MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
March 8, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:56 p.m., on Thursday, March 8, 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
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Speaker Richard Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Parks
Assemblyman Mark Manendo
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters
Alan Clover, Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials
Danny Thompson, Representative, AFL-CIO
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer
Jan Gilbert, Representative, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Elizabeth Pederson, Representative, League of Women Voters in Nevada
Debbie Cahill, Representative, Nevada State Education Association
Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy for Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller
Susan Morandi, Deputy for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State
Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, representative for the Nevada Secretary of State
Dan Musgrove, Representative, City of Las Vegas
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 161.
Assembly Bill 161: Extends hours that polls at elections are open for voting. (BDR 24-1002)
Assemblyman David Parks, representing Clark County Assembly District 41, spoke on A.B. 161, which extended polling hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., an additional hour of voting. The added hour might help voters adjust their schedules to meet their obligations to family, job and extended commutes to and from the workplace. The element of early voting in Nevada grew significantly over the past three or four voting cycles. However, voters approached Mr. Parks indicating they did not care for early voting because they knew they could not take back or change their vote once cast. With the move to more sophisticated voting systems used in Clark County, the results of elections were tabulated within a couple of hours after poll closure. Mr. Parks agreed there would be a fiscal impact keeping the polls open longer; the cherished right of voting far exceeded the costs imposed.
He addressed the need to adopt uniform polling hours with the polls opening and closing simultaneously from Maine to Maui; currently an 18-hour voting period delay. The most recent general election created the above thought across the nation. That being the case, the polls remained open from 6:00 a.m. until midnight on the East Coast and from 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Hawaii.
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the fiscal note information was correct (Exhibit F). The information presented was not uniform; the information provided by some counties was per election and by others on a per year basis. She requested clarification. Assemblyman Parks stated he had not seen a fiscal note pertaining to A.B. 161.
Assemblyman Beers asked if there had ever been an hour-by-hour breakdown to determine the busiest hours of polling. He was not aware if it would be costly to determine, but knowing if the heaviest traffic was between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. provided viability for lengthening the poll hours.
Assemblyman Parks shared the tabulating equipment currently in use charted the time frames in which ballots were cast.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that with the optic scan system used in Washoe and Clark Counties; those statistics could be easily obtained. Also, turnout figures were dependent upon it being a presidential election year or between. She understood each state set their own polling times, though Senator Reid had a bill on the federal level to change the voting day(s) to weekends.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked what impact was considered regarding the West Coast polls closing even later than the east, which allowed the national media predictions to color decisions of West Coast voters. On the other hand, when the polls remained open longer and the national media predicted the winner, the thought of voting was dismissed by those that had not yet voted though they still had the time to do so.
Assemblyman Parks thought of the bill more on the perspective of the local and state election races, but realized during national elections newscasters became somewhat “hyper” and projected early. He looked at the bill strictly from the availability of time for the voters. Also, many voters avoided the polls between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. due to the long lines.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed with Assemblyman Hettrick’s input, yet felt the intent of Assemblyman Park’s legislation was to give everyone the opportunity to vote.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, presented a cost analysis. There was a cost for keeping the polls open an extra hour as well as poll worker health issues, the average age of the poll workers about 63 years. They worked a 14-hour day; the bill increased it to a 15-hour day. He referenced the errors made in Florida. Primary concern should focus on accurate, mistake-free elections, and, when employing an aging work force, asking them to work an extra hour, fatigue was tossed into the equation. The voting equipment required human input, which left room for error.
The largest challenge in Clark County, as well as other counties, was recruiting election-day workers. He felt he would lose poll workers if they were asked to work an additional hour. The second problem faced was obtaining polling places. Clark County had 309 polling places in 2000, with more anticipated for future elections. Though polling places were rent free, use of a school for additional hours incorporated added cost to the school district for after-hours custodial requirements. Churches and community centers required additional custodial care, requiring overtime expense. Mr. Lomax stated the challenge would be more time consuming as far as finding the space and then manning the polls.
He left it to the committee to decide if the added voting time was truly necessary within a state that had 14 days of early voting and allowed anyone who wanted to vote absentee to do so. He knew there were procrastinators that made the last voting hour the busiest and felt that would be true even though the polls remained open until 8:00 p.m. He felt other states should move in Nevada’s direction rather than Nevada move toward California’s 13-hour voting period.
Assemblyman Anderson referenced the Clark County fiscal note (Exhibit F), which reported a yearly figure rather than by election. He asked for clarification.
Mr. Lomax based the fiscal numbers on the cost of primary and general elections, which were held every other year for the federal elections as well as the municipal. Manning 309 polling places for a primary and then general election was estimated to cost approximately $100,000 extra. Two county workers worked as team and assistant team leaders at every polling place, clearly on overtime as they moved into hour 15 at a time and one half hourly rate. That cost worked out to approximately $25,000 per election. Clark County also hired 3,000-plus poll workers who were paid $120 per day (county commission ordinance), which worked out to approximately $100,000. When broken down, the wage was $8.57 per hour. He assumed the rate of pay would have to be increased if longer hours were required.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if Las Vegas had different election cycles. Mr. Lomax stated that in the five cities within Clark County, municipal voting began March 17, 2001. Mr. Lomax continued, stating that later hours meant later results. The results for Election 2000 were available by 11:00 p.m.; with the added hour, the results would come in after midnight. Also, while visiting early voting sites, many voters stated they voted early so their vote counted prior to east coast results being broadcast. Again, the results from the east coast was a deterrent to voters per each voter’s own rationale. In Clark County, 57 percent voted early and absentee in Election 2000 (44 percent early; 13 percent absentee).
Assemblyman Bache suggested the shifts being moved to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., keeping the same number of hours, and then asked if the first hour of voting was as heavy as the last. Mr. Lomax shared the first hour was the busiest.
Alan Glover, Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials, reinforced Mr. Lomax’s testimony. His personal concern was for the election workers and stated the poll worker’s average age in Northern Nevada was somewhat higher than 63 years. The mistakes made were late in the evening, the time when the workers balanced voter signatures, used, and unused ballots. In Carson City, over 50 percent of the people voted prior to Election Day. The number one issue posed in election magazines was recruiting and retaining election workers. Younger people did not apply for poll worker positions because they were working and unable to take the time away from their jobs. Thus, the retired and elderly populous were the poll volunteers. Carson City’s fiscal note (Exhibit F) was based upon what it would cost to retain poll workers, as well as the overtime for county staff.
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer, concurred with Mr. Lomax and Mr. Glover. With early voting there had been no complaints or lines at 7:00 p.m. Years ago, the polls in satellite areas were open from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with big lines at 6:00 p.m., but by 7:30 p.m., only one or two voters appeared. With Election 2000, the polls were busy until about 6:45 p.m. She found no benefit to the polls remaining open later.
Assemblyman Anderson queried about the number of satellite locations in Douglas County. Ms. Reed stated she had four satellites plus the post office:
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if there was anything the committee could write into the legislation to help with the fiscal responsibilities. She felt it a clerical rather than a public service issue.
With everything that occurred in Florida during Election 2000, Ms. Reed stated the county commissioners across the state were more aware of the importance of elections. The issues that arose from the Florida problems were addressed by county commissions, and during budget hearings in Douglas County, she was asked to talk about the election process. Unfortunately, the Florida events were brought forward, yet on the positive side it made people more aware of the critical important nature of elections.
Mr. Lomax added the Clark County election department had received excellent support via their budget hearings. With that support, Clark County voting machine installations were ahead of many other areas.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced the handouts (Exhibits C, D, and E) from Michael Stewart, Policy Analyst, specifically the article on obtaining and maintaining poll workers. She asked if shifts had been considered.
Mr. Lomax stated that due to the rate of dropout between training and poll day, he recruited and trained 5,000 workers to man 3,200 slots. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Glover and Ms. Reed the rate of compensation for Carson City and Douglas County poll workers.
Mr. Glover stated the chairpersons were paid $100 per day and the workers $80. He planned to ask the election board to increase the rate of compensation for the next election cycle. He shared many of the volunteers did not work for the money, but for the pleasure of being a public servant. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the poll workers approached her with great pride in their voices because they provided such an important public service.
Ms. Reed prefaced her response by saying Douglas County was a very conservative county and paid less than Clark or Carson City. Chairpersons received $70 per day and poll workers $60. She paid mileage for training prior to polling day but not Election Day.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested a poll worker acknowledgement day at the legislature as a thank you for the dedication to the public for each election.
Assemblyman Brower asked Ms. Reed about closing later than other polling places. He wondered how that was accomplished given the language of the statute. Ms. Reed answered the longer hours were strictly for early voting at the satellite locations.
Jan Gilbert, representative of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, voiced support of A.B. 161. This bill would expand, her organization felt, the opportunities for working families to get to the polls. Through research, she learned that 19 other states stayed open until 8:00 p.m., with four open until 9:00 p.m. There were six states that combined hours because time zones were split within those states, where the closing times varied between 7:00 to 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. Ms. Gilbert stated her mother and mother-in-law were both poll workers, one aged 85 years, the other 80. They loved doing the work, were very tired by day’s end, but would volunteer without hesitation with a 9:00 p.m. closing. She did not feel the extended time would deter poll workers, as they were a dedicated group of citizens. She felt people would take advantage of the extended hours once it became a habit. Even with early voting, the hours did not coincide with the hours dedicated to work, daycare, bus schedules, etc. The extended hours would allow the working population more time to complete their mandatory obligations and still have time to perform their public obligations.
Elizabeth Pederson, League of Women Voters in Nevada (LWVN) representative, echoed Ms. Gilbert’s support of A.B. 161. LWVN felt it an important bill that increased access to all families, especially within the gaming industry where work hours were nontraditional. To accommodate the voting population, Ms. Pederson gave three options for recruitment of poll workers who did not mind working additional hours:
She closed, urging support of A.B. 161.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 161 and opened the hearing on A.B. 164.
Assembly Bill 164: Revises requirements for obtaining and removing signatures on petitions for initiatives or referenda. (BDR 24-673)
Assemblyman Hettrick of Assembly District 39, spoke on A. B. 164. Verbatim testimony is found in Exhibit G, with fiscal impact statement by the Attorney General’s Office (Exhibit H) attached. He continued stating a summary of the bill needed to be only a paragraph or two to accurately describe the basis of the bill. He referenced a very complex teachers’ petition that was easily described in a paragraph about the issue of the bill. There needed to be more work on the form since different counties recorded information through different databases. The information required on line 15, i.e., a written summary of the requirements, was written as a sample for a constituent and easily printed on any form. The form fit to one page, but Assemblyman Hettrick was in agreement that if more than one page was needed, there was no problem. The idea of A.B. 164 was to make the process fair regarding petition signatures with full, accurate disclosure, knowing with whom the signor was dealing, and the ability of the signor to change their mind and have their name removed from the petition.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if Assemblyman Hettrick had seen the amendments as would be presented to the committee by the Office of the Secretary of State (Exhibit N). She then pointed to page two of A.B. 164, which referenced the word “comprehensive” in front of the word “summary,” though the same wording was not addressed in Subsection 3. Assemblyman Hettrick stated representatives from the Office of the Secretary of State were present to speak about the amendments and felt the removal of the word “comprehensive” in Subsection three was an oversight. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked in whose mind would the change accurately or inaccurately describe reference, petitioner or signer, with the potential penalty for not following through according to law. Assemblyman Hettrick stated he had discussed that issue with the legal department. It remained fact that it was a crime to inaccurately describe the reason for a petition. Charges could be filed through the office of the district attorney, and the district attorney, in 99.9 percent of the cases, would do absolutely nothing but advise the petitioner(s) to not falsify the reason for a petition in the future. He felt the answer was to remove the word “accurately” with another description made available to conform to existing state laws for other uses.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani then referenced the removal of Section 4, Subsection 3, moving all into a new Subsection 3, as pertained to city and county clerk preferences. Assemblyman Hettrick stated that was the area to be spread to counties and cities separately within the law. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated petition and referendum was added though not previously mentioned.
Scott Wasserman, Legal Counsel, stated that because it did not apply to all initiatives or referendums, the information was moved from Subsection 3. A.B. 164 presently covered all initiatives and referendums governed by Chapter 295. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if that referred to petitions for recall. Mr. Wasserman stated recall was not addressed in Chapter 295.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, shared testimony against A.B. 164. She stated that prior to testifying she researched the constitutionality of the bill with constitutional attorneys and various other individuals as mentioned in her verbatim testimony (Exhibit I). Upon conclusion of her testimony, she presented:
1. Exhibit J, correspondence from the Initiative & Referendum Institute from Washington, D.C.;
2. Exhibit K, a brief from the Supreme Court of the United States on Meyer vs. Grant; and
3. Exhibit L, a brief on the case of Buckley vs. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., et al (ACLF).
Assemblyman Price asked why the public would fail to take initiative questions to their legislator for discussion and debate. Ms. Hansen stated the public was guaranteed the right to an initiative and referendum process in the constitution, but often the bills died in process. Therefore, the public turned to the initiative and referendum process. Assemblyman Price stated he did not mean states attempted to prohibit, but raised the numbers necessary to make things more difficult for petitioners. Ms. Hanson stated Nevada required 10 percent of the registered voters to sign the petitions.
Assemblywoman Buckley complimented Ms. Hansen on her presentation, noting it the best she had heard from Ms. Hansen.
Debbie Cahill, representative of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated, for the record, she was in agreement with Janine Hansen, and pointed out it was not the first time they had agreed on issues during prior committee hearings. NSEA had recently been through a petition process where they experienced a cumbersome and expensive ordeal. NSEA was in opposition to the bill, and with due respect to Assemblyman Hettrick, they referenced three main concerns:
Ms. Cahill stated she had been on both sides of a blocking campaign, where people were urged to not sign a petition. The first thought that came to mind per Subsection 3 of A.B. 164 was to go out and enlist ten individuals to sign the petition in question. Then if the petitioner failed to follow through as described in A.B. 164, Ms. Cahill would urge taking to court the petitioners, trying to determine if the signature gatherer’s failure to follow through with Subsection 3 would constitute the ability to declare the petition null and void. She felt the language was intended to insure the people had all of the information. Ms. Cahill shared we had all been cautioned to never sign something you had not read, and those that decided to sign had an obligation to read the petition.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she signed onto the bill yet saw where there needed to be changes. Her concern was the tactics used to explain what the petition addressed. She provided the example of being at lunch with several co-workers when approached by petitioners who stated the petition in question was being circulated because “business doesn’t pay tax.” When Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked, “Doesn’t business pay an activity tax?,” the response was, “Oh, we didn’t mean business doesn’t pay any taxes.” She then asked if gaming was included in the petition. There were no answers forthcoming and the petition was signed by all but Assemblywoman Von Tobel. She felt the bill was important in blocking misinformation being given when petitioners asked for signatures.
Assemblywoman Buckley shared the subject at hand was one of extensive study in law school. She shared the best way to combat speech was more speech and a petition was a great way to say that businesses did not pay taxes. The questions asked of the petitioner by Assemblywoman Von Tobel created more speech, which in turn encouraged more participation in democracy.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed with Assemblywoman Buckley that if there was someone present knowledgeable enough to talk about the information given they be provided the opportunity to share their knowledge. Without that, most people assumed the information provided was correct and would thus sign. He found it interesting that many did not think accuracy and honesty were not important, though they were mandatory in the legislature and within the law. Inaccuracy and dishonesty within a petition must not be condoned. Also, if accurately described, he did not see where the delays mentioned came into question. There was mention of pre-approval on campaign literature. He stated campaign literature did not change the law; petitions did.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated petitions and referendums drew out speech in one way or another. She stated the courts reinterpreted the interpretations over and over, and at times, someone would hear only two words, say they loved the idea and would sign the petition. A.B. 164 was a caution that covered all gray areas.
Assemblywoman Freeman stated she was personally involved with a petition in the city of Reno. As a result of the way it was handled, a bill was drafted to clarify those who became involved with the initiative process and knew they would not be sued once a decision was made.
Lucille Lusk, representative of the Nevada Concerned Citizens, voiced opposition to the bill as written. She and those she represented worked to find amendments for the bill to resolve concerns on both sides. Yet, when it came to finalization, they could not get past having the Secretary of State approve the summary. She referenced Question 2 on the last ballot. It took several weeks to get the Secretary of State’s Office to assign a number even though there were only three questions on the ballot. Question 9 was required on the ballot, having been on the previous ballot, which left only two questions to be assigned numbers. The delay in number assignment created much difficulty. The disagreement on the language might land a petition in court before it ever got off the ground. Thus, the NNC reason for opposition.
Danny Thompson, representative of the Nevada AFL-CIO, voiced opposition to A.B. 164. Having a campaign history of over 20 years, he had discovered the hard way about initiative petitions. In 1998, the Liberty Caucus of the Nevada Republican Party filed an initiative petition against the unions. The unions were forced to defend themselves via a blocking campaign. Nevada, to qualify a question, required 10 percent of the registered voters in 13 of the 17 counties. Clark and Washoe counties were not difficult in which to obtain signatures. Outside of those two counties the task was almost impossible. Mr. Thompson stated that in Esmeralda county approximately 50 votes were needed. He eventually obtained the mandated number of signatures by hiring an individual to sit in the Goldfield, Nevada, local bar for two weeks to get enough people to sign the petition. Another difficult county was Lincoln.
Mr. Thompson impressed upon the committee the AFL-CIO’s opposition to the bill and complimented Janine Hansen’s outline of opposition, which closely related to the AFL-CIO’s as well. The people who could not get resolution within the legislature had, as a recourse, initiative and referendum. In response to Assemblyman Price’s question, a law on the books required that fee increases or new taxes needed a two-thirds majority vote. The outcome was a minority of legislators controlled the majority. Therefore, with the problems of today, there had to be a way to solve addressed problems the majority in the legislature were unable to resolve, which was accomplished through the initiative and referendum procedure.
Mr. Thompson stated requiring additional papers explaining the reason for the petition deterred obtaining signatures on any petition. The petition was handed to the individual to sign and before signing they had an option to read what it was about. He stated half of the people who voted for the assemblyperson did not know who they were, what they stood for and if he asked a citizen their representative’s name, they could not tell him. The bill was like passing a law that said every voter must be informed on all the positions the candidate represented. Citizens had a right to read and research about candidates, just as they did about the petitions and what they were about.
In the case of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, he felt much confusion would arise by throwing in legal questions about the constitutionality of approved actions later found unconstitutional. A.B. 164 stated the Secretary of State and/or Attorney General could either approve or disapprove. What happened if both disapproved? Did it just go away? He felt the bill denied the people the right to solve their problems when a solution could not be found through the legislative branch of government.
Mr. Thompson ended saying there already was the ability for a voter to remove their name from a petition. He stated he ran a rescission letter campaign where the people who signed a petition were sought out, asked if they understood what they had signed and shared they only had to sign a letter of rescission and send it in to have their name removed from the petition. In that campaign, they blocked four counties with the rescission letter. The law today was clear, it worked and though he did not agree with all petitions that were filed, he felt it a process that needed to be protected.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed with Mr. Thompson on the cost issue, yet pointed out that opponents did not get a choice. There was additional cost to go out to honestly and accurately portray, as well as with rescission letters to oppose. Assemblyman Hettrick found it interesting Mr. Thompson felt the two-thirds approval was inappropriate, that ratio accomplished through initiative petition. He wondered if all those who signed realized what their signature had done to state government. He also felt Mr. Thompson confirmed Assemblyman Hettrick’s very point; voters did not understand what they were signing. Later the opponents did not have the ability to do rescission letters and/or a blocking campaign. Finally, Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out that the Republican Liberty Caucus mentioned had nothing to do with the Republican Caucus, Republican Assembly Caucus, Republican Senate Caucus and was, in fact, just as critical of the assembly body as other organizations.
Elizabeth Pederson, representative of the League of Women Voters of Nevada, voiced opposition to A.B. 164. Verbatim narrative is found in Exhibit M.
Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy for Secretary of State Dean Heller, introduced Susan Morandi, Deputy for Elections. Ms. Lacey stated Secretary Heller was very much in favor of the initiative process, however, there were several complaints through the Secretary of State’s Office concerning misrepresentation by paid circulators. She was not saying A.B. 164 was the ultimate answer, but it was a step in solving present problems. She presented a proposed amendment (Exhibit N) to clean up the language, which was expected to meet the needs of a more workable bill.
Susan Morandi stated that if the bill went forward, Chapter 295 was the law that governed initiatives and referendums. Broken down within that chapter were statewide, county and municipal measures. Her reading of Section 2 appeared unclear how it applied to the counties and municipalities. The Secretary of State’s Office did not feel it was their place to step in where the counties and municipalities were involved. There was guidance needed for the Secretary of State’s office in dealing with the entire process.
Ms. Morandi pointed out there was certain terminology vital in the area of “filed” and “submitted.” If “submitted,” it needed to be clarified if it meant prior to the petition being filed with the Secretary of State. A petition was filed with the Secretary of State; after which individuals went out to circulate. The way the bill was written was confusing from a practical standpoint of when the filing would actually occur, i.e., if upon turning the petitions in to the Secretary of State.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated with a language cleanup, the petition would be submitted for a ten-day approval period and then considered filed, at which time they would proceed with further processing.
Assemblywoman Freeman responded to Mr. Thompson’s comments concerning the counties and the number of voter signatures required. She then asked if there was not something passed during the 1999 session to change the statutes, and what could be done to make the process more user-friendly.
Ms. Morandi stated Mr. Thompson was speaking to the requirements for signature gathering, which mandated signatures by 10 percent of registered voters in 75 percent of Nevada’s counties (13 of the 17 counties).
Assemblywoman Freeman again asked if there had not been a change in the past few years with those requirements. She requested clarification.
Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General at the Attorney General’s Office, representing the Secretary of State, felt the changed figures represented minor party petitions. Nothing had been done in that regard for initiatives and referendums.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was the 3 percent to the 1 percent, but felt former Assemblyman Larry Spitler had introduced legislation at one time regarding petition gathering to make it easier on the 25 percent signatures, though, it could have been related only to local government issues of recall. Ms. Cavin pointed out again that it did not affect an initiative and referendum.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Dan Musgrove, who represented the city of Las Vegas. He echoed the Office of the Secretary of State regarding municipal referendums, leaving the approval or disapproval of the language contained on petitions to the local election officials. A problem in the law was removal of signatures. The law said it had to be done prior to the petition being filed. Although the date of filing must be announced, he asked about the petition being filed early, which eliminated the opportunity for those who wished to remove their name(s) from a specific petition. The city of Las Vegas did not disagree with the need for accuracy or disclosure, but with the mechanics of making the law effective through the efforts of the city clerks.
Scott Wasserman felt it helpful that the purpose of the redraft of the bill applied to all initiatives and referendums under Chapter 295, that a name could be removed, the language having been changed when filed. As the Office of the Secretary of State pointed out, it was filed before the petition to remove your name was circulated. Therefore, use of the word “filed” prevented having a name removed from an initiative or referendum. Other language needed to be addressed such as using the word “submitted” instead of the word “filed.”
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer, remained neutral though wanted to point out areas, which referenced county clerks and registrars. She stated there was a serious problem with the petition initiative and referendum process in Nevada. It was an area the county clerks debated at all meetings because there was so much confusion with the law. The clerks and registrars were the clearinghouse for the petitions because the voters signed them, then read in the newspapers or heard on the news, contradictory statements. They then became upset and asked to have their name(s) removed. She referenced a controversial petition of 2000 submitted to the county clerk’s office under a rush process because of the move to block that specific petition. In Douglas County there were enough signature cards received that would have disqualified the petition in question. The clerks and registrars knew it was a problem but were at a loss as to a solution.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if the research was more cumbersome than making sure the research met the required number of registered voters. In other words, every 10 or 20 signatures were checked at random to compare with the cards requesting removal from a petition.
Barbara Reed answered it was very difficult to remove the signatures. She had suggested the petitioners be required to state on what document and line their signature could be found. That would put another layer of requirement on the information sent out, but she did not know if in Clark County such a procedure could even be processed within the required time lines.
Assemblyman Anderson stated that under an ideal situation, the clerks and registrars preferred the petitions be numbered by the organization distributing them regardless of how many signatures were required, rendering a cumulative number. Would the voter be expected to know on which particular line they signed.
Ms. Reed stated each line on a petition was already numbered. Assemblyman Anderson asked again if the voter(s) would be expected to know on which line they had placed their signature. Ms. Reed stated the petition arrived as several documents, and upon receipt, the clerk’s office numbered each document, such as 1 through 300. Each of the document’s pages were also numbered.
Assemblyman Anderson reworded his question. He circulated a broad based petition with circulators each willing to collect signatures on ten pages of said petition. Breaking it down when returned, collector one brought in four pages, collector two brought in three pages and collector three brought in one page. When submitted to the county clerk and/or registrar, they were not in numerical order as when handed out. Would the clerk or registrar then expect the person who had signed the petition to know which page number as well as which line of the page he signed? How did the clerk or registrar see the process working for a voter to have their name removed from the list.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated clerks had contemplated having a voter note the line and page numbers when requesting removal of their name from a petition. Ms. Reed did not expect the person signing the petition to know that information. When signed, the petitioner was to provide the voter information regarding the process and deadline date for removal of their name.
Assemblyman Anderson’s concern was a huge stack of petitions next to an equally deep stack of removal requests with research required to identify matching valid signatures on the petition. Law prevented counting the requests for removal and deducting that number from signatures on the petition. Ms. Reed answered in the affirmative.
Assemblyman Beers stated a sampling of every 20 signatures could be used to validate said name against those on the petition and treat it the same as petition signatures were treated. Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed but felt that process left open an area of question.
Larry Lomax stated that in Clark County the cards submitted for name removal were entered into a computer database, after which a random sampling program was processed. The results reported told what lines needed to be checked on each document. The names were also entered to assure those that had signed were registered to vote and eligible to sign the petition. The computer identified the individual asking to be withdrawn. At that point, they dropped to the next line on the petition to replace the nonregistered voter. The process then was argued it was not truly a random search.
Assemblyman Beers affirmed the petition signatures had been entered into a computer database. Mr. Lomax answered the only names entered into the computer were the random sample; the computer requested the document and line number to enter. He continued that all requests for removal from the petition(s) were entered into the computer in a separate file. When a match was made between the randomly picked names and requests for removal, the computer removed that name. Assemblyman Beers asked if the document being matched to was a random sample of the first universe of those who signed the petition. Mr. Lomax answered in the affirmative. Assemblyman Beers asked about a ratio of matches. Mr. Lomax indicated there were very few. He gave the example where he had a petition with 7,700 signatures on which 100 percent verification was performed because the petition addressed a recall. Of the 600 cards from people asking to have their names removed, the result of the line-by-line check showed only 38 of the 600 had actually signed the petition.
Assemblyman Beers provided the scenario for a less significant petition; a sample of 500 of the 7,700 is entered into a computer file. With only 7 or 8 percent of the universe of the people on the petition, how would you expect to find any matches. Mr. Lomax stated he would not expect to find many. Assemblyman Beers asked what benefit that served to validate the petition. Mr. Lomax stated his normal petition would have 60,000 to 70,000 signatures but used 100,000 signatures as a base for his example. At the onset, they calculate how many signatures were required and with random verification, 50 percent of the signatures were valid, a total of 50,000. The formula required by law was to check 5 percent of the signatures, a total of 5,000. The accuracy rate totaled 50 percent. The way the law read, they assumed that of the 100,000 turned in, 50,000 were good. From that, the petition gatherers only needed 30,000 signatures for it to pass, yet he had 20,000 extra. With 3,000 requests for withdrawal, there would be no difference. With 30,000 requests, it would have made a definite difference. What Mr. Lomax suggested was to readdress the law and only look at requests for withdrawal if they affected the outcome of the petition. As the law was written, clerks and registrars were to collect the petition, pull requested withdrawals, then process the petition. He stated he had yet to have a petition where the withdrawal requests had made a difference one way or the other.
Assemblyman Beers asked what would happen if a number of withdrawal cards to make a difference were submitted. Mr. Lomax stated at that point every name would have to be checked and matched.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated it went back to the fact that if the initiatives were accurately described, the voters would not ask to have their names removed. She admitted to signing onto a couple of bills inaccurately described to her and ended up voting against them. She felt the most important part of the bill was accuracy of description and not vague statements of what the initiative would do.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani countered Assemblywoman Von Tobel’s statement that if someone was on one side of a position there would be opposition. She stated the description, by law, had to be approved by the Office of the Secretary of State. Also, people needed to be responsible enough to read what they were signing, as well as the statements from the circulator defining with accuracy what the petition being circulated would accomplish.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed there was no need to process rescinds-signature cards if there was no effect on the outcome. He referenced Danny Thompson’s earlier comment that in the smaller counties, two or three rescind cards would easily reverse a petition. Therefore, a line-by-line check could be done in a county where only 50 signatures were needed. Mr. Hettrick felt the law should be changed to allow tossing away 3,000 rescind cards when 100,000 signatures were received and 50,000 was the amount required to pass the petition. He said he would have to argue the comment made on presentation of the bill by reversal of the language to read, “You cannot make an inaccurate statement.” Not that the circulator had to be forced to be accurate because the best intentioned would not say everything perfectly correct each time. It took willful intent to make something wrong. If the circulator purposely stated incorrectly the reason for the petition to all persons contacted, that was wrong. Assemblyman Hettrick wanted to change the language to address the problems created by the rescind cards for clerks and registrars. Despite the fact it was a huge problem, no one could prevent anyone from putting on a rescind-card program thus forcing all clerks and registrars to deal with the process. The bill itself only required the clerks and registrars to provide the rescind form.
Assemblyman Beers felt an option in dealing with the problem, considering all “bought” the assumption that petitions were increasingly being generated and managed by funded organizations, was to put the onus of computerizing the petition signors into a computer file on the petitioning organizations as well. He was sure those not affiliated with the well-funded professional petitioning organizations would object profusely. The petitions were being used as a tool, not of the citizen, but of the powered funded interest.
Alan Glover had thought about shifting the burden back to the petitioners, the voter sending a letter to the petitioning group requesting their name be removed before the petition was filed or submitted to the county.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if we had just lost the whole point of petition and the First Amendment rights. He prefaced the remark by the voter stating the clerks and registrars were asking, “Is this really you?” In essence, they returned to ask, “Did you really mean to do this?”
Alan Glover answered he was not sure and shared the scenario that as a voter he was asked to sign a petition and did. Once signed, he changed his mind and wanted it removed. Instead of sending the letter or request to the county clerk or registrar, it was sent to the circulator of the petition to remove his name.
Assemblyman Anderson put himself in the position of the circulator advocating for a particular issue. He stood and sought signatures. How would the signer know where to send the request for removal of their name. Alan Glover saw a petition being circulated and once full, the names automated. He sent his card asking his name be removed. The petitioner pulled up the name on the computer and struck the name. The petition would then be submitted with the names removed. Mr. Glover continued, pointing out that petitioners purchased lists of registered voters from the registrar and county clerks, using it as a reference to remove nonregistered voters from the petition before submission to the clerk or registrar for processing. He extended it one step further that the petitioner had a stack of cards requesting removal of names, those being removed by the petitioner before filing the petition.
Assemblyman Anderson stated the clerk and/or registrar then relied on an advocate of the petition to use the rescind cards to remove names. Mr. Glover stated though it was a thought, he felt it would not work. When the rescind requests were sent to the clerk’s office, they were accounted for. Going to another entity, there was no check or balance.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed with the petitioners that it was not their responsibility to perform the adjustment of name removal. If the petitioners had the list of names and addresses on a CD ROM, it was a guaranteed list of individuals who supported the issue and would go to the poll. That very process was done with a petition on the ballot during the last election.
Mr. Lomax pointed out that petition gathering companies had people stationed in the Clark County clerk’s office throughout the process, verifying every signature, compiling the files Assemblyman Hettrick described.
Assemblyman Beers, after the hour of debate, found himself wondering if that was why the founding fathers set the nation up as a representative democracy. Chairwoman Giunchigliani responded with if actions were taken in the legislature there would be fewer petitions brought forward.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1130.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Meeting on March 13, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. No meeting scheduled for March 15, 2001. Meeting was adjourned.
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: