scenario provided by Mr. Heller involved seatbelts. Adults were not taught about seatbelts, but children were. Therefore, when the child got in the car and put on a seatbelt, he or she turned to the adults present and said, “You need to buckle your seatbelt.” The same was said for recycling and can in turn be said for children teaching adults about democracy and the privilege of voting.
Mr. Heller stated he took his 15-year old daughter out of school to accompany him to the polling booth to watch the entire voting process. He said it was not that good of an experience for his daughter because the person in the booth next to him became upset because Mr. Heller’s daughter was allowed in the voting area. Even with the intimidation by the other voter, she managed to learn about the voting process.
The reform goals for Nevada as listed in Mr. Heller’s brochure were:
Requested in the Secretary of State budget through the executive branch was implementation of a statewide voter registration system. The Governor indicated no opposition to the system though he questioned the $1.5 to $2 million needed. California and Utah had a similar program that allowed reference to respective lists. Mr. Heller felt such a system was imperative for Nevada due to the transient status of the state’s population. The system in question would:
Within the budget funds was a dedication to the rewriting of the Nevada election laws to be presented to the 2003 Legislature. Governor Guinn agreed to a third- party review the rewrite, the purpose being an elimination of duplications and gray areas within the present laws. Mr. Heller stated there was confusion within his office and the Attorney General’s Office when it came to interpretation of election laws. With that difficulty here, he urged the committee to imagine how difficult it was for general public interpretation.
As stated earlier, Nevada had eight counties with approximately 139,000 voters, who used punch cards. The goal was to upgrade those counties to the optical scan voting format by the 2004 presidential election. Mr. Heller stated an upgrade would be very difficult to accomplish. The estimated cost for upgrades was $250,000 to $400,000 throughout the state, and provided optical scanning at a centralized site as opposed to having one at every precinct location. He emphasized centralizing was not the ideal solution because the voter would be unable to put their individual ballot into the scanner. Also, if that ballot was rejected, correction could not be accomplished. With a central location scanner, the ballot was dropped into the local ballot box and the box taken to the scan area. He continued that to eliminate the problems with the current punch card systems, the answer was punch card systems that used the optical scan centralized system.
The fund Mr. Heller earmarked, as a Democracy Fund was a matching program conjoined with federal funds. He was knowledgeable of federal systems that required matching funds from the states as well as the counties. Reporting of faster election night results was also a benefit of the suggested upgrade.
Another area already budgeted was the opportunity that would allow a pilot program of Internet voting by Nevada’s 1,500 military men and women stationed overseas. Assemblyman Beers asked how our servicemen and women at sea would be able to access Internet voting. Mr. Heller indicated the access would have to be at a military base. Those registered would receive a unique numerical identifier, which the voter would be required to use. Safety and security of the voting systems was the ultimate concern, with safeguards against computer hackers who could access the system and change the unique identifier. Mr. Heller stated if it could not be done, Nevada would not do it, but was excited about implementing the system for a couple of elections as a reference point for the future.
A more contentious issue, as reported in the news, was the allocation of Nevada’s electoral votes proportionally. He stated Nevada was one of 48 states that was a “winner take all state.” The two states that had their electoral votes proportionally distributed were Maine and Nebraska. Mr. Heller felt the allocation was a more equitable process and would motivate presidential candidates to visit the smaller electoral vote states. His belief was that if California was proportional, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore would have campaigned more heavily throughout all western states. Showing how the system would have worked, Mr. Heller indicated proportionally Congressional District 1’s three electoral votes would have gone to Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore would have received Congressional District 2’s one electoral vote. With the present system, Nevada elected the president of the swing states. Statistics showed the candidates spent all their campaign time in a half dozen states that their parties felt were “up for grabs,” i.e., Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. Though there were arguments against the proportionment of electoral votes, similar proposals were voiced in California, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and Virginia. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College came from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
The question arose, if Nevada made such a change, would the electoral votes become less important. There was no real answer nor could a solution be known unless all states turned to proportional allocation of electoral votes. Mr. Heller was not opposed to the Electoral College system and, if proportionally divided, it helped the smaller states. When the system was developed by the country’s founding fathers, congressional districts determined electoral votes. With further discussion, each state was allowed to include their two senators, which added two more electoral votes for each state, which proportionally helped the smaller states. Historically, when Nevada cast its four votes and pushed President Bush over the top, Nevada became the focus of the national media. If the Electoral College was not in place, Nevada would not have gained the attention received. Not only did Mr. Heller believe proportioning was the fairer way, he felt also it would bring candidates to the people of the smaller states and thus increase voter turnout.
Assemblyman Bache pointed out that the Congressional Districts listed in the brochure were transposed. Mr. Heller apologized for the mistake.
Assemblyman Beers asked if an analysis had been done to see how the Electoral College results would have tallied with proportional allocation. Mr. Heller stated the results reported by USA Today indicated no difference in the number of Electoral College votes received per candidate. Mr. Heller reminded the committee there was a bill to be heard regarding proportional allocation of the electoral votes though he was not sure if it would be heard by the Committee on Government Affairs or the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics. Once again he impressed upon the committee that if the law had been changed, there would have been more than one visit to Nevada by each of the candidates and more attention would have been directed to grazing, mining, nuclear waste, and casino issues.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt public funding helped when it came down to the cost of the candidates meeting the requirements of visiting all parts of the country. Mr. Heller indicated time was at issue as well during campaigning.
Addressing the Nevada’s Voter Bill of Rights (Tab 3 of the brochure) (Exhibit D), Mr. Heller stated there was more needed to educate the public, especially first-time voters. He commented that with the transient nature of Nevada’s population there were approximately 100,000 to 150,000 first-time voters every election cycle. The Bill of Rights, though subject to change, offered the following:
1. The right to a ballot format that permitted clear identification of candidates and accurate implementation of voter’s preferences in the selection of candidates,
2. The right to have questions answered and an explanation of voting procedures posted with the polling place,
3. The right to receive a replacement ballot, if the first one became spoiled,
4. The right to vote in a manner not subject to intimidation,
5. The right for the handicapped to receive assistance,
6. The right to have a uniform statewide standard for counting and recounting all votes accurately,
7. The right to a sample ballot which was accurate and informative,
8. The right to understand and be able to use voting machines on Election Day,
9. The right to have complaints about elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately, and efficiently, and
10. The right to have a nondiscriminatory equal access to the elections system for all voters, including elderly, disabled, minority, military, and overseas citizens.
Mr. Heller welcomed any input from the committee regarding the ten areas covered in the Voter Bill of Rights. He continued, indicating that the Voter Bill of Rights should be included in every sample ballot and posted prominently at every voting precinct.
On the Federal level, Mr. Heller commented on one of Senator Reid’s four proposals, S. 241, 107th Cong. (2001), which proposed uniform national standards for federal races. Mr. Heller anticipated that if passed, the states would soon follow, as it was very difficult to run two different styles of elections on the same day. The subject of Senator Reid’s bill was:
FEC to set required uniform national standards regarding procedures for elections for Federal office including types of ballots, vote counting, use of counting machines, accuracy and security of elections, voter registration and maintenance of voter registration rolls. Standards to be based on current practices in the states. Grants made to states to pay for implementation of standards. FEC to run grant program. $100,000,000 from 2002-2011. Change the general election date to the First Sat. & Sun. in Nov. States shall provide for same-day voter registration in a general election for Federal office.
Mr. Heller agreed with Senator Reid’s argument that the average voter waited until about two weeks prior to registration deadlines to register and at times voter’s county clerk requested they “return in two years,” due to the clerk’s overwhelming work load. Unfortunately, some citizens actually took the clerk at his/her word. Same day voter registration, already in effect in several states, afforded the opportunity to register on Election Day and participate in the election. That process stopped the alienation of being turned away by the registrars’ offices or precincts. More information on federal legislation to be addressed was available under the fourth tab in the brochure (Exhibit D).
Assemblyman Bache recalled part of the process, while registering a vehicle or renewing a driver’s license at DMV, was to ask if the individual was or would like to register to vote. He stated that opportunity had not been offered to him during the DMV process. He asked how the Secretary of State could coordinate the motor-voter program. Mr. Heller did not recall being asked himself, and was not sure that was a requirement of the DMV clerks, though it was an option on the vehicle registration forms. He stated some people thought they had been automatically registered to vote during DMV procedures and on Election Day discovered the registration was not forwarded.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, to check via the Voter Rights Act regarding that specific registration procedure. She suggested all voters should be encouraged to keep the yellow copy of the voter registration form as proof of their registration at the polls on voting day.
Assemblyman Anderson asked about the students who mailed in their registration and then went off to college, finding later they were not able to vote because of using the mail-in system in their state. Mr. Heller indicated his office scanned those registrations for Notary signatures. He emphasized it was imperative that a mail-in registration be notarized. Another process would be to personally register in the Secretary of State’s office to assure signature verification. Assemblyman Anderson requested making that need more evident on the registration form; he indicated that notaries were scarce, especially when it came to our military voters. Mr. Heller stated college and military voters found it difficult as well, and added that within Nevada there were approximately 28,000 notaries, but acknowledged that Mr. Anderson’s point was well taken.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani told of a homebound constituent unable to get out to vote. Mr. Heller was more than happy to help make adjustments to alleviate further confusion on the notary matter.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani reported that under NRS 293.524, the DMV clerks were required by law to provide voter registration applications to any person applying for an issuance or renewal of driver’s license or vehicle registration. She then asked Assemblyman Bache if the application was being offered. His answer was no.
Assembly Bill No. 18: Requires fiscal note for legislative measure to contain estimate of certain fiscal impacts for two biennia. (BDR 17-204)
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Fiscal Analysis Division, stepped forward to testify on A.B. 18, regarding the modification of fiscal note statute NRS 218.272, which required that estimates of the fiscal impact of the proposed bill be prepared for the upcoming two biennia. The bill was requested by a task force for long-term financial analysis and planning as part of its recommendations regarding the creation of a process to aid the state in its long-term financial analysis and planning. A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session, sponsored by the late Assemblywoman Jan Evans, created the task force. NRS 218.272 stated, “A fiscal note must contain a reliable estimate of the anticipated change in appropriation authority, fiscal liability or state revenue under a bill or joint resolution, including to the extent possible, a projection of such change in future biennia.”
Generally speaking, fiscal notes were required on proposals that increased expenditure authority or decreased a revenue source. The current fiscal note process used required the agency that received the appropriation or collected the revenue to prepare a fiscal note that estimated the impact of the proposal on the current biennium. The fiscal note also contained a section that asked the agency of any effect on future biennia, though frequently the intended result of the question was not achieved. Agencies were only required to indicate the proposal had an impact on future biennia but did not provide estimates regarding the potential fiscal impact.
Continuing, Mr. Guindon stated that upon reviewing the state’s current fiscal note process, the task force decided that fiscal note statutes be amended to specifically require the agency to prepare estimates of the fiscal impact beyond the current biennium being considered by the legislature. The task force determined the state’s planning budget would thus benefit from having fiscal impacts produced for the future two biennia, which would allow the full impact of a proposal to be examined, especially for the measures that became effective late in the second year of the biennium or provided only start-up funds during the biennium being budgeted.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the format was of the same fiscal note as presented to her. She continued the focus of the bill was to project two biennia ahead but was still understood to be an estimate. Mr. Guindon reiterated it would remain an estimate but specifically required an estimate be prepared for each year of the upcoming biennia.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was a cost impact attached to projections that far in advance and were fiscal notes returned to the agencies if the dollar amounts appeared beyond reason. Ted Zuend, Fiscal Analysis Division, answered that occasionally a fiscal note was returned if it appeared to be inconsistent with the legislation, which did not occur that frequently on state issues because of being first reviewed by the budget office. Mr. Zuend stated also that Perry Comeaux, Director of the State Budget Division, was very supportive of the task force hearings, and, as a member, felt the bill would help with measures where the amounts appeared feasible during the current biennium since the funding was not immediately required, and at the same time created a mandate for additional funding beyond the current biennium.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: