MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 18, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Vice Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 8:41 a.m., on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District No. 37
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
LeRoy Goodman, Commissioner, Lyon County Board of Commissioners
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County, Lyon County
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, and County Fiscal Officers Association
Alan H. Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City
Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District
Vice Chairman Jon C. Porter pointed out the hearing would begin as a subcommittee due to lack of a quorum. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 148.
ASSEMBLY BILL 148: Revises provisions regarding certain stays of court proceedings during legislative session. (BDR 1-844)
Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District No. 37, indicated he was present as the sponsor of A.B. 148, which is a “housekeeping” matter. He explained A.B. 148 relates to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 1.310, which is a relatively old statute that goes back to 1960. The bill creates a stay of court proceedings for a legislator who may be involved as a party in the proceedings, or a legislator who may be a lawyer representing a party in the proceedings. Assemblyman Brower pointed out A.B. 148 creates a stay during the legislative session, with the intent the first duty of elected officials is to attend the session and not deal with litigation in which they may be involved.
The arrival of Senator Wiener constituted a quorum and Vice Chairman Porter announced the hearing would proceed as a full committee.
Continuing, Assemblyman Brower pointed out A.B. 148 cleans up part of the bill that “does not make sense.” He said section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 148 deals with a legislator who may be a party to an action. The bill provides a legislator who is a party to a civil action can have the action stayed during the legislative session. Assemblyman Brower called attention to the fact the changed language in section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 148 reflects some of the changes in section 1, subsection 2 of A.B. 148. He said section 1, subsection 2 of A.B. 148 contains substantive changes to the language making commencement of the legislative session the key date, not the date on which the lawyer-legislator was hired by the client.
Further, Assemblyman Brower explained, the statute, as currently written, basically says a lawyer-legislator can only stay an action in which he/she is involved if he/she was hired by the party prior to commencement of the action. Assemblyman Brower suggested it does not make sense because often one or more lawyers in a case are not hired until after the action has commenced.
Senator Porter requested clarification on when the attorney is actually hired. In response, Assemblyman Brower indicated the current statute says the lawyer/legislator must be actually employed prior to commencement of the action. He gave the following scenario: Should a client, who is being sued, come to Senator Care and ask him to represent him/her in the lawsuit, and the Senator agreed to do so, he would not be able to take advantage of the stay because he would have been employed by the client after commencement of the case. Assemblyman Brower said it makes more sense to have the trigger date the beginning of the legislative session, which means a client cannot shop for a lawyer who is a legislator in order to get a stay, or continuance of the case.
Assemblyman Brower offered an anecdote that recently took place in Texas. He said a case was pending against Firestone Tire Company and, despite having a team of lawyers already on board, they requested and were denied a continuance. Firestone then hired a Texas legislator (because the state has a statute similar to A.B. 148), informed the court the legislative session was about to begin, and the court granted a continuance. Assemblyman Brower pointed out A.B. 184 addresses that issue. He said it is not desirable for a client to be granted a continuance because he/she hires a lawyer-legislator, or does it make sense to require the lawyer-legislator to have been hired before the case commences. Plaintiff’s lawyers are always hired before the case is filed because the plaintiff’s lawyer files the case. Typically, however, the defense lawyer is not employed until the case commences, Assemblyman Brower remarked.
Vice Chairman Porter asked, “What determines ‘hired’ and ‘employed’ in the case of a professional relationship between a client and an attorney?” Assemblyman Brower explained “hired” and “employed” are the commencement, or beginning, of an attorney-client relationship. Questioned how A.B. 184 would affect a long-term attorney-client relationship, Assemblyman Brower answered should a long-term client be sued, it would be determined the attorney was employed by the client prior to commencement of the legislative session, and a stay would be granted based upon the new language in A.B. 148. He reiterated the basic intent of A.B. 148 is to continue to allow for the statutory stay in effect since 1960, but to clean up the language to apply it fairly to all lawyers; however, it does not unfairly allow a litigant to shop for a lawyer, who happens to be a legislator, on the eve of the legislative session, in order to obtain a continuance.
In addition, Assemblyman Brower said A.B. 148 expands the definition of “action” or “proceeding” to make it clear the stay should be afforded for all purposes, such as pre-trial discovery and other pre- or post-trial matters. He said A.B. 148 seeks to avoid the situation wherein a lawyer-legislator is entitled to a stay, but a judge, although not requiring a trial during the legislative session, could require all pre-trial matters to be conducted during the session. Assemblyman Brower stated the situation undermines the intent of the statute, which is to allow a legislator to attend the legislative session without having to worry about pending litigation.
Assemblyman Brower indicated some lawyers choose to take care of a case during the session. He noted he had a Supreme Court oral argument scheduled during the first week of the legislative session and considered postponing it; however, postponing it for 4 months did not make sense in that context. The Assemblyman said requesting a stay would be optional under A.B. 148, and a lawyer-legislator who is party to a lawsuit need not seek a stay of court proceeding. He reiterated A.B. 148 cleans up the language of the stay which has been recognized as important for the last 40 years.
Vice Chairman Porter queried how A.B. 148 would affect local government. Assemblyman Brower pointed out A.B. 148 does not address local government. He explained local government is ongoing and in constant session, as opposed to the Legislature which has a finite 4-month period. A stay of this sort would not work should the Legislature be an ongoing, year-round process. Assemblyman Brower said, since it is a limited period of time, a stay of court proceeding might be appropriate.
Senator Care pointed out the difference between an attorney working with a 100‑member firm versus a solo practitioner, and clarified the court would have discretion in that event. Assemblyman Brower agreed and disclosed he was a member of the State Bar of Nevada and, as a legislator, could benefit by A.B. 148. He said he could conceivably seek a stay and be told by the judge to appoint another attorney to handle the case, which would be within the judge’s discretion. Assemblyman Brower said it would not necessarily harm the client; therefore, it is not a problem. The Assemblyman noted the intent of A.B. 148 is to benefit the solo lawyer-legislator practitioner.
Senator Wiener noted section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 148 could affect any legislator, and Mr. Assemblyman Brower agreed. Referring to section 1, subsection 3 of A.B. 148, the Senator clarified it would be at the lawyer-legislator’s discretion to request a stay, but once requested, it must be granted. Senator Wiener made clear there is no mandate to request a stay, and Assemblyman Brower concurred. He indicated section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 148 applies to legislators who are parties to actions and is the most important part of the statute. He pointed out, despite popular belief, there are a relatively small number of lawyers in the Nevada Legislature, as well as in the United States Congress.
Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 148 and opened the hearing on A.B. 55.
ASSEMBLY BILL 55: Eliminates requirement that county jail be located at county seat. (BDR 16-795)
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, said A.B. 55 represents a proposal by Lyon County to address one of the operational concerns experienced in a large county, with growing population centers located significantly away from the county seat and historical and traditional jail facilities. He noted A.B. 55 addresses the cost of transporting jail inmates back and forth across the length of the county, and maintaining appropriate detention facilities pursuant to the needs of the population.
LeRoy Goodman, Commissioner, Lyon County Board of Commissioners, indicated A.B. 55 was brought forth due to the growth in central and northern Lyon County. He noted the city of Fernley will be incorporated July 1, 2001, and has experienced tremendous growth, as has the entire central corridor from Mound House to Silver Springs. Currently, the county jail is in Yerington and is quickly becoming inadequate. Mr. Goodman pointed out a new jail, or major remodel, is being considered. He termed A.B. 55 a “flexibility bill,” which will allow Lyon County to put a new jail, when the need comes, anywhere it is desired within the county. The commissioner said every day prisoners are transported back and forth from Yerington to Dayton, and from Yerington to Fernley for hearings. He noted arraignments are done by video; therefore, the transporting of prisoners is for actual hearings. Mr. Goodman noted, 70 percent of the population, and 70 percent of the problems, are in the Fernley-Dayton central corridor.
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, said he originally had concern regarding section 2 of A.B. 55, which took the discretion from the sheriff, or anybody else, and stated a prisoner must be housed in a facility within the township he/she is convicted. However, the language was changed to give discretion to the sheriff and/or the justice of the peace to house the prisoner in whatever location is most convenient.
Vice Chairman Porter queried whether there were interlocal agreements between counties in regard to housing prisoners. Sheriff Pierini answered a high profile inmate, who may be deemed unsafe to house in Carson City, can be transported to Douglas County or Reno. He said there is an informal agreement between sheriffs.
Vice Chairman Porter clarified the issue is the facility. Mr. Goodman said the issue in Lyon County is the cost to transport prisoners. He indicated the transport requires two deputies, and removes two cars from service, to transport prisoners back and forth from the jail to court. Vice Chairman Porter clarified the issue is not where the prisoners are jailed; it is an issue of where the jail is built. Mr. Goodman agreed and said, currently, legislation states jails must be built in the county seat.
Senator Care pointed out section 3 of A.B. 55 refers only to Eureka County, and inquired what effect the legislation would have there.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County and Lyon County, indicated she worked with representatives from Eureka County who support A.B. 55. She noted the Legislative Counsel Bureau changed the language to eliminate the jail, but the language does include the courthouse and other necessary county buildings. Ms. Walker said section 1 of A.B. 55 pertains to changes allowing the jail to be located any place the board of county commissioners deems appropriate. She pointed out current language in the statute states where prisoners are located shall be where they are charged or convicted of a misdemeanor. Douglas County, and some areas of Clark County, have a problem because current law restricts them from putting prisoners where they were charged or where the violation occurred. Ms. Walker indicated the language of section 2, subsection 1 of A.B. 55 says “may,” which gives the sheriff the ability to house the prisoners either at the county jail where the main jail is located, or a branch jail. There are many federal restrictions regarding housing of prisoners and overcrowding, which is a conflict; therefore, authority is needed to move prisoners where it is deemed necessary.
Vice Chairman Porter queried whether the language might allow the building of a joint facility between two counties. Ms. Walker stated that was not the intent, and explained the intent is to allow the board of county commissioners to place the jail within their county.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said prisoners are classified and must be moved around in a variety of ways to ensure the jails are appropriately organized. He noted the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), with a new jail in Laughlin, felt A.B. 55 was important legislation. Captain Nadeau pointed out METRO must have flexibility to move inmates around and the language in A.B. 55 accommodates that need.
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, expressed support for A.B. 55. He said the original statute, which at one point required the county jail to be in the county seat, is outdated. At this point in time the county commissioners need flexibility to build the county jail wherever they deem appropriate in order to best represent their constituents, and also to contain costs associated with transportation and housing prisoners.
There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 55 and opened the hearing on A.B. 108.
ASSEMBLY BILL 108: Makes various changes to provisions related to county clerks. (BDR 1-444)
Alan H. Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, and County Fiscal Officers Association, indicated A.B. 108 is a collection of different ideas from county clerks around the state, and it is a clean-up bill, as well. He noted sections 1, 2, and 3 of A.B. 108 conform chapter 6 of NRS to the other petition sections of the law, initiative referendum, and recall. Section 4 of A.B. 108 increases mileage for jurors from 15 cents to 20 cents per mile, and sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 108 repeal some outdated statutes on reporting.
In regard to section 4 of A.B. 108, dealing with reimbursement, Vice Chairman Porter asked why Nevada does not reimburse at the federal rate. Mr. Glover said before the hearing in the Assembly he received a memorandum from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which set the mileage at 34.5 cents per mile for the year. He noted Nevada’s reimbursement is currently half that amount. He stated there has been no opposition to raising the amount to at least 20 cents. Vice Chairman Porter inquired whether or not there would be a substantial impact on the budget should Nevada raise the reimbursement for mileage to the federal rate. Mr. Glover pointed out the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) had no problem raising the reimbursement to 20 cents; however, raising it to the federal rate had not been discussed. He said a fiscal note would probably be required. Mr. Glover mentioned this portion of A.B. 108 triggers the two-thirds vote because it is a fee increase. He said it might be worth exploring. He declared he would confer with NACO, and the other counties, to ascertain whether they can come up with a solution. Vice Chairman Porter said, “I think it is the right thing to do.”
Mr. Glover further indicated it is difficult to obtain jurors. He said Carson City is not terribly affected because the city is only 3 miles long and 1½ miles wide; therefore, mileage is not paid. The rural counties must pay mileage to obtain jurors. Mr. Glover pointed out raising the reimbursement is fair and would avoid addressing the legislators every few years to change the statute.
Continuing, Mr. Glover indicated sections 1, 2, and 3 of A.B. 108 were suggestions from Carson City, as a result of having two grand juries. He speculated Carson City is the only county that has ever used this provision of the law. It was used once in 1986 to call what is entitled a “general grand jury,” and there was no opposition to it. Politically, there were people who wanted to use the process; therefore, it went through. Mr. Glover said there was a petition last year for a very specific grand jury, which was seated approximately 1 month ago, and this process was used.
Directing the committee’s attention to the old language in section 2 of A.B. 108, lines 22 through 27, Mr. Glover pointed out it was currently in statute. He noted there was a rather controversial grand jury petition process started. He explained, when he got into it, the statute was of no help. Mr. Glover indicated he went to the Attorney General (AG) for an opinion, which lengthened the process for months. With no guidance on how to handle a grand jury, he asked questions such as: What are the time frames? What does verification of the petition mean? Mr. Glover said the AG returned with an opinion that said:
NRS 6.130(1) does not impose any specific duties upon the clerk of the district court or the county clerk registrar of voters to be followed after presentment of a verified petition for summoning of a grand jury. In the exercise of its inherent discretionary authority, however, the court can impose such procedures as are reasonably necessary to determine the statutory validity and sufficiency of the petition for the summoning of a grand jury under this section.
Mr. Glover indicated the AG also pointed out Nevada is one of a very small number of states that allow empanelment of a grand jury by citizens’ petition. The other states are Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, but unlike Nevada, those states have statutory authority explaining how it is to be handled. He said he pulled the language out of a referendum recall and the whole petition process with which normally works. Mr. Glover said the people who presented the petition were at somewhat of a disadvantage in this area because they started the process not knowing what a court would rule; therefore, neither he nor they knew the ground rules. He said he picked out existing language in other petitions and applied it to this petition.
Further, Mr. Glover said the other option offered to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was that this section of the law could be repealed, which would not allow petitioning of a grand jury by the public. However, several members of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary felt the petition should be left in, if the grand jury could not be called in any other manner. He indicated that was fine with him, and reiterated he just wanted to know the rules.
Continuing, Mr. Glover indicated section 4, subsection 4 of A.B. 108 raised the reimbursement from 15 cents to 20 cents. He pointed out the last two repealed sections [3.290 and 3.295] were suggested by Clark County Clerk, Shirley B. Parraguirre, who listed the cases that are submitted for monthly publication by the clerk to be submitted to the Supreme Court. Mr. Glover pointed out no one had ever done this before. He said Ms. Parraguirre checked with the District Attorney (DA), who was surprised the list was there. Mr. Glover indicated he checked with his chief court clerk, who has been in the courts for over 30 years, who said it had never been done. Mr. Glover said a conversation was held with the Supreme Court, and there was no opposition. He said because of the new requirements of the administrative office of the court for reporting what goes on in the courts and court cases, it is a much more modern way to inform the public of what is happening. He indicated there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, involved in software to handle and keep track of court cases. Therefore, the bill is simply asking these procedures be repealed and replaced with procedures set by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which are better and much more modern. Mr. Glover said there was no opposition to having the procedures repealed.
Senator Wiener requested an explanation of the wording in section 1, subsection 7 of A.B. 108, “A petition must not be certified as insufficient for the lack of the required number of valid signatures.” Mr. Glover indicated the language was taken out of other petitions. He explained, “If I sign a petition as Alan Glover, and I am registered to vote as Alan H. Glover, the signature cannot be thrown out.” He further explained, in the state of Louisiana, a person must sign a petition exactly the way he/she registers to vote, and if not, the petition is thrown out. Therefore, section 1, subsection 7 of A.B. 108 says, should a person sign as A.H. Glover, or Al Glover, and the signature matches and he is a registered voter, the signature must be counted.
Senator Care inquired whether a grand jury had ever been impaneled this way. He further asked whether the petition would say, “We, the undersigned, hereby petition the court to impanel a grand jury because John Smith embezzled $100,000 from our homeowner’s association and is a crook.” The Senator pointed out that is a cause of action for defamation and asked whether or not that type of situation ever occurred. Mr. Glover stated, “Absolutely.” He indicated such language was in the petition circulated recently and is part of the ongoing process the grand jury is perusing. It was more like an indictment than it was a petition. He said people can write anything they desire in petitions, and it can get very messy. Senator Care surmised it would not be privileged.
Mr. Glover referred to section 1, subsection 3 of A.B. 108, “more than one document, but all documents that are included as part of the petition.” Senator Care asked whether this language is intended to be additional pages for signatures, or does it actually contemplate incriminatory documents in support of the request for the grand jury. Answering, Mr. Glover said it was intended for additional pages of signatures for bundling.
Mr. Glover said a disturbing issue was found under present law, which is the lack of a time limit. He suggested a petition could be started today, and 20 years from now a person could say, “I have all the signatures here, verify them.” Mr. Glover asserted everyone needed to be aware of the rules so they do not go to court to discover they violated some section, or a judge arbitrarily deems they did not use the form proscribed by the Secretary of State. He indicated the first form, created in 1986, was done on sheets of paper and, like most petitions, people printed their name and address, and then signed it. The latest form utilizes the exact form provided by the Secretary of State due to concern the petition request could be thrown out on grounds it did not meet the requirements of other statutes.
Mr. Glover pointed out another question, “Do any of the initiative referendum or recall statutes apply to Chapter 6 of NRS?” The answer was, “No, they do not. They are totally separate.”
Asked when the daily fees were last adjusted, Mr. Glover estimated it might have been 10 or 20 years ago. Vice Chairman Porter said he suspected it could have a serious impact on budgets, but maintained the reimbursement is very small. Mr. Glover indicated he did not want to deal with that issue because of the budgetary impact, but agreed the amount is “ridiculous.” He noted people are giving up days of work and it is difficult for sole proprietors. Many times individuals can be excused. Government employees normally must return the check to the governing body. He asserted serving on a jury is a public duty and people must comply. Vice Chairman Porter said jury duty is a hardship for many families, particularly hourly wage earners. Mr. Glover agreed, pointing out it was an area that county clerks and NACO should study over the next two years.
From the standpoint of Clark County, Vice Chairman Porter said many times people who answer the telephones are less than pleasant and have no sympathy whatsoever for the hardships. Although he realized it was a customer-service issue, Vice Chairman Porter pointed out, adding rudeness to reimbursement of $9 per day is just not right. Mr. Glover agreed, and stated jurors should be paid quite a bit more.
Vice Chairman Porter stated, although he could not speak for Chairman James, prior to action on A.B. 180 he would like to consider some options and the impact on budgets of increasing the reimbursement, perhaps in increments. He remarked people are afraid to be summoned because they cannot afford to serve and the treatment they receive is not pleasant. He asserted jury duty is not always a good experience. Mr. Glover agreed, and indicated he would study some options.
Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 108 and opened the hearing on A.B. 110.
ASSEMBLY BILL 110: Revises provisions governing summoning of jurors by justice’s court in certain counties. (BDR 6-179)
Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District, indicated he was present to testify in support of A.B. 110. He noted the bill only applies to Clark County and, as a bill draft request, it was reviewed and approved by the judges of the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Clark County commissioners.
Mr. Loop submitted a document entitled, “Jury Trial Requests from Clark County Justice Courts in the Eighth Judicial District” (Exhibit C), which indicates that in the last 2 years there have been 48 requests for jury trials from justice courts to the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. He said 696 jurors were summoned, and 7 cases actually went to trial. They were all civil trials valued at $7,500 or less. Mr. Loop indicated, under current statute, justice courts have authority to summon jurors, but do not have the means to do so. Thus, in Clark County district courts are asked to summon jurors for them because it has the facilities, staff, software and hardware to accomplish the task. He pointed out the problem is, under NRS 66.020 and NRS 67.010, justice courts are mandated to summon jurors from their city precinct or township. Mr. Loop stated under NRS 6.045 the Eighth Judicial District Court is mandated to summon jurors from the county. Thus, there is a conflict in statute.
Continuing, Mr. Loop indicated, to date, the district court has required attorneys in all these cases to stipulate they will accept jurors from the county. The language contained in A.B. 110 is enabling and eliminates conflict between the statutes. The bill allows district courts to provide jurors to justice courts, upon request from a justice of the peace. Additionally, Mr. Loop said it simplifies the process of providing jurors to justice courts, helps move cases faster, and saves money for taxpayers because only one jury system will be required in Clark County as the demand increases for trials.
Vice Chairman Porter indicated, due to the lack of a quorum, the hearing would revert to a subcommittee.
Referring to section 3, subsection 2 of A.B. 110, to wit, “In a county whose population is 400,000 or more, the justice may summon to the court, from the qualified electors of the county, whether or not registered as voters, and not from the bystanders, the number of qualified jurors, which the justice determines is necessary for the formation of a jury,” Senator Wiener inquired how nonvoters are located. In addition, she requested an explanation of the language “not from the bystanders.”
Mr. Loop indicated Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) records are used to summon jurors and reach approximately 90 percent of those eligible to be jurors, as opposed to election records. Asked whether DMV/PS records are the only software used, Mr. Loop said at this point it is the database. The Eighth Judicial District Court is changing to a modernized jury management software package where multiple lists will be merged, which should take them into the mid-1990s. Senator Wiener pointed out if only one source is used presently there will be overlaps, inconsistencies, and the same name may come up two or three times. Mr. Loop said the current software contains a default whereby if a person has been summoned, served, or excused, there is a 3-year bypass. Senator Wiener commented if other sources are used there must be a way to eliminate duplications in order to form one database.
Regarding the language “not from the bystanders,” Mr. Loop conjectured, in the old days, justices of the peace directed their bailiffs to go out and obtain a jury. The bailiff would literally gather people from the courthouse or off the sidewalk, drag them into the courtroom, and have a trial. He said, “If I had a case pending, I am not sure whether I would want that group making a decision on my case.” Mr. Loop speculated that was the reason for that particular language. They would probably not want a person who was angry about paying a traffic ticket to serve on the jury, he remarked.
Vice Chairman Porter inquired how 65 miles was determined. Mr. Loop pointed out section 5, subsection 3 of A.B. 110 states, “A person who is the age of 65 years or over who lives 65 miles or more from the court is exempt from serving as a grand or trial juror,” is standard language and was also requested by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. He noted it is not a problem because the jury commissioner can work with a person once they are called to serve. Asked whether a person living in Laughlin or Mesquite would be outside the 65‑mile range, Mr. Loop answered both townships would be outside the 65-mile range, but he believed a jury panel could be obtained for them. Mr. Loop noted it is rare to receive a jury trial request from those townships. He said presently there is one request from Mesquite, which is the first, and only one, outside the greater Las Vegas area.
Senator Wiener inquired whether the age of 70 had been addressed. Mr. Loop answered the age was raised from 65 to 70 in the Sixty-Ninth Legislative Session, and is cited in section 5, subsection 2 of A.B. 110, “All persons of the age of 70 years or over are exempt from serving as grand or trial jurors.”
Senator Porter asked for Mr. Loop’s comments in reference to the amount of jury reimbursement. Mr. Loop said it is not enough money; however, Clark County has a one day, one trial system, and jurors are only called once every 3 years, or longer. He remarked the one day, one trial system is designed not to be as much of an imposition on an individual’s obligation to be a juror. The individual reports to the courthouse, and if not assigned to a trial, his/her obligation has been met. Vice Chairman Porter pointed out a single mother with a couple of children who works an hourly job has a serious problem losing one day of work. Mr. Loop indicated the jury commissioner has the discretion to excuse a person for economic hardship.
Vice Chairman Porter noted he received complaints about people on the telephone who are discourteous and uncaring of the problems, and whose attitude is, “We are here to do a job and you have to show up.” The Vice Chairman inquired whether the problem is in Mr. Loop’s purview. Mr. Loop answered in the affirmative and he has followed up on the complaints. He pointed out an automated system is upcoming which should be more user-friendly and allow people to use interactive voice response software. In that event, they will deal with a software package, unless they choose the option to talk to a person. Mr. Loop said it would, hopefully, improve customer service and reduce complaints.
Vice Chairman Porter requested Mr. Loop confer with Mr. Glover to come up with options in regard to increasing daily and mileage reimbursement fees, as well as the impact on the budget. Mr. Loop remarked NACO must also be involved, because an increase would place a fiscal impact upon county budgets. Mr. Loop indicated he would work with Mr. Glover on the issue.
Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 110.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: