MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

March 29, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, March 29, 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

Mr.    Lynn Hettrick

Mr.    Richard D. Perkins

Ms.   Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley

Assemblyman Bob Price

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

John Ponticello, President, Paradise Democratic Club

Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas

Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney’s Office

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Kathleen Marshall, Neena Laxalt, City of Sparks

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer

Alan Glover, Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials

Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy, Attorney General’s Office

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar

 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting calling for approval on the minutes of February 20, 2001, February 22, 2001, February 27, 2001, and March 6, 2001.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF                FEBRUARY 20, 2001, FEBRUARY 22, 2001, FEBRUARY 27, 2001,                  AND             MARCH 6, 2001.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED.

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani addressed the rules adopted by the committee regarding the reapportionment hearings to allow public input. She requested April 21, 2001, be blocked for a hearing in Las Vegas from 9:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.  Information from Speaker Perkins indicated that date had not been booked for any other reapportionment/redistricting committee meetings. No lines were to be redrawn until public input was heard. In discussing the rural meetings, locale mentioned was between Fernley and Fallon. Senator Ann O’Connell was queried if members of her committee would be joining the assembly staff in Las Vegas, which allowed time to address that issue in the committee’s standing rules. Assemblyman Anderson asked for confirmation of locales. Scott Wasserman stated a meeting in southern Nevada and one in the rural area was required by the rules. Assemblyman Anderson asked about holding a meeting in Washoe County. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated one could be held or if desired, he could hold a subcommittee meeting in Washoe County, though she was trying to deal with the time constraints involved.

 

Michael Stewart, Policy Analyst, provided the committee with Exhibit C, a memo describing various articles of interest on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics, for their perusal and input.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 276.

 

Assembly Bill 276:  Converts offices of mayor and city councilmen to partisan offices. (BDR 24-1126)

 

John Ponticello, President of the Paradise Democratic Club, and member of the executive board of the Nevada State Democratic Party, stated about ten years prior the Democratic Party addressed the issue of making the mayor and city councilpersons of larger cities partisan offices. Assemblyman Doug Bache, on behalf of the Paradise Democratic Club, drafted A.B. 276, and referred to Section 1 of the bill. The main change within the chapter would be, “. . . except for mayors and city councilmen in cities of a population of 100,000 or over. . .” He did not feel smaller cities needed to be partisan. His reasoning was major government cities needed to be partisan, the same as the legislative body was partisan, the members all very proud of their party affiliation. He believed that mayors of big cities, in the state of Nevada, should be like mayors of those big cities throughout the country, i.e., New York, Los Angeles, and Atlanta, where all were partisan offices. He did not feel it proper for a mayor or city councilperson to run non-partisan when they were, in fact, known Democrats or Republicans. In speaking with various Republican leaders, he found they were in agreement with him that it would benefit both sides.

           

In speaking with city officials he was told it was a difficult process and would require amending city charters and various other legalities pertaining to the offices in question.

 

Assemblyman Beers asked if there was a history of when Nevada’s larger cities became nonpartisan for the offices in question. Mr. Ponticello did not know. Assemblyman Beers agreed with his idea and was curious about the history.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that according to NRS 293.195, 1960 was the first date where that statute came into play. Mr. Ponticello recalled the sheriff’s department became nonpartisan about 1993. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that through conversations with Speaker Emeritus Dini, legislation had been passed in the Assembly to have the Governor and Lieutenant Governor run as a party-unity team though it had never passed the Senate. Michael Stewart, Policy Analyst, shared the nonpartisan ruling could have been even earlier than 1960, as that was the year the statutes were revised and rewritten.

 

Speaker Emeritus Dini stated a nonpartisan statement was somewhat a sham because judgeship races had endorsements from the Democratic and Republican parties. He felt the entire picture should be reviewed.

 

Mr. Ponticello stated the members of the Democratic Party did not like to recognize nonpartisan offices. If a candidate for the Supreme Court was a registered Democrat, the Paradise Democratic Club and the Democratic Party was 100 percent behind the candidate. They set aside the rules and regulations of nonpartisan and endorsed those running for nonpartisan offices but were registered Democrats. Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt that were Mr. Ponticello a Republican, he would argue the same for that party. Mr. Ponticello answered in the affirmative. He was interested in drawing the two parties together to work on certain issues of benefit to the general public. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if he felt with the change proposed in A.B. 276 that more people would turn out to vote. Again, he answered in the affirmative.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman shared she had heard from voters that they wanted honesty and forthrightness, wanted to know about the candidate as to who they were, and in what they believed. She felt the bill would clarify the electoral process and she would have no problem supporting the bill.

 

Assemblyman Anderson found curious the 100,000-population figure, as that would cover Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Reno only. Mr. Ponticello replied he believed that in smaller communities and cities the candidates ran on a more personal basis, where candidates were well-known and basically on a first name basis with voters. The party identification in smaller communities was not as important as within a metropolitan area. If it was a partisan office, the voter knew the person running for the office had basically the same beliefs.

 

Assemblyman Anderson readdressed the 100,000-population figure because there were more than 100,000 people in Paradise Township, a community listed under the county, not the city of Las Vegas. Mr. Ponticello stated Paradise was a township where the manager was appointed, not elected. Assemblyman Anderson felt the bill addressed issues only beneficial to Clark County. Mr. Ponticello felt it was beneficial in Reno and Sparks.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified Mr. Ponticello was thinking counties were usually segregated by 100,000 to 400,000, where the suggested amendment applied only to Las Vegas.

 

Assemblyman Anderson stated the amendment affected Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Reno, the only communities in the state that would fit into the 100,000 population category, making the law only applicable to Clark County. Mr. Ponticello stated his amendment was only a suggestion, feeling smaller towns and communities would be affected by what the “big boys” were doing.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated Mesquite might have appreciated knowing their mayor was Independent American because many of his philosophies governed his actions as mayor. Many voters did not know his party affiliation. She did not agree with excluding small cities. Mr. Ponticello asked if he could withdraw his suggestion. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated suggestions created discussion, and that there was an appetite to consider the mandate throughout the state. She also pointed out the bill was only in skeleton draft and requested Scott Wasserman, Legal Counsel, to describe the impact of such legislation.

 

Scott Wasserman stated the bill would greatly expand the law, not only because of the need to amend city charters, but when changing offices to partisan, an accounting for minor political parties came into play. There were many Supreme Court decisions that mandated what limitations could be put on minor political parties for supporting candidates for the partisan offices. There would be a re-creation of the statutes in Chapter 293 within the city provisions to cover minor political parties as well.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted local elections did not line up with the general election periods. During the 1999 Legislative Session, they were able to have the close of filing for state offices with the minor parties at the same time as the major parties, which was a huge step forward. The change came about because of the public dislike of the staggered effect. If the bill was adopted, it would require a petition or convention be addressed for each and every city race to provide time under their elections during May and August, though some municipalities were considering moving into the general election time frame. She felt an interim study of towns, as well as definitions of what was a town and what not a town, could be a companion piece to Assemblyman Bache’s bill.

 

Assemblyman Anderson noted many of the city charters moved their elections to coincide with November elections. Using that as a guide, if those cities and towns moved from a nonpartisan election date to the general election, the elections would then become partisan.

 

Scott Wasserman stated that allowed easier drafting of the bill. There were still many provisions in Chapter 293 to be amended to include the offices in question, but it led to a more workable bill draft if elections were moved to the general election.

 

Dan Musgrove, representative, City of Las Vegas, shared that local elective offices were traditional about getting things done in neighborhoods rather than on bearing platforms and philosophical leanings of party politics. But, if the bill went forward, he did not want to argue between big city politics versus small cities. He knew the Las Vegas City Council had no appetite to move to fall elections. They were on a spring cycle with early elections coming to a close and the primary to be held the first of April, and the general election the first of June. Under the bill, the election process would become more expensive since a general election would be assured in a partisan election. Henderson, in 1999, had candidates elected in the primary, thereby saving taxpayers the cost associated with holding a general election. Further, the ballot styles would be tripled in the primary to allow for Republican, Democrat and nonpartisan, assuming that the minor candidates would appear on the general ballot. He was not sure how the city would address the minor political parties. Additionally, voter preparation requirements such as voter receipts and set-up would triple as well. Where one set of absentee ballots was used now, three sets would have to be processed by hand, a requirement of the bill. Henderson presently processed approximately 6,000 absentee ballots. He added that 13 percent of the registered voters in the city of Las Vegas were nonpartisan.

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she was neutral as far as the bill was concerned. She was an individual who was, in fact, registered nonpartisan and did so because she did not wholeheartedly agree with the Democratic or Republican philosophies.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman spoke for Washoe County and found the dialogue very interesting that those cities and counties that chose to go with the general election time frame did so because it was based on associated cost. She stated also that if 10 to 13 percent of her district was nonpartisan, Ms. Lusk’s comments would then have to be addressed. She now wondered if the mandates of the bill were something they truly wanted to do. She also felt it would cost the candidates more due to competition with more candidates. The bill was more complicated than she first thought it would be.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 276 and recessed until the arrival of Assemblywoman Chowning, at which time the hearing on A.B. 487 would proceed.

 

Assembly Bill 487:  Allowing for challenges of qualifications of certain candidates for office and providing that candidates who file certain false documents are ineligible for public office for 5 years. (BDR 24-586)

 

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Assembly District 28, spoke on A.B. 487, which would place in law the ability for an elector to issue a challenge against a candidate for office not later than five days after the person, who was the candidate, could withdraw their candidacy.

 

The qualifications of the candidate could be challenged to include age, if an attorney, residency, or any of those areas necessary for a person to qualify as candidate for public office. If the challenge was issued, it was limited to five days to allow completion expeditiously. Unless the challenge appeared frivolous, the district attorney or Attorney General acted on the challenge within five days and turned it over to a court of competent jurisdiction. What was accomplished was closure of a loophole in the existing law.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning directed attention to page 2. If the court determined the candidate failed to meet the qualifications, i.e., the candidate truly was not qualified; the name must not appear on the ballot. If for some reason the person was elected, the individual would not be able to enter into the duties of the office. In addition to any other penalty, if the person knowingly and willingly filed a declaration of candidacy that contained a false statement, that person would not be eligible to be a candidate for public office for five years. In summary:

 

 

Her reasoning for the necessity of the bill was because of a challenge against her, as it had happened to others. A person that did not meet the qualifications filed for office, in essence testing the system. If not qualified, in Assemblywoman Chowning’s mind, the residents of the district for which they were trying to become elected were not served properly. Presently, it was a very lengthy process for the unqualified candidate to be reckoned with. In the case mentioned, it took almost a year for one election cycle, only to have the same person refile during the next election, rectifying the second incident taking only a few months.

 

A.B. 487 set in place procedures already in the law in Arizona and Colorado. In other instances, where people had not been qualified and had a challenge issued, a plea bargain was made, which stated the individual could not run for office for a period of three years. In Assemblywoman Chowning’s case, the person would not accept any resolution whatsoever, and filed once again. The person had two warrants out for her arrest and at present, she could continue to run for office and not be qualified each and every time. Assemblywoman Chowning felt that for all of the good people who ran for office, people who took advantage of the system should be dealt with. This bill was a way to do that and was brought forward because of the need it served.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about the qualifications listed in Section 2, feeling that possibly Assemblywoman Chowning was talking residence and then asked what other qualifications the committee should consider.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning answered any qualification for any office such as:

 

 

She went on to say there were several cases that had arisen and when the Secretary of State or local election officials were asked what could be done to alleviate the problem, the answer focused on the fact there was nothing in the law to address such a situation. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the law would provide a procedure for enforcement. She then asked if when using the term “elector,” it could be the candidate themselves that wished to file the challenge. Assemblywoman Chowning envisioned it would not always be the candidate, but any interested citizen as well as being an elector.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the first witness, Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, for confirmation that the citizen who ran against Ilene Brookman had never lived in the district. Upon Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s candidacy, a man who lived outside of District 9 filed for office against her. He was not a homeless individual and with Mr. Graham’s help, the man was found and dealt with. She felt some type of procedure was welcome.

 

Ben Graham stated he accepted the challenge to take action. Assemblywoman Chowning’s case was very frustrating, and even though there were two warrants out for the opponent’s arrest, nothing would preclude her from filing again. There needed to be a process to serve such a need and though not conceptualized in the bill, an elector filed a challenge in the form of an affidavit. Within that affidavit the allegations would be set, with attached evidence, to file with the office that accepted political candidate applications. If the district attorney or Secretary of State felt the challenge was frivolous, that was where it would stop. But, if there was evidence to indicate an improper filing, he felt it possible to cite for a show cause proceeding, which was a summary action to show cause why the individual’s name should not be removed, after which there would be a hearing. He suspected the majority of the time the only individual to appear at the hearing was the elector who filed the challenge. He had electors appear and say they had not meant to cause a problem but could not get their names off the ballot. At that point, the district attorney’s office provided a benefit of the doubt. Another problem faced was finding the individuals to serve them to show cause.

 

Mr. Graham thought there were provisions of having a person served with process at the DMV when all other attempts had failed. He stated an individual, when registering a vehicle, automatically authorized legal service by parties through DMV for purposes of litigation. Possibly, when a candidate filed, if unable to be served at the address listed on the application, he/she would consent to be served via the county clerk or office of candidacy filings. That would allow tighter time frames and the investigation would be less extensive, primarily based upon the documentation filed by the elector. If both parties appeared for the show cause hearing where genuine questions were brought up, he felt a court would continue the hearing to allow more evidence to be presented.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Graham’s office or the district attorney offices within the counties would handle show cause. Mr. Graham stated show cause would be handled by the district attorney within a county in question, the Attorney General with state offices, and for city offices the city attorney. He suggested keeping the remedies simple and as local as possible.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explored the possibility of the inability to process serve at the address given. Could it be assumed the address was falsified. Mr. Graham told of a gentleman who lived in a mobile home with some senior citizens and he had filed against a county commissioner. The challenge was investigated by talking with the residents of the trailer the candidate used as his address. He had only been there for a couple of days and had yet to return for the items he had left with them. During that time, he was driving around the county campaigning. Mr. Graham felt the application for the candidacy form should be changed to include authorization of service on the county clerk, registrar, or official who handled candidate applications. Theoretically, the process service was done without the candidate’s knowledge.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani emphasized a residence address was needed with post office boxes allowed only as a secondary mailing address. In her case, it was discovered the candidate was actually living in another county. Mr. Graham suggested provisions where the individual was served in person, by certified mail, and all other efforts to provide notice other than publishing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there was a time factor involved whereby the name had to be removed and the ballot reprinted.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman mentioned a case where a candidate had come from another state and used terminology familiar to residents of his former state, which had created the impression he was an attorney. She asked how to deal with that type of situation. Mr. Graham stated at times there were those that filed for Attorney General and the Supreme Court that were not attorneys and would fall under that legislation but, if the individual’s misrepresentation was that of an honors graduate, would that not fall under this bill?

 

Assemblyman Brower thought it was a good idea to consider putting a provision in that would require the loser of such a challenge to pay costs and fees. He not only saw it as a way for legitimate candidates to challenge illegitimates, he saw it as a way for illegitimates to harass the legitimate candidates.

 

Mr. Graham stated there was such a need and had shared his frustration about the problem with Assemblywoman Chowning. He was willing to make it work and agreed there needed to be some type of consequence other than not being able to run for office for a period of time. He felt costs associated with the misdeed would prevent further incidents.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated a show cause service would have to go to court unless modified and handled through the city attorney for a local hearing. Mr. Graham said the only court of competent jurisdiction would be district court unless it specifically gave the authority to municipal or justice court. He did not feel that would be the avenue of choice. Chairwoman Giunchigliani could not envision district court convening rapidly enough, and asked about a specific person being identified to handle the hearing.

 

Assemblyman Brower stated a district court judge could actually convene very quickly as it was done all the time. Commissioners or masters only had authority to make a recommendation, which had to be approved by a district court judge. Assemblyman Anderson stated if the nature of the crime was going to be at the justice court level, it would be classified as a misdemeanor or gross complaint, but there would be sufficient time to have a justice of the peace hear the material.

 

Mr. Graham stated if the complaint was handled in a court of limited jurisdiction, the option of appeal to district court was present. If the judge ruled to take the name off the ballot, it could be appealed to a higher court. Mr. Graham suspected that 98 percent of the challenges would be resolved by default, and if a 50/50 position, he felt the electors should decide. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there were challenges in two different areas and A.B. 487 related to filing for candidacy. There were also challenges where candidates registered with a mailbox address, a completely separate area to be outlined in the procedures developed by county clerks.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning responded to the question posed by Assemblyman Brower, explaining it was very offensive to her that the system had to expend many dollars dealing with the issue. The person was told to file a lawsuit, a very expensive process. With all the costs involved around one candidate in two separate elections, many taxpayer dollars were spent. She felt the simpler and least costly procedure should be followed. If the opponent filed a malicious or vindictive challenge that individual should incur the costs as well.  Mr. Graham suggested including, “unless there was clear and convincing evidence,” and if not, the show cause would be dissolved and both names would appear on the ballot.

 

Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, representing the Secretary of State Dean Heller, stated the offices of the Secretary of State and Attorney General used the process to remove peoples’ names from statewide offices and mostly district offices. The procedure had been done for the past four elections. There was a Supreme Court Justice candidate who was not an attorney and the name was removed through district court. There was another regarding an assemblyman position out of the Douglas/Carson City district who did not meet the residency requirement whose name was removed. During the last election, a candidate for district judge was removed for Nye, Mineral, and Esmeralda Counties because he lived in Las Vegas. They used a Writ of Mandamus, where the Attorney General sued the Secretary of State with the candidate as the real party of interest. One reason Ms. Cavin preferred a court proceeding was because they lost a case that involved a board of regent candidate who changed his party affiliation. In that case, the Attorney General’s Office voiced violation of NRS 293.176. In the hearing, the party appeared and the district judge ruled NRS 293.176 did not apply to that qualification. Therefore, one reason to have a case heard in district court was it gave the candidate a chance to present his/her side of the story. She felt there could be a question on residency as well. She found the process to be very successful and encouraged district court involvement. She looked forward to seeing the procedure in statute.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, representing the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Elected Officials, thanked Mrs. Chowning for introducing her bill. He stated the bill would help considerably to expedite printing ballots to send to overseas voters. Statewide challenges were filed in the first judicial district in Carson City and he assured the committee the two district judges were attuned to the expediency needed to process the challenges. Mr. Glover agreed also there should be fines attached as the “fringe” residents practiced such behavior maliciously. Also, it was not uncommon for the county clerks and/or registrars to be served, which posed no problems.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick interpreted the bill to state there were five days after the day of withdrawal in which to have ballots reprinted. Was there a limit as to when a challenge could be filed? Mr. Glover did not know of one. Assemblyman Hettrick stated if there was no limit, the bill addressed a needed time line. Mr. Glover stated if there was an attempted challenge after the ballots were printed, the challenger was told it was too late to post the challenge.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested the Secretary of State design the forms for declaration of candidacy for purposes of special process service. She asked if there could be a bond posted in the case of a non-frivolous challenge, where the challenger could be refunded fees. Mr. Glover provided a scenario where an elector filed a challenge against Assemblyman Anderson, stating candidate Anderson did not live in Sparks. At that time, a letter of rejection would be sent to the challenger indicating it was a frivolous challenge because the records indicated Mr. Anderson’s address to indeed be in Sparks and had been for 30 years. It then would force the challenger to provide the proof.

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer, added that NRS 293.547 required the district attorney to investigate the challenge within 14 days, a benefit already in statute. She was in full support of the bill.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani shared that statutes would give direction to all electors. There needed to be standardization. She closed the hearing on A.B. 487 and began the work session on A.B. 227.

 

Assembly Bill 227:  Revises definition of committee for political action. (BDR 24-917)

 

The committee opened the work session document (Exhibit D), provided by Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst. Chairwoman Giunchigliani recalled Assemblyman Hettrick’s comments from the previous hearing that information was needed to affirm that as a candidate, an individual did not have to file at a political action committee (PAC) as well. She then asked Scott Wasserman, Legal Counsel, to walk through the document to point out proposals for the committee’s consideration.

 

Mr. Wasserman pointed out that A.B. 227 revised the definition of a committee for political action to specify that a group of two or more organizations or persons who joined together to receive and make contributions to candidates or other persons, or make expenditures designed to affect the outcome of any primary, general, special election, or question on a ballot, must register as a committee for political action. The second part of the amendment stated that any one organization whose primary purpose was not designed to affect the outcome of any election or question on the ballot may register as a PAC, and a natural person may register as a PAC. The point of the amendment addressed the concern that anyone who partook in such activities had to file as a PAC, even if it was just one organization, such as Shopko, who made a contribution to a candidate. The new definition made it clear that the organization did not have to register as a PAC. But, if three or four corporations joined together, they would have to register as a PAC. Part of the problem with the word organization was “when two or more came together,” they could deem themselves one organization. Therefore, a single organization was exempt only if not coming together for the purpose of changing the outcome of the election. The Attorney General’s Office indicated that if natural persons entered the Secretary of State’s Office and wanted to operate as a PAC, they would create a name and register as a PAC.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee recommended deleting the $1,000 threshold, a federal guideline. Mr. Wasserman answered in the affirmative. She clarified also it would not require PACs that currently existed, or parties, to have to file as a PAC, as they filed under a different area. Mr. Wasserman stated the bill did not change the rule on what type of filings political committees or campaign committees followed. There was a second part of the amendment that clarified concerns raised during the hearing that a candidate’s committee would be specifically exempted from having to file as a PAC. The candidate’s committee reported under candidate’s contribution, as described in Section 2 of the Work Session document, which was gleaned from an existing Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) section. The third part of the proposal added language providing for enforcement mechanisms that set a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 if someone, who was required to file as a PAC, failed to do so.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick shared his concern that two people sent a check to the Republican Central Committee in Douglas County, obviously to affect an outcome. Did the Republican Central Committee now have to file as a PAC? If the one person turned around and sent a check to the Republican Assembly Caucus, and another did the same, did the Republican Assembly Caucus have to file as a PAC because two persons had sent to the same organization to affect an outcome? There were any number of affiliated groups who sent checks to individual candidates. Would the candidate then have to file as a PAC?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered no because they were not a PAC. If sent to the Republican Central Committee, that was a party donation, and they were required to disclose from whom they received contributions. Then if one of the two individuals decided to send money to you as a candidate and another organization, the organizations only had to disclose receiving a contribution because they had not formally joined together for the purposes of generating fund-raising for a specific candidate, ballot initiative, etc.

 

Mr. Wasserman stated the candidate’s committee would not file as a PAC as a result of the fact that two people together sent the candidate money. Yet, if the two individuals were organizing together to raise funds and make contributions, those two together would then be a PAC; individually they were not. An issue had been raised where a husband and wife sent in a campaign contribution, and as interpreted by the Secretary of State, that was a contribution from one entity.

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked Mr. Wasserman about a family that owned a small corporation. Each member of the family-held corporation decided to send a contribution to a particular candidate. The candidate put them on his declaration list, and they made a similar contribution to a caucus, to which the candidate was a member. Each individual family member sent a check and then as a corporation a check was forwarded to the candidate and the caucus of interest. Was the corporation required to file as a PAC?

 

Mr. Wasserman stated under the proposed amendment, no. The corporation was an individual corporation, the primary business being something other than being regulated by the bill. They could choose to file as a PAC, but it was not required to file as a PAC. Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted the bill drafted to avoid bundling. Assemblyman Anderson continued and addressed a larger window whereby they made a political contribution to an organization that then distributed money and was registered as a PAC. Because they operated solely on their own and decided to follow-up with a similar check, they would not be caught into the web of a PAC if they were husband and wife or other kind of group, based upon the fact they noted their PAC had made a contribution. Mr. Wasserman said there was nothing in the amendment that would cause the individual to be a PAC, unless under the new provisions that person desired to organize as a PAC.

 

Assemblyman Anderson stated an individual made five or six contributions to different political organizations. Who was the bill trying to catch? Mr. Wasserman’s understanding was not an individual person or company made contributions to various groups as that would be reported on contribution forms. The concern was when two or more people joined, creating a committee to elect good candidates and they made contributions, it was those types of organizations that needed to file as a PAC to tell who they were. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated what happened was two organizations joined together to fund-raise, made contributions, and did not file as a PAC. The argument given was they did not know they were supposed to file as a PAC; therefore, there was no penalty. Thus, part three was developed.

 

Assemblyman Brower answered the groups actually caught were those as described by Mr. Wasserman or men’s and women’s Republican or Democratic clubs. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani understood it to mean if the men’s club got together with the women’s club. Assemblyman Brower answered a men’s club comprising of several men together held a fund-raiser and then gave checks to the candidate were caught by the legislation. He felt also the amendment only changed the threshold. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that was true, and during the past election there was a group who did not register as a PAC, therefore the bill was generated.

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, commented on the amendment and asked what happened if she and a friend joined forces to raise dollars for a candidate. Did they have to file as a PAC? She said the way the amendment was worded, the bill would catch normal activity. If she were to run for office again, she wanted citizens to be able to raise funds for her without being penalized. With regard to a candidate, was the committee contemplating an actual exception that specified a candidate’s committee, if not a political action committee. If so, that was covered. If not, the amendment would not exempt them. She also raised the question of an organization whose primary purpose was not designed to affect the outcome. Using her own experience, she used Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), an organization not designed to affect the outcome of an election as a primary purpose. Yet, she felt NCC was the kind of organization to catch. She asked if the primary purpose meant 50 percent or more of the funds raised had to be spent on that purpose. Under the description of two or more persons, she felt they could exclude themselves by stating changing the outcome of an election was not their primary purpose.

 

Ms. Lusk then commented on the $5,000 fine, stating it made her very uneasy to potentially “chill” citizen involvement in political activities when they did not know what was expected.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about allowing someone to choose to file as a corporation. Assemblyman Hettrick suggested removing the primary purpose language to include Section B by saying any organization “may” file if they so choose. However, it raised the question that men’s and women’s clubs, as well as the central committee, were filing as PACs. Assemblyman Hettrick was not sure if they were, stating the first language would catch those organizations, but the B language, if retaining primary purpose, might let them bypass registering as a PAC. He agreed with the intent to stop people from being able to come up with ways to give money and not be accountable. He wondered if the disclosure side was not better than the contribution or come-together side.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was starting to have those thoughts as well. Disclosure of receipts was a major focus. Assemblyman Hettrick stated the only problem with the disclosure side was two people could come together and hide their identity by coming up with a new name. Thus, they avoided the PAC law completely.

 

Mr. Wasserman pointed out to eliminate the entire phrase “.  .  . whose primary purpose is not designed to affect the outcome. . .” meant if just one organization, they did not have to file as a PAC unless they so chose. He cautioned that when using the word organization or group, i.e., two groups come together and become one group, so with five businesses that joined for the sole purpose of creating a PAC, or what was normally called a PAC, they now said they were the Committee to Elect Good Candidates, one organization, and they did not want to file as a PAC, they did not have to. The primary purpose part should possibly be dropped with added language where one of the purposes of the group was not to affect an election outcome. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt that was a cleaner avenue to follow. She asked for further thoughts and then asked Ms. Cavin about the Attorney General’s opinion where the people argued they did not want to be a PAC so they did not file, or they did not know they had to file as a PAC. Ms. Cavin stated she had copies of the decision if the committee wanted to see them. The current wording when it said organization caught every single business entity that gave a campaign contribution as a PAC. PACs were required by law to file a C & E report, which she felt was not workable or reasonable. The funds, if received by a candidate, were already listed with their disclosure report. What was not being captured was the group that did not want you to know who they were. But, when registered as a PAC, the officers were identified, as well as the resident agent. Therefore, the press or anyone could find out who the major players were when registered as a PAC.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick agreed if he wanted to hide his identity, he would look at the PAC reporting requirements, have a resident agent and officers who meant nothing to anyone, continue to funnel the money to himself because after that no one would know. He felt they had come full circle and found it better to disclose the money received, and if there was any question about a B&H group, let the candidate defend taking money from B&H. Ms. Cavin stated the candidate did not always know from where the money came. Assemblyman Anderson stated the candidate had better know and Assemblyman Brower stated it was a political issue that could not be regulated by statute and if candidates refused to answer that question, they were at their own political peril.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman felt the premise was that anyone who formed a PAC was hiding something. She was offended by the entire program and uncomfortable with the issue. She asked if everything had to be addressed in statutes.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the issue was most PACs were very honest and upfront with the political parties filing disclosures. There were individuals and groups who formed, such as Citizens for Better Government, that raised money, funneled it to a candidate, and never filed as a PAC. If they were raising money for the purposes of electing or defeating a person or initiative, they were presently required by law to file as a PAC. But, they discovered the loophole where the law did not capture “two who came together” for those purposes to become a PAC. There was an incident in the rural area where two clubs came together, raised money, donated it, and then stated, “I didn’t know I was supposed to be a PAC.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she was happy with the discussions and having explored the loophole that ignorance of the law did not excuse a person from complying with the statutes.

 

Assembly Bill 299:  Revises provisions relating to county and municipal ballot questions. (BDR 24-598)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani moved onto A.B. 299, addressing the verbiage “may” and “shall.” Mr. Wasserman stated of the two parts, the first part in Section 1 of the bill, was to remove the authority of the registrar of voters in Clark County and Washoe County to carry out certain provisions relating to the ballot committees. The second part on page 3 of the bill changed the language where the county clerk may work with consultants but did not require him to make his decision based on what the consultants recommended.  The wording was changed to, “. . . shall reject each statement of the argument or rebuttal that he believes is libelous or factually inaccurate.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the “shall” was changed to “may” in both places. Mr. Wasserman stated in the first position it was “may consult” and in the second “shall reject.” One thing not entered but was brought up through Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar, and Assemblyman Hettrick, was adding the language in subsection 5 regarding signature cards, that if enough did not come in to change the outcome of the petition, they would not have to count the cards. She had not heard any objection to that idea but did not add it to the work session draft. She asked Mr. Wasserman to draft language to that effect.

            ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS         A.B. 299.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

It was announced the committee would meet on both Tuesday and Thursday with a work session scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 2001, based on whatever bills had not been addressed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                              

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: