MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

April 3, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Tuesday, April 3, 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

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Doug Smith, Chairman, Citizens for a Scenic Reno

Mike Robinson, private citizen

M. K. (Ike) Yochum, I.A.P.

Janine Hansen, President, New Eagle Forum

Bonnie Weber, Nevada Republican Assembly

Mike Tracey, Washoe County, City of Reno resident

Jack Jeffrey, Nevada AFL-CIO

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer and Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials

Lynn Chapman, Vice President, Nevada Eagle Forum

 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting as a subcommittee and asked that Speaker Perkins and Assemblywoman Buckley be excused should their Energy committee meeting run longer than Elections, Procedures, and Ethics. She then opened the hearings on A.B. 443.

 

Assembly Bill 443:  Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-986)

 

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, introduced Mr. Doug Smith and Mr. Mike Robinson, who both worked with her on the bill, and would explain the reasons for the bill and what they hoped it would accomplish. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee would take up any bills heard during the past week in a work session scheduled for April 10, 2001. If there were any amendments to consider that could not be decided upon within the committee, a floor meeting would be held on April 16, 2001.

 

Doug Smith, Chairman for Citizens for a Scenic Reno, shared with the committee he chaired a volunteer grassroots organization dedicated to preserving, protecting, and enhancing the aesthetic character of Reno and the Truckee Meadows. Exhibit C outlined the verbatim subject of Mr. Smith’s testimony.

 

Assemblyman Price asked for clarification regarding proponent and opponent committees consisting of registered voters only. He felt that requirement created a constitutional question if someone wanted to serve on a committee and was turned down because of not being a registered voter. Mr. Smith answered the six people appointed to the committee, in his opinion, should be registered voters.  Assemblyman Price asked who appointed the committee in question. Mr. Smith stated that they had worked with the city clerk who asked for volunteers to serve on the proponent/opponent committee for the petition.

 

Assemblyman Price addressed the problems faced when petitioning in the proximity of state and federal buildings, with some petitioners actually being arrested. He asked if there was anyone present in the gallery who could answer those allegations as he felt that information was needed.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Price if governmental bodies kicked people off of public property. Assemblyman Price stated that the one incident with which he was familiar was when petitioners were removed from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). DMV staff informed the petitioners they were not legally allowed to petition on government property and eventually the petitioners were taken by security and removed from the area. He stated any public building was fair game, including the state legislative building, and he did not believe the DMV or any other public agency should be harassing petitioners for any reason. Assemblyman Price was not opposed to rehearing the bill on another day, as well as requiring the DMV to be present to explain their actions.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if this had happened in the northern part of Nevada. Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative and then described what they called a Truth Squad. The Truth Squad (opponents of the petition) would approach the petitioner and strike up a conversation, which eventually lead to an argument. After the argument began, the Truth Squad would enter a store and complain to the management. At that point, the petitioners were asked by management to move on. The following day, management allowed them to return until a new incident ensued. Chairwoman Giunchigliani assured Assemblyman Price a request would be made of the DMV to appear to provide justification for disallowing petitioning. Assemblyman Price interjected it would be very difficult to mandate that opponents could not intervene to argue the pros and cons with a petitioner at any site where a petition was being presented. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood Section 2 of Exhibit C was to designate and make clear petitioning was indeed legal.

 

Assemblyman Anderson voiced concern about the make-up of the committee in question, A.B. 299 provided the rules for selection of such a committee. He added they had to be eligible and registered to vote to petition for initiative and referendum issues. He then asked what would happen if the city or county clerk wanted to assign someone from another community to the committee even though the individual(s) would not be voting on the initiative. Mr. Smith appreciated Assemblyman Anderson’s question because there were people discussing what was good for Reno who did not live in Reno. He firmly believed the committee should consist of those who lived within the jurisdiction of the petition’s subject. Assemblyman Anderson asked if the county clerk would be excluded from determining who would or would not be on the committee. Mr. Smith answered yes, and then added, “registered voters only.”

 

Assemblyman Anderson conferred with Chairwoman Giunchigliani on the committee passing A.B. 299. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee did amend and do pass, though the amendment was currently being processed. He then asked if they considered petitioning in areas of the schools. Mr. Smith stated not in every school, but where a combination library and school was located together, the library entrance would be considered public property. He felt the locations needed to be spelled out, be they private or public buildings.

 

Assemblyman Anderson understood the amendments presented to mean the government would have no say as to whether or not they had to designate a 4‑foot by 8-foot area within 50 feet of a main entrance. Also, since schools were, in essence, government property as well, the petitioners would only have to announce their presence and set up their area. Mr. Smith stated they would not address every school because petitioners were looking for registered voters in high density and high traffic areas. Assemblyman Anderson felt with the petitioner making such a decision, every school would then be eligible. Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani addressed the eligibility issue, and asked Mr. Smith if the petitioners would set up in front of an elementary school. Mr. Smith stated no. She then approached the subject of an open house or PTA meeting at the school, and petitioning being a judgment call by the petitioners.

 

Assemblyman Anderson then asked how much lead-time would be provided to the governmental agency, referencing the PTA or open house at a school. Or, would the petitioning committee appear at City Hall in the morning to set up a petition signing during that evening’s city council meeting. Mr. Smith stated common sense must be used. In his case, their agendas were scheduled a week in advance of any petitioning, i.e., if one were scheduled right now, he would know where the petitioners would be on Saturday and Sunday. Their committee scheduled them as far in advance as possible. It was not their objective to interfere with the business of the agency or store from which they had received permission to petition. Assemblyman Anderson pointed out the mandate of “you shall,” told him the petitioner was not requesting, but demanding, the government building provide an accessible area. He did not believe it was improper, but pointed out that there was a distinct difference between areas one and two.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel, if a school would be considered open to the general public after school hours. Mr. Wasserman answered the bill limited petitioning to a building open to the general public. He was not sure if a school was open to the general public without looking further into the law. If the committee wanted to exclude schools from that provision, the language could be clarified in the bill. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that for the safety of the children attending public school, and all employees, a visitor was required to check in at the office.

Assemblyman Price asked if schools were still used as polling places. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered yes. Schools and other facilities were used during certain times of the year, for which arrangements were made well in advance. Assemblyman Price felt if schools were specifically excluded as polling places, it would deter petitioners from setting up at the schools on polling day. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was a valid point even though petitioning or lobbying was legally forbidden within 100 feet of a polling place.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman explained further that the petitioners had followed all of the rules and then were sued by the billboard industry though they had strictly adhered to the law. They met with Secretary of State Dean Heller to make sure his office was comfortable with the petitioning. She referenced Section 6 and the nonbinding code of ethics for petition circulators. She then addressed Assemblyman Anderson, Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, and asked if there was some way to use the word “reasonable” in reference to behavior from those who brought forward petitions. She also felt the bill could be drafted to make all schools more at ease with the petitioning process.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was committee documentation that could be provided to show the billboard industry alleged noncompliance, and requested it be forwarded to the committee prior to any work session on the bill.

 

Michael Robinson, private citizen from Washoe County, thanked Assemblywoman Freeman for introducing the bill. His background over the last one-and-one-half years had involved election laws and petitions. He chaired the committee to recall Reno’s Mayor Griffin (Exhibit D), and started a petition to rescind the bond issue for the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA), an agency with interest and principal debt in the amount of $400 million, which exceeded the combined interest and principal of Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks and their redevelopment agencies.

 

While circulating the recall petition, Mr. Robinson ran into a number of problems that mirrored Mr. Smith’s. He then touched on areas other than the one dealing with petitioning locations. He felt that if petitioners had permanent locations available outside of certain public buildings they would run into fewer problems. The U.S. Post Offices posed the largest difficulty because they were run by privately owned agencies. He shared there was a lawsuit on which a decision was yet to be reached whether or not petitioners would be allowed within the U.S. Post Office premises. During one petitioning event the petition had received, in advance, permission from Raley’s Stores. City Councilman David Aiazzi approached them and created such a disturbance that it interfered with the flow of customers. Since that time they had not been welcome at Raley’s.

Mr. Robinson addressed Section 3, asking the committee to consider adding a penalty for violations by the media who advertised and promoted council incumbents during campaigning prior to elections. Added to that, he suggested a provision that allowed circulation of a petition within 90 days, stating 60 days was not long enough. The requirement to obtain 5 percent of the registered voters who owned at least 2 percent of the assessed value of the property seemed cumbersome and unable to be substantiated by the petitioners. The committee sued and was told by Judge Breen that the court was like an emergency room. Judge Breen stated the committee had not been harmed because they had yet to circulate a petition. Mr. Robinson felt the entire situation was like a time bomb waiting to go off and believed it was a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14^th Amendment of the United States Constitution to require property owners to quote their parcel number to verify they were the property owner. He stated everyone paid property tax in some fashion or another, i.e., through their rent, through commercial leases, thus the property owner did not pay the taxes or increase, but the tenant. He again stressed a 90-day petition circulation time period.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated assessed valuation was an interesting point, feeling it an old mandate that had not been reviewed. She asked if 90 days gave them sufficient time to circulate a petition. Mr. Robinson answered in the affirmative.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman read a message into the record from Martha Gould (Exhibit E), 1690 West 6^th Street, Reno, NV 89503. The message said, “Please have this message read into the record at the hearing this afternoon, as I am unable to attend. I strongly support this legislation. This legislation finally clarifies where signature-gathering persons can stand, clarifies local government activities, and clarifies proper activities of signature-gathering persons. Thank you. Martha Gould.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested, because of time restraints of having to attend a joint floor session at 4:45 p.m., all proponents and opponents to approach the witness table in groups of three. She also asked that the speakers be brief and if the subject to be covered had already been addressed, to please hold their comments until the committee work session on the bill.

 

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, felt the bill was brought forth with good intentions but she had serious concerns. She was one of those petitioners almost arrested at the DMV, at the post office, at the convention center, at Raley’s, and at Albertson’s. She did not approve of an assigned “box” 50 feet from an entrance. Some managers wanted petitioners in a box but in an area not accessible to addressing the public. In Section 3 she addressed the verbiage, “. . . the government cannot make an expense or expenditure to support or oppose a ballot question,” and asked if they were allowed that privilege, spending tax payers money to support a ballot question, not just 60 to 90 days prior to the election. Also, where was it written they were allowed to expend taxpayer’s money to support a candidate? The government should never be allowed to expend money to support not only a candidate but a ballot question as well. She was against wearing a badge because it removed the “animated contest of freedom.” The case of Buckley vs. Colorado spoke to the issue of wearing a badge though it specified a name badge.

 

Ms. Hansen stated the Nevada State Constitution required that voters have access to the entire petition, which negated the reason to accurately describe the contents to the voter. Who would police the petitioner in that respect? Also, the Supreme Court had ruled it was up to the voter or public to decide truth or error on petition information. She also felt there were times the Secretary of State was on the opposite side of an issue presented by a petitioner and was more than happy to represent the side he/she believed. She stated the nonbinding code of ethics was meaningless because if nonbinding it did not mean anything. Would there also be a code of ethics for the general public who, at times, threatened the petitioners? She knew not how manners could be legislated. She had no problem excluding schools. Ms. Hansen then presented copies of the lawsuits filed against the post office (Exhibit F).

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there were some things on which they might agree with her, and in looking at the news article where it stated there was a regulation mandating prior approval deserved further research. She then told the gallery that Assemblyman Beers had no difficulty with rolling his bill to Thursday, April 5, 2001 and asked if there was anyone present who would be unable to testify on April 5. She offered the opportunity to either testify in writing or during the actual hearing. She also suggested that proponents point out those areas of concurrence with the bill.

 

Lynn Chapman, Vice President, Nevada Eagle Forum, voiced concern about the nonbinding code of ethics and shared from experience the feeling of being approached inappropriately and intimidated.

 

Mr. M. K. (Ike) Yochum, representative of the Independent American Party, shared he was almost arrested in Minnesota at a post office, when, with his nephew’s son, age 16, there was a misunderstanding amongst owners of businesses and proprietors of the post office. It was his opinion proprietors of the post offices tended to think they were also proprietors of the government property on which the post offices were built.

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasure and representative of the Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, stated the clerks were neutral but needed definition clarification regarding:

 

• Designated sites and if temporary or permanent;
• Which entrance, i.e., front, back, or side;
• Public perception with certain petitions being circulated in public areas such as the marijuana issue being circulated on school property;
• If the county or state entity was required to designate an area, were the clerks and/or counties liable for accidents or injury;
• Not an open area for all government buildings if those structures were located in a downtown area and thus petitions would create a traffic jam;
• How would more than one petitioning committee be fitted into the space described or would the clerks have to provide time slots for each petitioning committee;
• Asked if wearing a badge was unconstitutional;
• Section 8 was addressed in another bill. Would this bill be in conflict; and
• Concern for allowing additional time for complaints to go before the court, causing a delay in an election at polling places as well as absentee and early voting balloting.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, asked the committee to keep in mind the 50-foot limitation and not allowing petitioners, on Election Day, to campaign within 100 feet of a polling place. A practical issue for the clerks on page 1, line 9, “.  .  . each public officer/employee in control of the operation of a government building .  .  .” was not truly defined and the best example he could give was the conflict between district judges and the county on who actually ran the building in question.

 

Jack Jeffrey, Nevada AFL-CIO, went on record it was the first time in his career that he had ever agreed with Janine Hansen. He felt the bill would have the opposite effect of what the sponsors were after. In Section 2 where it mandated the petitioners could not be less than 50 feet from an entrance, they could be positioned 300 yards from the entrance, which would be perfectly legal. It would not serve the public or the petitioners and make the process more difficult than it already was. His major problem was with Section 4, where it talked about accurately describing to the voter the effect of the initiative. He did not believe there was any way that could be done, policed, or penalized properly. It would be a case of one side against the other and whose side’s narrative was the most believable.

 

Mike Tracey, Reno resident, was pleased to share his thoughts on A.B. 443. His testimony read as follows:

I am proud to know some of the people behind the origin of this bill. They are thoughtful, community minded people who have taken the bull by the horns to fight to create a level playing field for future Nevada political issues and political leaders, both incumbent and challengers alike. I applaud Assemblywoman Freeman for her leadership on the issues contained with this bill, and I support this bill based upon my own recent experience, not only as a candidate last election season for Reno City Council, but also as an observer of the political processes in Reno this past election season. From my own personal perspective, I was a witness to the use of televised events sponsored and paid for by the City of Reno, which featured incumbent candidates in a positive light. The abuse requiring remedies of challengers to those incumbents and not afforded equal time; indeed they are not even afforded even an opportunity to even participate. To that end this bill establishes clearly and unambiguously that such activity is unfair. It must also make certain that it is punishable by law and I would support the addition of a penalty to Section 3 similar to that that is contained in Section 5. Without a deterrent punishment established in this bill, the unfair practices which occurred in Reno, and I would daresay occur in other Nevada cities and possibly counties as well, will continue unchecked.

 

In Reno, a local public station broadcast live all the city council meetings, all of the Reno planning commission meetings and replays board of county commissioners meetings, city council meetings and the planning commission meeting, and many other open public meetings that are regularly scheduled in our community. These are not abuses and this bill would not terminate such activity. But what it will end is incumbents up for reelection from being featured on all four pages of a city’s employee newsletter distributed to more that 1,500 city employees two weeks before an election and paid for by the city. It will end incumbents up for reelection from appearing in public service broadcasts on television and radio, paid for by the city or the county, which employs them, weeks and/or days before an election. It will end the cities sponsored public information broadcasts featuring incumbents up for reelection from participating in one-sided election issue discussions.

 

Now in Reno, in the case of this last election, one such discussion was on the Reno train trench. Many of you may be familiar with that project. They scheduled numerous council members up for reelection to sit on a panel, televised on SNCAT to discuss this issue without any opposition, not allowing any challenging candidate to participate. Only by accident did I find out about it, and after calls to several city departments, including the city attorney’s office, the community relations staff finally decided not to allow the incumbent city council members up for reelection to be part of that televised broadcast. In essence, for me, from my perspective, it is incumbent upon us all, when we see an inequity, to right it. Cities and counties find themselves increasingly using technology to inform their residents about the business and services they perform for those residents. At election time, caution and prudence do not always win, and the fine line between informing residents and supporting incumbents gets very blurry. I hope you will recommend this bill for approval, or that it is within your power, and pardon me if I don’t know the way things work around here, approve it. This bill will not make a level political playing field for challengers for elected positions, or for both sides in petition gathering for ballot measures. But it will help to do that by making state government or political subdivisions of the state think twice about their conduct during election years. Again I would like to thank you for your time and I urge you to approve this.

 

Bonnie Weber, Nevada Republican Assembly (NRA) representative, stated she was almost arrested at a post office near Virginia Foothills during a recent petition drive. The NRA was opposed to a box 50 feet outside of a government agency and general public arena, to the badge, to the Secretary of State pamphlet, to the nonbinding code of ethics repetition circulators, and personally to Section 8, lines 44 and 45.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani reposted A.B. 483 for Thursday, April 5, 2001, due to floor session reconvening at 5:00 p.m.

 

 Assembly Bill 483:  Makes various changes concerning reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. (BDR 24-557)

 

Not heard. Reposted for Thursday, April 5, 2001. The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: