MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
April 10, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 4:08 p.m., on Tuesday, April 10, 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:
Michael Robinson, Citizen of Reno, Nevada
Mike Tracy, Citizen of Reno, Nevada
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder
Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting and announced the work session document was the reference for the first bill under discussion, A.B. 443.
Assembly Bill 443: Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-986)
After listening to the audience last week, plus committee members who spoke, Michael Robinson, citizen of Reno, Nevada, addressed amendments as outlined in Exhibit C.
Mr. Robinson also referenced an editorial from the Reno Gazette Journal (Exhibit D) for the committee’s perusal at their leisure.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced page 3 in the work session document regarding the information testified to by Mr. Robinson. She stated the legislature could not dictate to a private facility what they could or could not do; therefore the committee suggested amending a majority of the bill. She quoted verbatim from page 4 of Exhibit E. She felt the changes would prevent all governmental agencies from setting their own limits. It also allowed the public to gather signatures on a petition by a public facility. Finally, changed from a 60-day limit to the 90-day requested limit.
A review Section 2, subsection 2 was done by Assemblyman Beers. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee suggestion would delete Section 2, subsection 2, and lines 14 through 16. Mr. Beers asked what the motion was to include. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated subsection 1 of Section 2 was being deleted, and inserted instead new language that would specify the area in each building or around the building that was open to the general public but owned and occupied by the government, except for primary and secondary schools, which must be made available during open hours for use of persons to gather signatures on a petition. Assemblyman Beers confirmed the deletion of subsection 2. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative. Assemblyman Beers asked for further confirmation on other deletions or additions. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated subsection 2 of Section 2, and Sections 4 through 10, which deleted the issue of the badge, civil penalties, and code of ethics. She wanted to assure Mr. Robinson and Mr. Tracy they could move the legislation forward to at least provide access to a public facility, and also allow a due process section.
Assemblywoman Freeman preferred the nonbinding code of ethics remain in the language. She also felt the badge was very important because it gave people a form of identity of who petitioners were representing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Assemblywoman Freeman was welcome to amend the motion, but for a couple of reasons it would not pass:
Assemblywoman Freeman admitted to not being clear on what was heard from the committee at the time of Assemblyman Hettrick’s bill that addressed wearing badges. She asked if it was important enough to leave out of A.B. 443. Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought it was. Assemblywoman Freeman stated she did not want to ask for amendments if the committee members were in opposition. She stated she had never found it necessary to speak about a code of ethics or standards of behavior in statutes. She did agree more and more this session that there were certain standards of behavior and ethics, of which many needed to be reminded. She knew it was non-binding and it did not carry the force of law, but very often it did not hurt to have that included in a document as a reminder that a certain standard of behavior was expected of anyone involved in the public process. With committee support, Assemblywoman Freeman was willing to amend the current amendments.
Assemblyman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Freeman if all of Section 4 was deleted or did she object to retaining the badge to carry the name of the primary sponsor of the petition and not the person requesting the signatures. Assemblywoman Freeman agreed with the badge naming the requestor of the petitioners. Assemblyman Anderson had no problem with the petitioner being identified, and felt identification would help to identify why they were seeking signatures.
Speaker Dini asked if that included Section 2, part 2. Assemblyman Anderson clarified no, as that was a concern. Assemblywoman Freeman stated it would only be subsection 1 of Section 2. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated constitutionally there would be a problem of challenge of the petition if the proponent did not have a name badge. She was not against it per se; she wanted to prevent a challenge, i.e., “Janine didn’t have a badge on so I want to challenge all the signatures of the petition she had signed.” Assemblywoman Freeman suggested changing the wording to “may wear a badge.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani did not feel that would cause a problem as long as the bill did not mandate wearing a badge.
Mike Tracy, Private Citizen, suggested the Secretary of State prepare the non-binding code of ethics language under Section 6. Also, the bill contained outlines for the coordination of gathering signatures without bogging down legal challenges later. Chairwoman Giunchigliani appreciated Mr. Tracy’s comments and told him he was free to make that argument, but, if they wanted the bill to move forward, she suggested not to contain that in the language.
Assemblyman Beers stated the badge language was confusing, because a blocking campaigner would not want to wear a badge identifying the primary sponsor or proponent of the petition. In reference to the badge issue, Assemblywoman Freeman again suggested changing the wording from “shall” to “may.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated if the petitioner wished to wear one, there was nothing prohibiting them from doing so in statute. Assemblyman Beers said they did not want to make it illegal to not wear a name badge. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Tracy and Mr. Robinson if changing the bill to make wearing a badge an option was agreeable.
Assemblyman Anderson agreed not to raise an issue that challenged the petitioners for unnecessary reasons.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there was a motion before the committee to amend and do pass A.B. 443 with the change in the work session document on page 4 and the top of page 5, acknowledging that if an organization wished to have their petitioners wear a badge, they may do so but the language would not be contained within the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENTS ON PAGE 4 OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. VICE CHAIRMAN PRICE, ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK AND ASSEMBLY BROWER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Mr. Robinson asked about the additional language offered in Section 12 and Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they had not accepted that amendment. Section 12 stayed with the bill only because Sections 4 through 10 were deleted. Mr. Robinson agreed Section 12 stayed with the bill but asked about the recommended deletion in Exhibit C, an area he recalled she had agreed with during the original hearing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that area would be deleted as well.
Assemblyman Beers indicated he was confused on the motion he had made and just passed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that in Section 12 the 90-day factor was maintained. Assemblyman Beers referenced the amendment on page 4 as not deleting subsection 2 of Section 2. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated page 4 of the work session document deleted Section 1 of subsection 2. Assemblyman Beers recalled a discussion also deleting subsection 2 of Section 1 completely, eliminating the requirement that private buildings would be made available for petitioners. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the work session document was not what was voted, as they had struck, based on his questions, all of the language in Section 2.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani called for a second motion on Section 12, recommending the removal of the archaic language “2 percent in assessed value.”
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE ON PAGE 8, LINES 48 AND 49, REGARDING THE 2 PERCENT IN ASSESSED VALUE, AS WELL AS “AN AUTHORIZED CORPORATION OFFICER WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A REGISTERED VOTER, PAGE 9, LINES 8 AND 9.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Robinson if they were referring to a resident agent. Mr. Robinson stated it was anyone who was a corporate officer that was not a registered voter, and related back to the 2 percent in assessed value. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was then tied to the old language and should be removed as well.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. VICE CHAIRMAN PRICE, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK AND ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested review of A.B. 483 as listed in the work session document.
Assembly Bill 483: Makes various changes concerning reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. (BDR 24-557)
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 483.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. VICE CHAIRMAN PRICE, ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK AND ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought up A.B 487 for consideration of the committee, stating Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning had presented it to the committee.
Assembly Bill 487: Makes various changes concerning challenges of qualifications of certain candidates for office. (BDR 24-586)
Language was worked through and recommendations were presented to Chairwoman Giunchigliani by Mr. Graham regarding the affidavit process and hearing. She then quoted verbatim from Exhibit E, pages 5 through the top of page 7; the new language was presented in bold, italics, and underlined. Within the exhibit probable cause language was added as well as show cause proceedings discussed during the hearing on the bill.
Assemblyman Dini asked the implication of probable cause. Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Legal Counsel, stated probable cause needed to be assured before asking for a court proceeding; in essence, provide evidence to show the allegation was true.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated language was added stating the challenged candidate was served with a show cause proceeding with evidence refuting the allegations; otherwise the name was removed from the ballot. Response time was inserted and if the candidate did not respond nor make an attempt to refute the allegation, the name was removed. A new section to be possibly included in Section 3.5, stated “Forms utilized for declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy shall contain an address and phone number where the candidate may be served process, and in the event the candidate cannot be located or contacted via registered mail for service of process, he will have designated the filing officer for his candidacy to accept the service of process for these purposes.”
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated a candidate was required by law when filing for office to provide a physical address to prove residency in the district for which the candidate filed. Why would someone not have to be at his or her own address for purposes of accepting a process? To her, in that case, the individual was violating the law.
Assemblyman Anderson provided the scenario that someone filed for office and knowing it would be a hard campaign, the candidate went on vacation. While on vacation someone would have to accept the challenge process for the candidate. He considered that the only legitimate instance such absence from the address provided. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stressed the declaration of candidacy required a physical address, not a P.O. Box, though a mailing address was often included if different from the residence address. She asked for confirmation from the county clerks present and received an affirmative answer. She felt possibly the candidate was allowed a loophole with the language addressed above. It could be said they could use a separate mailing address as the designated service of process address.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if someone at the home was able to sign if the candidate was at his or her regular job. Assemblyman Brower confirmed the subject was service of process or an action of a challenge. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated a challenge was filed and the process was to be served. Where could it legally be served and could someone other than the candidate accept it on the candidate’s behalf. Assemblyman Brower asked if service by mail was being contemplated, as in Nevada that was allowed though a process had to be served in person if there was an order to show cause. Chairwoman Giunchigliani did not feel the service of process should be allowed only in person. Assemblyman Brower stated to allow service by mail would be a departure from the normal rule. Mr. Wasserman felt Mr. Graham was trying to address those candidates that applied for office and were not residents of the district. When filing the declaration of candidacy an address was provided, but when served it was discovered it was not a viable address, the filing officer could accept service for the candidate. Chairwoman Giunchigliani emphasized that when filing for office, the prospective candidate was declaring, by law, a legal residence address, allowing a run for office in the district of residence. If false information was entered, the candidate had already jeopardized the privilege of running for office.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, stated familiarity of the case from which Assemblywoman Chowning drafted the bill. The lady that filed against Assemblywoman Chowning used an address in the district but did not live there. It appeared to him that if the candidate could not be served at the address given, the individual could legally be served through the filing officer, putting an end to the challenge legally and allowing removal of the name from the ballot rather than having the procedures clogging the courts. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the narrative would allow the clerk to be served if the candidate was not at the address listed on filing. Mr. Lomax stated that was how he understood it. In signing the declaration of candidacy, the candidate designated the county clerk to accept a service of process if the candidate could not be found.
Assemblyman Brower felt that Mr. Lomax’s idea good; otherwise the challenger spent a great deal of money and time trying to serve someone that was unable to be found. He confirmed that the service of process would be first sent to the address given to the clerk. Mr. Lomax stated if the person assigned to serving the process could not find the “candidate” and they served the clerk, he would contact the district attorney and file to remove the individual from the ballot and the election could proceed as scheduled. Assemblyman Brower stated the challenger would win by default because the challengee could not be found due to not providing a viable address. With no way to serve the challengee, they had to be served by publication, which in turn delayed the court process even longer.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if adding “nonresidence” would suffice regarding inability to find the candidate. Mr. Wasserman stated the law required there be an attempt made to serve at the residence listed on the candidacy statement. He stated that would be the first area of interest to the court in determining if the challenge was indeed valid. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if language could be added to clarify. Mr. Wasserman stated before making it an irrebutable situation, other factors as stated by Assemblyman Anderson had to be considered. Chairwoman Giunchigliani did not want to make it irrebutable, but to allow for such a conclusion to be drawn. She did not want to hear from the clerks about unfunded work or from the district attorney because the candidate could not be found, therefore the name could not be removed from the ballot.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, felt it unnecessary to add an additional address for process serving, suggested changing the language at the bottom of page 6, “ . . . and in the event the candidate cannot be located at the address listed in his candidate filing or contacted by registered mail . . ..” Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated without contact at the address(s) given, it would automatically be forwarded to the clerk. She then asked the committee if there needed to be a third address on the candidate filing. Assemblyman Brower answered no, and to serve in person the candidate did not have to be present as the summons could be left with an adult at that address. He did not feel a challenger should be required to do extensive tracking of the challengee.
Moving on, Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Section 7 provided an identical amendment as explained in Section 6 for city elections.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 487.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought A.B. 637 forward for discussion.
Assembly Bill 637: Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-339)
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, read verbatim from the work session document (Exhibit E), pages 7, 8, 9, and 10 (top), making note that Section 3 was deleted in its entirety.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani commended the county clerks/registrars for coming forward and suggesting elimination of the section regarding removal of names after the signing of a petition. Someone who signed a petition should be knowledgeable enough to know what he or she was signing. She then called for discussion from the committee.
Assemblyman Hettrick did not disagree with the concept, but wondered if the amendment was eliminating someone’s ability to change his or her mind, or have access to that option. Also, he wondered if it would not be just as well to return to the first suggestion of not counting the requests for name removal if the amount tendered did not affect the outcome. He did not want to shut the public out. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered that in A.B. 299 that change was adopted, thus there was a bill that covered the area discussed and would need to be changed if the same amendment was applied to this bill. She asked the genesis of why the people were allowed to have their names removed from a petition.
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder, stated the option went back to recall elections when pressure was put on the public on a Friday evening to sign a petition, and discovered after the fact they should have refrained from being pressured. The provision was added after speaking with Mr. Lomax and learning of the problems encountered in Clark County, and at that time outlawed removing the names. He stated Assemblyman Hettrick’s suggestion would certainly work, as it was impossible to locate all names in a petition. Chairwoman Giunchigliani conferred with Mr. Stewart and learned that most states did not allow removal of names. She confirmed that Mr. Glover was in agreement with the choice of the committee. She asked of the committee if name removal from petitions should be allowed.
Speaker Emeritus Dini felt they should retain the option of name removal. He was made aware of many who asked to have their names removed from petitions prior to the last election because it was not made known to them what they were signing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the committee was comfortable with an amendment similar to that in A.B. 299, which allowed the clerks the option of not counting the requests for name removal if it would not affect the outcome of the race. She then entertained a motion to amend and do pass with amendments in the work session document, and allow the petitioner to remove their name but allow the clerks to not count them if it did not affect the outcome of the petition drive.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 637.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought A.B. 638 forward for discussion.
Assembly Bill 638: Makes various changes regarding elections, ethics and financial disclosures. (BDR 24-873)
Mr. Stewart walked through the suggested changes as written in Exhibit E, pages 10 and 11.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced Section 23, stating the Ethics Commission had S.B. 466 to be heard by the Senate, a bill with far better language, and therefore she saw no problems with deletion of Section 23 in its entirety. She called for discussion on other recommended areas.
Speaker Emeritus Dini referred to Section 22 and asked why go to a trial by jury. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered Janine Hansen had pointed out during a hearing that if someone was in an ethics challenge, there was no trial by jury as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, it was suggested to allow judicial review for those who wanted to end the process quickly, but for others who might want to take it a step further, having the option of a ruling voiced by a jury of their peers.
The other area of interest was the definition of “candidate.” She asked the committee’s pleasure on addressing the issue, or allowing Mr. Tom Skanke to continue to work on the express advocacy issue to deal with either here or in the Senate. She also suggested a tightening of the language and working at some point in time with Senator Ann O’Connell to address the issue within another bill.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked since Mr. Stewart had done a great deal of research on the matter, if there was a definition that staff felt was superior to what was already in statute. Was there a definition staff felt was superior to Nevada’s present definition, or a suggestion that included verbiage to be amended to the existing definition? Assemblyman Hettrick voiced approval of Iowa’s definition (Exhibit E, tab E, page 2). If the committee did not have anything better to offer, he felt they should leave it alone. Mr. Stewart stated he had no position and left it up to the committee’s pleasure. Speaker Emeritus Dini suggested not changing the definition of “candidate” as described in section 20. Chairwoman Giunchigliani considered his recommendation as part of the work session.
Assemblyman Brower questioned the suggested change to Section 22, and stated that area raised some complications. The first part of the language said, “The final opinion of the commission is the subject to judicial review per NRS 233B.130,” which never included a jury trial. He felt a major departure was being made from NRS 233B when saying, “ . . . the court shall conduct its review by a jury trial.” He asked for confirmation from Mr. Wasserman.
Mr. Wasserman stated the question was raised why there was no right to a jury trial when going for judicial review since the Nevada Constitution required a jury trial in civil and criminal matters. The Nevada Constitution was interpreted to require a jury trial only where jury trials were required at the time of the adoption of the Nevada Constitution. He agreed there was no right to a jury trial in a hearing on an administrative decision. NRS 233B.135 addressed a review of the record. The work session document said, “Notwithstanding the provisions of NRS 293B . . .” when it should have said “NRS 233B,” though it said the amendment would be a departure from that and in such a case, it would be heard before a jury, clearly an exception to the general rule.
Assemblyman Brower stated he would object to that though he understood people felt strongly about their right to a jury trial. Unfortunately, the public did not have a right to a trial by jury in every context, and that was one in which they had traditionally not been held. He was not sure departure from that rule was a good path to take.
Assemblyman Price stated there was concern across the United States where dealing with the bureaucratic situation had moved people toward a trial situation because of the potential concept of objective opinions through hearings run and directed by government-paid employees. He agreed with the amendment and the need to move in that direction.
Assemblyman Brower stated the downside to the amendment was it would take much longer and increase expenses. Traditionally when one appealed the decision of an administrative body under the statutory scheme, it was simply reviewed by an elected judge. The decision could be appealed to the State Supreme Court as well. He stated they were not talking about a criminal context though it was quasi-criminal due to the fines involved. He knew of no other exceptions to the court review rule in NRS 233B. He pointed out that such had not been done before.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated there was a judicial review but there was no opportunity to request a court trial. Thus, this bill would have allowed that choice. She stated the ruling was, “It was factual, and not false, but they did not like it.” Assemblyman Beers stated the ruling against him was it was true but not negative, and provided a clearer blueprint of the course taken, and in the absence of direction, they set a course that was later determined wrong by a federal judge. He basically said the direction to take was, as this bill and the amendments addressed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if it was worth trying the process as suggested. She stated it was an administrative body and she did not want to open any “flood gates” because it was so narrowly contained.
Assemblyman Brower asked Assemblyman Beers if he was supporting the change. Assemblyman Beers stated he was listening interestedly at this point. Assemblyman Brower asked if there was any testimony taken from the Ethic’s Commission on the amendments. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they were still present when Ms. Hansen testified, but did not offer any rebuttal comments. Assemblyman Brower stated he would like to talk to the judges in Carson City as they heard the greater majority of the administrative appeals. He knew that time was of the essence, but would follow through with that avenue if permitted. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested to amend and do pass with the language presented because the committee had until April 27, 2001 for further dialogue from the Ethic’s Commission. She asked the feeling of the committee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 638 WITH THE LANGUAGE, RECOGNIZING THE COMMITTEE MAY TAKE UP DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR BASED ON UPCOMING INFORMATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The next bill addressed was A.B. 295.
Assembly Bill 295: Revises provisions governing participation in elections by elderly and disabled persons. (BDR 24-839)
Mr. Stewart walked through the proposed amendments in Exhibit E, page 1. Before reading the narrative, Mr. Stewart referenced the discussion regarding disabled access at polling places. He suggested the committee peruse tab B where a statewide survey report provided by Washoe County defined disabled access in all county-polling areas. Information from Clark County and Carson City was also available.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the recommendations from the county clerks were accepted, and called for discussion on Sections 11 and 12. She asked if an individual needed a TTD (telephone for the deaf), was one available. She stated by having an area on the sample ballot requesting TTD service though the voter did not request it, the county clerk faced no liability. Mr. Lomax stated one was available in Clark County, and, to his knowledge, no one had used it. Chairwoman Giunchigliani then stated the “shall” language was not needed.
Assemblyman Hettrick appreciated the changes made. During his absence from session the week prior at the Election Reform Committee Meeting in New Mexico, he learned all Secretaries of State had switched their statute language to reflect that found in the bill being discussed. His only question on Section 11 was where it said, “registering to vote.” If that was added it would be required to be added in many areas throughout the bill because there would be no place on the ballot to ask for the service. It meant a TTD system would have to be made available at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and other areas where citizens were allowed to register to vote. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the main concern was for voting purposes. Assemblyman Hettrick stated the “registering” language should then be struck as it was misunderstood it was for registration as well.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated one other area voiced at the Election Reform Committee Meeting was the federal government had proposed to put something in the neighborhood of $450 million dollars into helping purchase voting machines to apply new technology throughout the United States. When calculated out, the funding provided one new voting machine per precinct throughout the United States. They wanted to add to that law that every existing machine had to be replaced by 2008.
Mr. Wasserman clarified the modification that the TTD would be disseminating information regarding elections, registering to vote, and voting. It did not say that registration would take place through the TTD.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought up Section 12. She understood there was an intent to move away from the punch card system, and during voting machine demonstrations there was a form of scan or optic scan machine available where only one machine per precinct was needed to count the votes. Mr. Lomax stated that because of the volume in Clark County, only absentee voting would be done with one tabulating machine. They would have to purchase more than one machine to get everything counted on Election Day. If the intent was to have people fill in “bubbles” rather than use punch cards, a ballot of that type read like an absentee ballot, and the current tabulating machine would tabulate the “bubble” marked votes as well, making a lesser expenditure for the county. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated many of her constituents, who were senior citizens, stated it was very difficult to center on and punch the small area allowed per vote.
Assemblyman Hettrick stated an interesting comment learned during his sojourn to New Mexico was that upon tabulation nationwide, the punch card provided the most accurate results over and above the optical scan. The reason for the inaccuracy on the optical scan was because instead of filling in the circle, the voter would fill in the arrow pointing to the circle, would circle the circle, or would place an “x” in the circle. The most accurate was the direct, and his point was to be careful about what you ask. He said the states without problems had something in the law regarding recount procedures. The states with problems had not.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated a punch card article was available though she had not been able to get a copy for the committee members. She suggested doing a pilot program with a control group to see what was preferred. She did not want to institute something that would not work. She continued stating Section 12 did not need to be in the bill since the move was toward that end. She stated if money was received from the federal government, a line item could be created to distribute the funds accordingly.
Speaker Emeritus Dini stated the changes in technology every six months were mind-boggling. He suggested slowing down on the voting machine issue because he felt there would be avenues opened that were much easier for the public to use, thus curtailing a great waste of funds purchasing machines that would not work over time. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that a very good point, and used the example of computer replacement every two years in the schools when the focus should have been on the students learning the keyboard and programs.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed the motion was to include item No. 11 and not items No. 12 and 13.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 295, RETAINING ITEM NO. 11 AND NOT ITEMS NO. 12 AND 13.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Next on the work session agenda was discussion of A.B. 227.
Assembly Bill 227: Revises definition of committee for political action. (BDR 24-917)
Mr. Stewart shared information in Exhibit E, under tab A that contained definitions from other states that could be adopted by the state of Nevada to define a Political Action Committee (PAC).
Chairwoman Giunchigliani reviewed the definitions pointed out and noticed many used the same wording of “two or more gathered together.”
Assemblyman Beers asked why they were discussing that issue. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was called to the committee’s attention by John Smith of Las Vegas regarding individuals who claimed they were out fund-raising but not under a group, and then gave the contributions to a group to use against a candidate. When confronted, the excuse was, “Oh, we didn’t know we were a PAC.” They were indeed a PAC. There were two things being address:
She then asked Mr. Wasserman or Mr. Stewart if anything on a PAC had been included in the current work session from the previous one. Mr. Stewart stated language from the previous work session was included in the work session document in tab A, which brought together the two or more organizations working together as the main focus, and clarified that campaign committees would not constitute a PAC according to NAC 294A.040. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested not changing the name and focus on sections (b), (c), 2, and 3 of the March 29, 2001 work session document. She quoted from paragraph (b).
Assemblyman Beers stated he did not see Mr. Smith’s article and asked if the people who failed to register as a PAC later said they looked it up in the law and concluded because it was so vague that they did not qualify. Or, did they say they did not look it up in the law. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they apparently knew they were a PAC but wanted to avoid the issue if possible. She called on Kateri Cavin.
Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, stated an opinion was done stating that single business entities did not have to register as a PAC. Otherwise it would require that every business entity giving a campaign contribution had to register. She did not feel that was the point of the original language in the existing statute, and that was not what the bill was designed to accomplish. The bill was designed to cover when two or more natural persons or two or more organizations came together to raise money and give a campaign contribution. It was discovered they were not registering as a PAC and saying, “We didn’t know we had to register as a PAC,” whether they knew or not.
Assemblyman Beers noted the current law said, “ . . . an organization . . ..” He felt that was too wide of a margin and very vague. Ms. Cavin stated an opinion was written several years ago that “organization” did not mean every “corporation” that gave a campaign contribution. Assemblyman Beers stated the law went on to say, “ . . . which receives contributions designed to affect the outcome . . ..” He felt that precluded any single business or organization from registering as a PAC. Ms. Cavin stated the purpose of A.B. 227 was to clarify that in light of the opinion done by the Attorney General’s Office, there were times when two natural people or organizations joined forces, yet said they were not a PAC and did not have to register. The bill was designed to clarify the definition of a PAC and indicate who was required to register as a PAC. Also, when registered as a PAC, a contributions and expenditures (C & E) report was required, thus those denying knowledge of or that they were a PAC and were not in compliance in two areas.
Speaker Emeritus Dini stated the language to him created a loophole. Ten people interested in a subject, each gathering a $1,000 stating the funding was for something different, and they beat the system. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was the reason for developing language to eliminate a dollar amount. Mr. Wasserman stated the version of the present bill was based on the federal law that had a $1,000 threshold. What Ms. Cavin testified to was the proposed amendment that would change the bill to say, “A committee for political action means two or more persons or organizations who came together,” to do the described activities. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested looking at tab A and the definitions of a PAC for Colorado and Utah. She found Utah’s to be quite interesting.
Assemblyman Hettrick liked the Utah definition as it covered the issues discussed, and read from the narrative in Exhibit E, tab A, page 3. He felt that definition covered the areas involved, but was not sure whether a party committee would qualify as a caucus, as some caucuses had different committees, though they were all reported and disclosed. If Nevada adopted the Utah language or something like it, he suggested making clear the caucus question. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the caucus issue would need to be added to the language. Speaker Emeritus Dini agreed with Assemblyman Hettrick and also liked the Utah definition.
Ms. Cavin stated the Secretary of State also handled different types of business entities, and asked if the word “corporations” was included, as well as limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships. Nevada had different types of business entities other than just corporations. Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt they should include all, as did Assemblyman Hettrick. Ms. Cavin said the other business entities would fall under Title VII.
Assemblyman Beers suggested changing the Utah language from “solicit or receive” to “solicits and receives,” eliminating the businesses because businesses did not receive the contributions.
Assemblyman Anderson stated if the dollars were flowing through, the dollars would not have to be registered received and moved forward if “businesses” was removed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested, for clarification, asking if it read “that solicits and receives,” or “that solicits and/or receives.” Assemblyman Beers answered “and receives.” Thus just giving a contribution did not make an entity a PAC. As an example he approached Mr. Anderson saying there was an important issue affecting history teachers; let us form an organization. Money was given to the organization to give to the candidates. At that point the organization became a PAC. On the other hand, if he said he was a history book manufacturer and did not like the legislation but was spending company money on a candidate who wanted to improve history books everywhere, that would not be a PAC because they were not getting money from other people but simply expressing their political will in the terms of their dollars. Assemblyman Anderson understood in that case a business was being treated as an individual. Assemblyman Beers stated that was true until they were made a collection of businesses.
Assemblyman Brower stated the individuals who received contributions from a business disclosed the business name as opposed to “Citizens to Defeat X,” that appeared on candidate’s contribution declarations.
Speaker Emeritus Dini referenced part B, and read from the Utah information, “Political Action Committee includes groups affiliated with a registered political party but not authorized or organized by the governing board of the registered political party.” He stated that for a number of years the State Democratic Caucus was not a part of the State Democratic Party. He wanted assurance the caucuses would remain independent of the party.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated both the Republican and Democratic Caucuses were not affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties. Assemblyman Beers admitted to not knowing that much about the internal workings of both parties, but stated his party had some organizations that were not authorized or organized by the governing board of the registered political party though they probably should be classed as a PAC. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the question being raised centered on section (b) under the Utah definition. Assemblyman Beers indicated (b) needed to be retained, as well as language that explicitly carved out the organizations made up of legislators. Mr. Wasserman pointed out that NRS defined “caucus” and the language could be taken from there and put into the bill.
Assemblyman Hettrick was not familiar with that particular law and asked if it said, “ . . .formed or made up of members of the legislature,” etc. Mr. Wasserman stated he would check the provision for the exact language and make sure it adequately described a caucus. Assemblyman Hettrick brought the question forward as he felt that would address Assemblyman Beer’s issue, using something to pick up the bodies made up of elected officials. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested before taking the bill to the floor, the amendments would be reviewed as a committee to assure accuracy.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 227
WITH THE UTAH LANGUAGE, INSERTING THE NEVADA DEFINITION OF CAUCUS UNDER (C) AND LANGUAGE THAT CAPTURED GROUPS THAT MAY SOUND LIKE THEY WERE AFFILIATED WITH A POLITICAL PARTY BUT NOT ORGANIZED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF THE PARTY, OR DO NOT CONTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Beers asked about changing “or” to an “and” in line 2 between “solicits” and “receives” of the Utah language. Assemblyman Hettrick answered that as the maker of the motion he would defer to Mr. Wasserman as to whether a language change opened or closed doors. Mr. Wasserman felt the change should be made with the second “or” on line 3, because what it said was, “received contributions and made expenditures.” He did not feel the “or” between “solicits” and “receives” had a substantive effect if the definition was adopted as set forth. To be considered a PAC:
Therefore, if the “or” was changed to an “and,” receipts and expenditures had to be processed before the group would rise to the level of being a PAC. Assemblyman Beers stated that was, if he was not mistaken, the effect of the current law at NRS 294A.0055. Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed that was the area they were trying to repair. As a matter of policy, Assemblyman Beers thought a group should not be registered as a PAC if they were spending their own money on candidates. If a group was obtaining contributions from others to spend on candidates, the group would be considered a PAC, which was the way the current law read. Changing from “or” to “and” would retain that component of the current policy. In other words, remove the second “or” on line 3, to change the verbiage from “solicits or receives” to “solicits and receives.”
Speaker Emeritus Dini could not see where Assemblyman Beer’s amendment made a difference since the verbiage was “a political action committee meant an entity, or any group of individuals.” It was not talking about one individual but a group of individuals and he did not see how the suggested change made a difference. To form a PAC one solicited and received. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated if they took in money but did not expend it, they would not have to file as a PAC. She then asked why they would be soliciting money? Assemblyman Hettrick said that captured everyone because no one would take in money if they were not going to spend it. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if they would still have to file. Assemblyman Hettrick answered yes. Assemblyman Brower mentioned a group such as the Women’s Republican Club who took in funds but did not spend on candidates or issues would not be expected to file as a PAC.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani confirmed that the maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to accept “and” instead of “or” on line 3. Assemblyman Anderson understood Assemblyman Beers did not want to lose corporations, and the changes recommended would cover them as well. Assemblyman Hettrick directed the committee to (v) a corporation; other business entities included in Title VII. Assemblyman Anderson then understood they were speaking about a corporation and/or another entity defined in Title VII. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the committee did not want to capture an entity did the verbiage need to say “means any entity” or did they want only “PAC is any group of individuals or entities . . ..”
Mr. Wasserman stated to eliminate a single business from having to file as a PAC, eliminating “means any entity” because that was one organization and insert “means any group of individuals or entities.” In that way two or more businesses that joined together in order to form a PAC would be caught. If it was said that a corporation or other business entity formed pursuant to Title VII was exempted, Assemblyman Brower thought that opened the door to what would otherwise be considered a PAC and they could simply incorporate to avoid the PAC issue all together. Assemblyman Hettrick stated they would still have to disclose as a corporation. He understood Assemblyman Brower’s point but felt that stretched the issue due to having to process through the Office of the Secretary of State.
Ms. Cavin stated if the language was adopted from the Utah definition, the Secretary of State would be able to go to Utah and review their process of the issue.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani reiterated the committee would amend and do pass, strike “means” and “entity”, on line 3 strike the second “or” and insert “and,” add caucuses and lift language defining caucuses to make sure legislative and elected officials were included, and add other business entities, Title VII.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani addressed A.B. 381, a bill presented by Assemblyman Bache, was referred from Government Affairs as an interim study. There were language changes required in statute that had to be dealt with before April 16, 2001. She planned to call a meeting on the floor upon adjournment on Friday, April 20, 2001. In the bill township language was clarified therefore it had to pass out of Elections, Procedures, and Ethics or it would die.
Mr. Stewart reminded the committee members that Marge Griffin, Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s secretary, was polling the members for the reapportionment and redistricting hearings scheduled for Thursday evening, April 19, 2001 in Fallon, Nevada, and the other in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas meeting was to be video- conferenced to room 3138 in Carson City that Saturday morning as well. A state van would transport the legislators to Fallon, departing at 4:00 p.m., with dinner being provided by the League of Cities at the Overland Hotel at 5:00 p.m. The meeting followed at 7:00 p.m.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: