MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
March 13, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 4:03 p.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 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
Mrs. Barbara Buckley
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Bob Beers
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Harry Mortensen
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dan Burke, Washoe County Registrar of Voters
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Registrar, Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officers
Susan Harrer, Representative, National Disability Organizations National Task Force
Janine Hansen, President, Eagle Valley Forum
Andrew List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer
Elizabeth Pederson, Representative, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting with a quorum and requested roll call, excused Assemblyman Beers and asked all others be marked present as they arrived. Michael Stewart, Policy Analyst, provided the committee with handouts related to elections (Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G) to be reviewed at their leisure.
Assembly Bill 299: Revises provisions relating to county and municipal ballot questions. (BDR 24-598)
Assemblyman Harry Mortensen, Assembly District 42, reported he appeared before the Elections, Procedures, and Ethics Committee in 1999 when he presented A. B. 200 of the Seventieth Session, proposed legislation that mandated one person would not write both sides of an argument for ballot questions in local government. The bill required that two committees of three people each be formed, one proponent and one opponent, who developed the arguments for ballot questions. After being heard in committee and by the Assembly and Senate bodies, it became law.
The law was immediately tested with a fluoride question during the Clark County general election. The ballot question showed no bias and the committees recommended various Web site addresses from which to pull up additional information on fluoride water treatment programs. Thus, the voter was able to obtain all information he/she needed on the ballot question.
After the election, Assemblyman Mortensen approached Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, to ask about problems with A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session. A few areas of discrepancy were pointed out, which with A.B. 299 were corrected. A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session asked for initiative filing 100 days prior to an election, the timeline adjusted through A.B. 299 to 130 days. Mr. Lomax also talked about cold issues in Clark County where it was difficult to find people to volunteer for committees to build the arguments on a ballot question. With the fluoride issue the problem did not exist. With an issue of less importance, i.e., cold issues, the requirement, through A.B. 299, was changed to one individual on each side of the issue to develop the argument for a question. The registrar found that when trying to obtain information on proposed ballot questions, he ran into trouble finding people to consult with when addressing unknown subject matter. Within A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session, the registrar was mandated by the word “shall.” A.B. 299 changed the “shall” to “may.”
When A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session was first passed, it stated the county clerk would administer the procedures. But, in Clark and Washoe Counties, the county clerk, as used in Chapter 295, “will be the registrar of voters,” therefore the registrar of voters was mandated to carry out the law instead of the county clerk. When first passed, the county clerk was appointed to administer the procedures, the registrar of voters opting out because that position was appointed, not elected. Since that time, the county clerk was not enthusiastic about the task and Mr. Lomax of Clark County indicated he was more than willing to do the job.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced page 3, section 3, subsection 8, line 45, and asked if that was the area in which he wanted the “shall” changed to “may.” Assemblyman Mortensen answered in the affirmative.
Dan Burke, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, testified in favor of A.B. 299. Though he had a prepared statement (Exhibit H), he shared many of the issues that Assemblyman Mortensen had addressed. He felt changing “shall” to “may” was a very positive move and one they were happy to see. “Shall” required intervention with a national organization where “may” allowed removal of a mandated consultation with specified organizations.
Mr. Burke remarked Clark and Washoe County clerks strongly opposed moving the task of proponent and opponent committee selections away from the county registrar of voters. All ballot issues were the responsibility of the registrar of voters in each county; therefore, the tasks addressed in A.B. 299 remained under their control. He stated there were two issues of high importance in Washoe County during the 2000 election. One dealt with a bond issue for justice center funding and the other a parks issue. At no time was Mr. Burke pressured or asked to assign a certain individual to the proponent or opponent committee.
Assemblyman Anderson remarked that based upon the number of ballot issues dealt with during the past election, there were no problems discovered with the old law. He could not speak for the City of Reno’s billboard issue or the City of Sparks’ two police and fire funding issues, only for Washoe County.
Mr. Burke stated that A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session provided for one committee of six where A.B. 299 provided a positive advance by splitting the six-member committee into two committees of three members each. The contentiousness on the two sides over the judiciary issue was such that they were unable to function. Thus, they appointed co-chairs for proponent and opponent representation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it appeared that if the suggested word change on page three, line 45, “upon receipt of an argument or rebuttal prepared pursuant to this section, the county clerk may: a) consult with persons who are generally recognized by national or statewide organizations . . .” that the wording on the following page would have to begin with the leader, “if they consult it shall be based on . . .” She asked Assemblyman Mortensen if that was his intent. Assemblyman Mortensen stated Mr. Lomax had problems finding people to volunteer for the committee. It was felt the subject wording would provide the help needed, though they felt the word “shall” was too strong and he had since requested it be changed to “may.”
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the intent was leaving the option open for consultation. Assemblyman Mortensen answered in the affirmative. Chairwoman Giunchigliani continued and stated the language would need to be changed on page six as well for the city clerk reference. Assemblyman Mortensen said that in A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session there was confusion in the writing where it said that a committee of six would be appointed, three opposing and three for, with a chairman elected among the six. He stated he had intended it to be two committees of three, which was what A.B. 299 corrected. With fluoride as the first issue, Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood clearly the reason for the suggested change. Assemblyman Mortensen stated with consensus regarding the advocacy issue of the county clerk versus the registrar, the language in the bill would be changed to maintain the registrar of voters as the administrator.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, supported the bill and shared appreciation for the changes made by Assemblyman Mortensen. He referenced section 4(b) on the bottom of the first page of A.B. 299, noting the change in due date of an initiative petition from 100 to 130 days before an election. The shorter time period was a problem. With a petition due only 100 days prior to an election, the law gave the registrar 20 days to process, commissioners or city council 60 days to consider and pass, and if failed or rejected, it was placed on the ballot. If the process took a full 80 days, the ballots required reprinting. The 130-day adjustment provided sufficient time to meet the appointed deadlines.
Mr. Lomax referenced the section on permission to consult with experts. The law currently read that once the law was submitted, the registrar reviewed the arguments for factual accuracy, liability and rejected false statements. He asked for that statement because of difficulties that arose with the fluoride issue and a current hospital bond question.
Assemblyman Anderson suggested adding, at the top of page four, “. . . that based on consultation shall reject. . .” Would that then bind the registrar to the decision of the chosen consultant? Mr. Lomax stated he would not want to be bound by such a statement. He felt the intent of the law left the registrar as the deciding factor, right or wrong. Assemblyman Anderson referenced page 3, line 45 and asked if Mr. Lomax preferred “shall” or “may.” Mr. Lomax wanted the change to “may,” giving permission to seek advice. Under section 8(b), where it said, “based on such consultation,” line out and begin the paragraph with “reject.” At that point he could reject each statement of the argument.
Scott Wasserman, Legal Counsel, stated it was clear the deletion requested was the wording “shall reject” and on line 46 insert “may consult.” At 8(b), he suggested inserting “shall reject each statement . . .” Thus the registrar would consult with others but would ultimately make any determination.
Lucille Lusk, Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), voiced approval of A.B. 299. She shared also NCCs appreciation of the passage of A.B. 200 of the Seventieth Session. She said it provided for the citizens to genuinely hear both sides of an issue.
Janine Hansen, President, Eagle Valley Forum, voiced support of the bill with amendments.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 299. She then turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Price.
Assembly Bill 295: Revises provisions governing participation in elections by elderly and disabled persons. (BDR 24-839)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, spoke on A.B. 295. The legislation allowed for better participation in voting by the elderly and disabled. She had received mail from the National Task Force on Elections Accessibility, a group generated in June, 1990-something. At the elections center, which was an international service association of election voter and registration officials, Senator John McCain, during the previous congressional legislative session, called for significant changes in the voting accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. Part of A.B. 295 included those codified from recommendations made by the task force. She complimented Scott Wasserman in the development of A.B. 295.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani quoted from an article from Voting and People With Disabilities developed through the Center for an Accessible Society.
What if you wanted to vote but the polling place was locked? For many of the 33.7 million Americans with disabilities of voting age, this situation is all too real. Not because polling officials are deliberately blocking disabled people from entering, but because many of the polling places are inaccessible. In fact, the FEC report that in violation of state and federal laws, more than 20,000 polling places across the nation are inaccessible, which then in turn deprived people with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote. Despite state and federal laws and the American Disabilities Act (ADA) this is occurring. Data, though, is scarce on the accessibility problem, but where researchers have looked, the results haven’t been encouraging.
In 1999, the Attorney General for the state of New York ran a check of polling places around the state and found many problems. A study of three upstate counties, found fewer than 10 percent of the polling places fully compliant with state and federal laws.
Polling places are put up many times in church basements, or schools, or upstairs meeting halls. Usually there is no ramp or elevator. There is no disabled parking lot or maybe only one or two spaces that are available, and then, again, trying to get up the curb from where the disabled parking space is not always accommodating. The doorways may be too narrow. All of this means problems; not just for people who use wheelchairs, but for people using canes and walkers too. In most states, people who are blind don’t have the right to a Braille ballot. They have to bring someone along to vote for them, and might well wonder if that person is really following their instructions. It appears that a person’s right to sight, to have the right to a secret ballot as well.
Studies show that people with disabilities are interested in government and public affairs and want to participate in the democratic process. Because they are often “locked” out of the polling booth, they stay home on Election Day. A study by Kay Schriner and Douglas Cruz shows that people with disabilities are 20 percentage points less likely than non-disabled people to vote, and 10 percent less likely to register to vote.
Poll workers can unintentionally deter people from voting when they question the right someone to vote with a cognitive disability. Sometimes they believe that someone with Cerebral Palsy may be drunk. And just as convicted felons are legally disenfranchised, many states of outmoded constitutions and statutes hopefully will be getting rid of terms like “idiot” or “unsound mind.”
Would it matter if more people with disabilities voted? Yes. It’s a fundamental right of all Americans to vote. But, if people with disabilities voted at the same rate as non-disabled, ten million more votes would have been cast in the last presidential election, a major voting block.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani took recommendations from the elections center and task force to envelop into the statute. It was self explanatory when describing the accommodations necessary for the disabled:
· Widening the doorways of voting booths to 30 inches, as well as lowering the marking area for those in a wheelchair;
· Larger ballot size and print made available; and
· The election departments provide alternative audio and visual formats.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated testimony from election officials would describe timelines in which to obtain funding and put other programs in place. She hoped, though, the concept would be accepted and steps taken to accommodate disabled citizens.
Speaker Emeritus Dini asked if there had been reports of widespread problems in the rural counties. Within his district he had no knowledge of such difficulties.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she had not heard but was willing to listen to what the clerks and registrars had to share. Citizens were sometimes not aware it was their right to ask for special accommodations such as ramps, parking and other ADA compliance requirements. She knew clerks and registrars were aware of problems and worked to make the voting process comfortable for those in need. In some counties, curbside voting was allowed at school sites. The bill opened up the dialogue to see if there was a problem and what needed to be done to correct it. The sight and deaf issues had not been approached, nor had special accommodations been provided for citizens afflicted with those disabilities, an area of serious concern.
Vice Chairman Price complimented Chairwoman Giunchigliani on her bill and the effort put forth for the disabled.
Dan Burke, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, spoke in support of A.B. 295. Since the passage of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act in 1985, Washoe County instituted a contract with a company who inspected all polling places to establish if they met the standards adopted by the Governor’s Committee for the employment of the handicapped. He felt periodic review was necessary, i.e. a handicapped parking place in a gravel parking lot or a ramp that was too steep for a wheelchair to safely ascend and descend.
The two aspects were very difficult to meet. The bill required all absentee ballots be printed in 12-point type or larger. There would be no problem if that was limited to name or choice. If asking for the explanation and instructions to be in 12-point, in 1998 it would have required the publication of two ballots for every voter. It was impossible to set up two systems, one for absentee voters and one for those who voted at the polls. Each ballot was programmed to read in certain locations. The cost for two ballots would have been $110,000 instead of the $55,000 spent for one ballot, though larger print was a genuine need and something that needed to be seriously addressed. The costs did not include postage.
Secondly, there was no jurisdiction within the United States that had the ability to allow sight challenged voters to vote in every single polling place within a state. The minimal cost per system was about $5,200. The Marion County clerk in Oregon tried a system felt to be less expensive and it turned out costing $1,400 per vote issued. To put new voting systems in each polling site for a sight challenged person at a cost of about $5,200 per machine, the cost for Washoe County alone would be $600,000. He felt there needed to be a time- line for sometime within the next few years to have at least one location per county for sight challenged voters. He took it a step further and stated that Washoe and Clark counties be mandated, on a percentage basis, as related to the number of disabled individuals residing in those counties.
Within Exhibit I was described the steps taken by Washoe County to comply with ADA requirements. Washoe County had also opened polling places in areas where 100 registered elderly voters resided to help assist them with their voting. Mr. Burke also stressed the need for a dedicated fund for purchase of voting systems to meet the needs of all disabled and elderly citizens.
Assemblywoman Freeman said that with the high rate of early voters in Washoe County, the percentage of those being senior citizens, asked Mr. Burke if there was information he could present to the committee regarding curbside voting, including the costs. Mr. Burke said he would share the evidence presented to the board of commissioners during the budget process. Four systems were requested for use in early voting for the 2002 election. If found workable, though early voting did not overlap Election Day voting, those machines would be set up at specific locations accessible to all. Assemblywoman Freeman stated she would like to see something concrete by end of session before voting on the bill.
Assemblyman Brower was interested in the federal law and the background on the law referenced. Mr. Burke stated that in 1985 Congress passed the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA). It stated that every state must adopt official standards for accessibility to polling places. That left it up to each individual state to make the adjustments needed to meet the mandates of the bill. At that point, each secretary of state or governor appointed a committee to set up standards for access, parking, ramp incline, width of doors, bathrooms, etc. The Nevada Governor’s committee sent a full range of standards for access, parking, incline, width of doors, crash bar openings, heights of objects used, etc., arose out of the VAEHA. Assemblyman Brower confirmed that the State of Nevada came up with a list of requirements for polling places. Mr. Burke stated that by 1986 the standards were developed. In 1988, Washoe County contracted with an organization to actually visit every polling place to establish the standards. Those that did not meet the standards were removed from the system. Assemblyman Brower confirmed all polling places in Washoe County met the standards and new polling places were required to meet those standards as well.
Mr. Burke stated the Secretary of State sent representatives to the Washoe County offices to perform inspections of the polling places, the results of which were not yet in hand. Assemblyman Brower then asked if his office had received any complaints relating to accessibility during the past election. Mr. Burke stated that in Sun Valley and in the Idlewild Park area, there was roadwork at the polling sites. For both locations, the citizens slated to vote there were moved to another location. At the time of the Secretary of State’s canvass no planned construction was mentioned. There were a couple of locations, especially preschool buildings that were older and crowded, though not in areas comfortable for the handicapped even though the location met with ADA requirements.
Assemblyman Anderson stated constituents raised concerns of location in Sparks when polling was moved from the Legislative Building to the City Hall basement. Stairs and an inaccessible elevator did not meet the needs of the handicapped and elderly. Therefore, he addressed the issue of wording and that if state law did not specify “you shall,” nothing seemed to happen. He was particularly interested in Mr. Burke’s claim of additional cost for the use of 12-point type. He then asked if there were an accurate number of those who fell under the purview with a break-even point based on dollars. Mr. Burke shared the development of system with common ongoing use, such as a touch screen used at the polling place being retrofit to accommodate those citizens who were sight challenged. That being the case, the costs would not be prohibitive. Assemblyman Anderson learned Mr. Burke’s concern was the initial cost factor, but once hurdled, cost was minimal, even when considering upgrades, and asked if Washoe County was moving in the direction of new voting systems, could it not be included as an overall program.
Mr. Burke answered the Washoe County two-year plan was for 20 new systems with four used in early voting for sight challenged individuals. There was no question upgrading every polling place would require the purchase of 121 units specifically for Washoe County. Referencing Assemblyman Anderson’s comment about font size, Mr. Burke stated that whenever a voter informed the registrar or county clerk’s office that the print on the ballot was too small, they copied the ballot at an increased size. He thought possibly more advertisement regarding that service would solve the problems for some of the voters.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked where the standards were located as mandated by the Secretary of State or the Governor’s Committee. She was very cognizant of the cost and the step in the right direction was to advertise availability of enlarged print and other assists to the elderly and handicapped. She stated curbside voting was originally allowed at all polling places but now it was allowed at the county election centers only. Also a general broadcast would let voters know of the voting machines available for the sight challenged individuals.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated it would be helpful to know what each county offered, i.e., upon request was larger print available, upon request was there audio assistance, and had each county performed a compliance assessment of all polling sites.
Assemblyman Hettrick agreed with the intent of the bill but had concerns about some of the language and definitions. Addressing page two, lines four through seven, it said, “Instructions in audio or visual formats on how to register to vote for use.” It did not say it had to be useable but did not assure it would be. On line seven, “Telecommunications device for a person that is deaf.” He felt something in print would be more accommodating than a telecommunications device. With multiple handicaps there might have to be some other venue, but did not feel specifying telecommunications device but “some type of format accessible to the person.” On line 11 where it said “any requested material related to elections,” should be changed to “any necessary or required material related to elections.” “Related” could mean almost anything the voter decided they wanted to have and not just pertaining to the current election cycle. Dropping to lines 23 through 25, “Equipped to allow elderly who is able to vote with the same privacy and independence.” He felt that at times it was impossible for some elderly to vote with privacy and independence, as well as someone disabled. It did not put a limit on the disabled. Some individuals were so severely disabled it was impossible for them to vote privately or independently. The language on lines 41 through 45 brought up the same concerns when reading, “any eligible voter with a physical or mental disability is not denied the right to vote.” There are some so inflicted they cannot cast a vote privately and independently. The language needed adjustment to serve within reason yet moved forward on intent and direction.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani worked with county clerks to learn what was available, as requested by Assemblywoman Buckley. She referenced line seven because under the ADA there had to accommodations made with voice level controls for the hearing impaired. In other words, the television needed varying tone levels, which was a telecommunication issue, for those voters with partial deafness. She asked Assemblyman Hettrick about his support of her legislation in the past where there was a constituent with severe Muscular Dystrophy. It was required the disabled be driven to the election department with the disabled’s assistant voting for that person. A doctor’s report was required to explain the reason for the assistance.
Assemblyman Anderson was hopeful the bill would take care of accommodations for early voting as well as registration procedures. The concern in Washoe County was tracking registration forms.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel recalled legislation allowing a disabled individual to register to vote by mail as well as seek an absentee ballot. Was there a place on the registration form to indicate disability and request the absentee ballot?
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar, answered the absentee ballot request would have to be redesigned with a block where the requestor could indicate disability.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel reaffirmed that someone who registered by mail and requested an absentee ballot would indicate they were disabled.
Mr. Lomax stated he was for the bill and indicated he needed help in making it workable. He stated it was the right step to take but being the person in charge of implementing the mandates, there were measures to address to accomplish the task. In Clark County there were 309 polling places, to which a team was sent and with an ADA checklist inspected each site for compliance, though not every site was fully compliant. The Registrar’s office had reports on each site and Mr. Lomax stated he could tell which sites were not compliant and why. Disabled parking signs had to be removed and relocated at 108 locations. There were alternate routes at 14 of the polling places where signs were placed to direct the disabled. At some locations ramps were built. The ADA did not allow twisting door handles and clamp-on levers were affixed to those doors to meet compliance at 14 locations. At the Logandale Fairgrounds the parking lot was gravel. To make the changes to meet with ADA mandates he met with great resistance. With no complaints from Logandale residents, they will continue to use the site. The ADA required no more than a five-pound pull on the door though at the schools most doors do not comply. He stated that throughout the state, clerks, and registrars were basically on top of the problems presented at each site and make accommodations to meet the ADA requirements to the best of their ability.
There was a Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) phone available in Clark County that had been used twice during the three years Mr. Lomax has been registrar. The phone number was available in all publications as well as the local phone book. Ballots were provided in large print.
Mr. Lomax felt the generic term “disabled” was too broad as it included the blind. It was pointed out “disabled” was anyone who was not able, and no polling area would be able to accommodate extremely disabled individuals. He referenced page 2, lines 3 through 10, where election department materials were provided in formats usable to the voter. He needed more detail on the formats suggested, i.e., cassettes, video, and/or Braille. During the last election there were 252 different ballot styles. He had no idea how the voter would vote on a mail-in ballot if it consisted of a cassette, video or in Braille. No Braille absentee ballot was available nor did he know how to assist in using one either in home or at the polling place.
Next he referenced page 2, lines 32 through 33, which requested availability at the polling place audio and visual formats to assist disabled voters. Clark County provided large print without audio assistance. He asked if the section in question referenced someone reading the questions to the voter or a person being able to vote via some audio methodology.
Mr. Lomax stated the biggest challenge was independent voting by disabled voters. Clark County planned to purchase touch screen voting machines and several vendors had touch screens available with audio hook up. The machine was programmed for the voter to receive feedback on their vote, through earphones. There was also a joystick module to help move a cursor around the screen to cast a vote. As far as he knew, no one throughout the United States had used the screen in question during an election. Riverside, California, had the machine and used it at early voting sites in November for blind voters. Clark County hoped for positive results as it was the same machine they planned to buy to accommodate what he saw as a requirement during the past couple of elections for the Spanish speaking population. That model also allowed the voter to pick the language in which the ballot would be presented. The machines cost about $5,000 each, therefore it would take a significant investment to put one in every polling site. The machines were compatible with the current models and as the county grew the new machines purchased were touch screen models.
Mr. Lomax referenced page 3, line 12, where the bill talked about adding disabled to the list of people who did not have to appear in person. The problem lay on page 4, lines 41-43 where someone unable to sign a registration form could apply an “X” or cross and mail it in to the registrar’s office. He stated during the 1999 legislative session a bill was passed to eliminate the need for a voter to provide a social security number. He felt this mandate allowed acceptance of an application with no identifying number and no signature, and that person would be able to vote absentee. He stated there was no way to double check or prosecute if the individual double voted. In Clark County the clerks went to the individual’s home and with required identification, accepted an “X” as a signature.
Assemblyman Anderson observed a person who registered to vote at age 18 and by age 68 it was unlikely the signature would be quite the same. He felt the “X” to be a huge problem in large precincts where poll workers did not know everyone. He then asked if there had ever been a challenge on a signature.
Mr. Lomax answered if the clerk did not feel the signature matched what was in the book, the polling place team leader requested a form of photo/signature identification. At that point the voter was handed a new registration form to update the signature. Assemblyman Anderson continued asking what legal status the team leader possessed. Mr. Lomax answered the statutes indicated the process described was within legal bounds.
Assemblywoman Freeman asked what was meant when Mr. Lomax stated there were 252 ballot styles. Mr. Lomax stated the slate of candidates for one ballot style was different than the next due to the breakdown of districts. He also said it would more than likely get worse with redistricting. Also, the number would double when ballots were translated into Spanish.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested those wishing to speak appear at the witness table as a group. She also indicated she would schedule a work session at a later time since Vice Chairman Price and other committee members had a meeting immediately after the end of the hearing on this bill.
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk, introduced Susan Harrer, Humboldt County Clerk and committee representative for the National Task Force and National Disability Organization.
Susan Harrer stated the National Task Force was formed in June 2000, and they had been dealing with many of the same issues addressed by the bill. The membership included various national disability organizations, and had recommendations to help state and local jurisdictions move forward. At the beginning, available machines were priced between $10,000 to $15,000. With price decreases to within the $5,000 range per machine, it was more feasible to accommodate the disabled.
Ms. Harrer stated issues for the disabled were addressed and left no areas open that would pose problems. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she had called some of the organizations with which she was familiar but as yet had not heard back from them. She asked Ms. Harrer if she would be willing to help make the bill workable and acceptable. Ms. Harrer answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Glover stated Carson City developed a formal checklist, which listed ADA requirements for parking, curb ramps, handrails, and elevators in polling places. There was a problem at one site, which was moved. Developed guidelines made seating available for the elderly and disabled voters waiting their turn to vote. In writing was the clause that the disabled or elderly were moved to the head of the line at the polling place should someone waiting object. Carson City had curbside voting though mostly for early voting.
Through the suggestion of the Carson City mayor, a tactile ballot was used, yet Mr. Glover learned that in Clark County one of the groups did not approve of tactile ballots. The ballot was used with earphones, the voice directing the individual along the ballot. With the voting areas raised, it worked very well for the visually impaired. There was only one voter who actually used the system. Several had tried and liked it very much. A plus for the system was no cost to Carson City. The local public access television station recorded the tape and Mr. Glover’s daughter used puff paints to make the arrows. It was an interesting experience and easily used since Carson City’s ballot requirement was four styles because of holding non-partisan at large elections. Mr. Glover shared Mr. Lomax’s concern that the descriptive “disabled” was too broad due to the unknown problems they faced.
Mr. Glover stated late that afternoon the voting machine vendor used by Carson City presented a machine that performed the tasks the bill referenced at a cost of $4,245. The price did not include the cost of programming the machine for each election. He is convinced the touch screen ballot would solve many voting problems faced today.
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer, supported the bill. In Douglas County there were 21 polling locations with a minimum cost of $250,000 per election. They provided curbside voting on Election Day and at early voting. Each site was inspected for ADA compliance and the largest problem encountered in rural county areas was the limited choice of polling sites. Ms. Reed had commandeered volunteer fire stations, most of which were compliant and two to be upgraded. Douglas County was willing to work with the committee on the bill to have something successfully developed by the next election.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the counties were doing better than was suspected and applauded all for that. She felt the optic scan ballot would be good for absentee voting because only one machine was needed to count the ballots returned. Rather than the old fashioned stylist, a problem for the elderly and disabled to use, a square was colored in, which would take care of accommodations for a variety of the public.
Elizabeth Pederson, representative for the League of Women Voters of Nevada, voiced support of the bill. It provided greater accessibility to the voters and sent a message that each vote was important and valued.
Andrew List, representative of the Nevada Association of Counties, spoke on behalf of the clerks of rural counties of Nevada. In the rural areas, the number of available polling sites limits efforts. The clerks supported the bill in concept; the main drawback was the prohibitive costs. He spoke with Donna Giles, Pershing County Clerk, where there were two polling sites. Ms. Giles stated it cost them as much as $50,000 to implement the bill as written. They also had a problem with the definition of “disabled” and asked if they had to provide for every single person no matter how severely disabled they might be. All rural clerks were willing to work with the committee and Mr. List offered to obtain information required to outline what the rural counties had to work with.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she highlighted the word “disabled” as she did not see the definition within the bill and would research the statutes.
Assemblyman Hettrick referenced Mr. Lomax mention of the joystick and touch screen with earphones. Someone wearing a double prosthesis had no feeling for touching the screen, though visibly it might work. But, without a sense of touch, it was very difficult to maneuver and one of the very reasons he did not wear a prosthesis. He stated there was no way to do every single thing, no matter how well intentioned, and in reading the bill his immediate thought was to include the words, “every department shall strive to,” change none of the proposed language, and include the language that was to be deleted on page three. The new phrasing would provide direction to the clerks and registrars who were required to do everything possible to make polling places accessible and reasonable.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed and stated she felt the Secretary of State’s Office was unaware of all that was available throughout the state. She hoped the bill began a coordination of effort instead of a financially able county going ahead and leaving the others behind. She also shared the 2000 census results were programmed for viewing via the state Web site. A one-page document was available in publications that told the actual voter population by county, and also showed percent of change; for example, Elko had not reached the 50,000 level in population.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: