MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

February 27, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Tuesday, February 27, 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.                     Bernie Anderson

Mr.                     Douglas Bache

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

His Honor Robert Rose, Justice, Nevada Supreme Court

Alan Glover, Representative, Nevada Association of County Clerk and Election Officials

Stephanie Garcia, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson

 

 

Assembly Bill No. 144:  Changes dates for filing of declaration of candidacy for judicial office. (BDR 24-516)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 144 with testimony from Justice Rose of the Nevada Supreme Court. Justice Rose was designated by the court to inform the legislature about the judiciary desire to have A.B. 144 passed into law. Once passed, the filing dates would change for judicial candidates from the presently affixed May dates to the second and fourth Mondays in January. He stated exceptions to the rule were sometimes difficult to establish but all justices felt there was good cause to change the law. The change would eliminate the 4- to 4½-month wait in knowing if the incumbent had opposition, which would in turn allow all judges to concentrate during those four months on judiciary matters instead of fund raising. He stated judges had the least contested races.

 

Judges, while spending those 4 to 4½ months before the May filing date raising campaign funds, most from special interests, raised the question in the eyes of some about fairness and impartiality. More than a few articles had appeared over the years about contributions received by judges and justices, putting a question mark over that judge or justice. Not that it was improper or illegal, it added an additional concern that the public did not need to have if the judge ran for re-election unopposed.

 

Justice Rose testified personally that for the four or five months waiting to see if there was going to be opposition, judges were distracted. Their primary job was to preside over the courts, handling cases with appropriate results in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand, the concern was about the election, organizing a campaign and raising money. Therefore, judges and justices put in the requisite time on the bench but not much more. In his own instance, he announced his candidacy and began raising money in January. Normally, he worked four or five hours at the office in the afternoon. During the campaigning time, he raised approximately $140,000, spending most of it on organization and consultants, none of which would have been necessary if he had known in January there would be no opposition.

 

He felt also that Clark County represented the largest “traffic jam” in the fund raising arena. Under present filing mandates, there were approximately 30 judges and justices of the peace who began campaigning simultaneously in Clark County, beginning in January and not ending until the middle of May. Justice Rose stated that if he were a business owner or attorney within Clark County at that time, he would consider taking a vacation for those four months. It would not have to be that way with the passage of A.B. 144, as only four to five of those presently in office would be opposed.

 

The proposal stated that during January there were two weeks in which a judicial candidate could file. At that point, the judicial candidate would know whether or not he or she was being opposed. It was felt that would be a better way for judicial candidates to handle the election process.

 

Justice Rose pointed out the bill said, “For all candidates for judicial office.” The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) noticed that the municipal court judges were on a different timetable, running in April for the primary election and early June for the general election. Therefore, the time frames for the municipal court judges would be stretched out, which meant they filed toward the end of July, first of August. The municipal judges were not enthralled about being included in this legislation, but the way it was written it did not affect their timelines more than 15 days. With the proposed change to put them back, there was a unified cry from municipal court judges, stating they preferred not to be included. Justice Rose recommended eliminating the municipal court judges from the legislation. The filing was 60 days before the primary and the general election one month thereafter. Thus, the necessity for they being included was not that great.

 

Therefore, Justice Rose recommended the Supreme Court justices, judges and justices of the peace be afforded the timetable described in A.B. 144. He stated all in the above category understood that they had to run for office like all other public officials and were not challenging that process in any way. They want to know early of any opposition, which afforded them the opportunity to begin campaigning or to get back to the business for which they were elected.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented she appreciated hearing about the change for municipal judges. She was also concerned about the minority parties as addressed in legislation introduced during the 1999 session, wanting to avoid a challenge on the constitutionality of them not being able to get their candidate represented on a list. Based on Justice Rose’s testimony, she reiterated the desire of the justices was to be assured whether or not those who wanted to run again for office knew if there would be opposition far enough in advance so that valuable time was not expended campaigning and fundraising.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani shared that during the 1997 session, the change was passed into law and the purpose was to shorten campaigning time. She did not feel that concept should be revisited but is now with A.B. 144. She also stated she would be happy to resurface her bill from the 1999 session, which was a constitutional amendment to create staggered terms for district court judges, eliminating all 19 campaigning at one time. That option would, she felt, save everyone time, money, and organization. Unfortunately, the courts did not support staggered terms. She felt also that dialogue about staggered terms would enlist conversation surrounding how district judges felt about the campaigning issues elicited by Justice Rose. 

 

Assemblyman Anderson said he found, as Chairman of Government Affairs, city charters were increasingly motivated to have municipal elections move into the same cycle as state elections to cut down on the costs of municipal governments holding elections. He saw the municipal judges possibly being reelected on the same cycle. Assemblyman Anderson asked Justice Rose if he would not like to see a consistency for all judges.

 

Justice Rose stated all would like to see such a system materialize if there was no distinction. The big distinction was municipal court judges ran for office in the spring and early summer. As long as the elections were mandated during that part of the year for municipal elections, different timetables were needed. If during the fall, all would be more consistent.

 

Assemblyman Anderson affirmed, as seen during the 2000 presidential election, the lack of consistency caused many problems, which created a lack of confidence in the public view.

 

Justice Rose, speaking personally and not on behalf of the other justices, stated he would vote for staggered races, though he was voted down by his peers on that option as a district court judge, as well as while on the Supreme Court. He shared there were a few other judges in the state who felt staggered races would be appropriate, as that would alleviate the funding problem. Judges raising money was problematic under any circumstances, and in the final analysis the winners were the campaign consultants and managers.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stressed the committee would take all arguments under advisement, yet what was not wanted was lengthening the term of campaigning.

Justice Rose stated when one was running for office in Clark County or statewide, the campaign started in January if there was opposition. It was pointed out that even though they wanted to get away from being distracted, all candidates could argue that position. By changing filing to January, they would actually lengthened campaigning and distractions. The public did not want a longer time.

 

Alan Glover, Nevada Association of County Clerk & Election Officials, voiced opposition on philosophical grounds. The county and election officials were appreciative of the dates set for the two-week period in May. They opposed seeing a different class of candidates filing at a different time. From the county clerk point of view, there was no difficulty with the suggested change because registrations for the offices in question were filed with the Secretary of State.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated there needed to be dialogue regarding A.B. 144, voicing concern the suggested change would lower the number of candidates. Also, if a person planned on running for office, that desire always appeared to be known well in advance of the filing date, or prior to the electoral campaign beginning.

 

Stephanie Garcia, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, shared her constituents had the same concerns as those expressed by Mr. Glover, but the bill amendment (municipal judges), as proposed by Justice Rose, met with their approval.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 144.

 

 

Assembly Bill No. 18:  Requires fiscal note for legislative measure to contain estimate of certain fiscal impacts for two biennia. (BDR 17-204)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani shared there was a question posed in the February 22, 2001 meeting about a fiscal note on the bill. Michael Stewart, Policy Analyst, provided a handout to the committee (Exhibit C), indicating there was no fiscal note attached to A.B. 18. She called for a motion.

 

            MOVED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS TO DO PASS.

 

            SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE.

 

            MOTION PASSED.

 

Not present for the vote were Assemblyman Price, Assemblyman Hettrick, Speaker Perkins, and Assemblywoman Buckley.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: