MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 21, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:45 a.m., on Monday, May 21, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, 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 Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina (Chris) R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Heather Dion, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board
Scott Scherer, Member, State Gaming Control Board
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General
Myra A. Sheehan, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
George Wm. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Chapel of the Bells
Amy Harvey, Clerk, Washoe County
Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office
Michael Pescetta, Concerned Citizen
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender
Chairman James opened the meeting stating he would begin with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 578 found in the work session document (Exhibit C).
ASSEMBLY BILL 578: Enacts provisions governing licensing and operation of interactive gaming and revises various provisions relating to gaming.(BDR 41-531)
The chairman noted a lengthy explanation to the bill dubbed, “Omnibus Gaming Legislation,” followed by amendments proposed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Resort Association (Exhibit C, Tab A). He invited Harvey Whittemore and Dennis Neilander to testify.
Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), asked the committee to recall a previous hearing on A.B. 578 wherein the Nevada Resort Association proposed an amendment dealing with labor organizations (Exhibit D). Mr. Whittemore explained the changes in the two documents being proposed, stating he had discussions with individual members of the committee suggesting this amendment be processed as an amendment to the “work card” legislation [A.B. 466], Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie’s [Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27] bill, rather than the Internet gaming bill.
The changes requested involve an amendment to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 463A.050 (Exhibit E, page 3). In the original proposed amendment there were changes suggesting the cost of an investigation be paid by the union organization that was the subject of the investigation. That language has been taken out, and the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) returns to the original law under NRS 463A.050, Mr. Whittemore said.
Chairman James asked Mr. Whittemore for the Nevada Resort Association’s desired language with respect to the definition, and when this proposed process would start. Mr. Whittemore stated the Nevada Resort Association has proposed language (Exhibit D) which simply indicates the triggering mechanism as to when the filing would be required under this chapter. He explained, for purposes of this section, organizational activities shall include, without limitation, soliciting membership by means of any direct personal contact, distribution of interest or representation cards, or any public notices. Mr. Whittemore said the proposed language was provided with those two modifications by the labor counsel. The language, he said, was approved by Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor -Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Mr. Whittemore asked the committee to move these amendments from A.B. 578 to the “work card” legislation [A.B. 466].
Senator Care asked for an explanation of the intent of the amendment. Mr. Whittemore responded the purpose of the amendment is to trigger a process by which those unions seeking to represent gaming employees can be called forward and investigated by the State Gaming Control Board. He explained, at the initiation of these labor-organizing activities, unions have access to gaming employees, property, and a number of things. He stated there has been no change in Chapter 463A of NRS since 1975. Mr. Whittemore suggested there has been significant change in the relationships between labor and management over the years, and currently there is concern a number of union-organizing activities may involve activities the board needs to know about so Nevada Resort Association members do not get caught, as licensed employers, between appropriate versus inappropriate activities.
Senator Care said there is case law that says if the Legislature enacts this, federal law does not preempt what is being attempted here. However, playing devil’s advocate, those in the state would not have to worry unless workers elected to organize. At that time, he said, the State would have an interest. Senator Care asked, “Why would the State need to do it with simple attempts?” He said he is also questioning what is meant by the word “seeks.” Why would the State need to step in prior to the workers electing to organize?
Mr. Whittemore responded the possibility of bribes, for example, can occur prior to the election actually taking place. He said the activities causing employers the greatest concern and causing employees concern are those initiated at the start of the organizing campaign, not the end. If the end of the campaign results in a fair election, there is not a problem. The problem is when the campaign starts, because it is when you bring people onto your property in whom the state has a very significant interest, ascertaining they do not represent elements tied to inappropriate activities. It is a very serious concern because the traditional unions the NRA has dealt with for the past 25 years are not the problem; but it is those new unions with whom the resort association does not have a relationship who are potentially going to cause the state and employers, as well as the employees, significant issues, Mr. Whittemore said.
Senator Care asked if the proposed amendment is a result of the casino dealers attempting to organize. Mr. Whittemore said it is clearly one of the reasons this was brought to the attention of the resort association and the gaming industry. He added many of those entities in which the dealers are attempting to organize are not members of the resort association. Mr. Whittemore said when those activities were discussed, the resort association membership felt it was not appropriate to be subjected to some of the activities nonmember gaming entities reported, a position which caused the resort association significant problems.
Senator Care asked Mr. Whittemore about, specifically, what activities was he speaking. Mr. Whittemore said:
It is not a specific activity, and I do not want to suggest there is any one particular thing. What may be the problem is we have a new union that comes in and is not known by anyone. The new union says they want to represent your employees, and the problem is those individuals who seek to represent those employees may be people you do not want on your property at all. Without this process being in place, the board and the State of Nevada have no ability to call them forward . . .
Senator Care asked if the amendment would go to regulation of the unions themselves or just to the individuals representing the unions. Mr. Whittemore explained it would go to the regulation of the union, as it is not designed to stop the union. However, he continued, if the union says, “This person is bad,” they can self-police. The amendment would allow a mechanism for the board to come in and regulate.
Senator Care requested clarification the amendment would not stop the union; it would just stop a particular individual from particular activities. Mr. Whittemore explained the amendment would require the labor organization to say, “This is with whom we are engaging in this conduct.” He added it may very well save the union from the inability of that organization to represent employees. It is a policing mechanism from the outset. He said the Nevada Resort Association did not realize, at the time these activities were taking place, there would be a need to bring a separate bill prior to the deadline. Therefore, Mr. Whittemore said, “When we took a look at it, we felt the best approach was to put it on another bill. It is potentially a very serious situation for us.”
Chairman James recessed the meeting for 20 minutes at 9:56 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:42 a.m.
Chairman James returned to discussion of A.B. 578, the gaming bill. He asked for questions or concerns regarding the proposed amendments on page 2 of the work session document (Exhibit C) and explained the proposal to revise filing fees (Tab C) is an amendment proposed by the manufacturers of gaming equipment. It would reduce filing fees from the ones charged to the nonrestricted licensees and who would be operating Internet gaming sites from $250,000 to $75,000. On the following page, a $50,000 fee is reduced to $35,000. Chairman James asked again for any comments from the committee on this issue.
Senator Titus said she agreed with the reduction in fees because people who manufacturer the games are not going to be making the same amount of money as people who are operating the games. She added, since these other fees have been reduced to half, the Internet gaming site fee should also be reduced to 50 percent, from $250,000 to $125,000. Senator Titus asked for clarification on the auxiliary equipment involved, stating she did not see a change in rates was warranted.
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, said the peripheral equipment language would be removed if earlier amendments are adopted. He said two categories will remain: the “manufacturer,” a specifically defined category; or, for anything else associated with it, the “associated equipment” category. Mr. Neilander explained associated equipment concerns would be primarily accounting-type software designed to keep track of credits and other things not associated with the actual functioning of the game itself.
Senator Titus added, “Since we were going to drop the [filing fees for] peripheral [manufacturers by] half, we should make everything go down half (line 13 and 14 of the proposed amendment, Exhibit C, Tab C).”
Chairman James directed the committee’s attention to amendment number four, which revises the types of establishments that may be involved in interactive gaming. He said, “We have a modification of the amendment, which is under Tab D (Exhibit C). It is the proposed amendment titled ‘A.B. 578, second reprint’ (Exhibit F). This would open it up a little bit in all other counties.”
Senator Titus asked what counties were involved and Chairman James stated the counties were found on page 3, section 3, subsection 4 of A.B. 578, which was explained further by Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, who delineated the counties involved are defined by population in subsection 4 as: (a) counties with a population of 400,000 or more, which would include Clark County; (b) counties with a population of 100,000 and less than 400,000; and (c) is all other counties.
Chairman James asked for comments about the proposed amendment.
Senator Titus asked where Douglas County and Carson City were placed in the delineation, stating she did not view Douglas County as a small county because of the gaming revenues generated at Lake Tahoe casinos. She made a comparative comment about the differences between Douglas County and Nye County.
Senator McGinness supported the amendment because “the smaller counties should have an opportunity, and this amendment addresses that.”
Senator Porter said his understanding of the testimony was a critical part of the language was intended to establish a standard of who will be first on a scene internationally because of the image of Nevada. He said he did not want to diminish the original intention to establish a credible standard.
Mr. Whittemore explained his understanding of the proposal was the small counties’ standard would be reduced from the present requirement for 135 slots and 100 rooms, to 50 slots and 50 rooms, and the other language would not be changed. Referring to Senator Titus’s question, Mr. Whittemore asked if she was referring to the standards in the existing bill. He asked if it was the legislative intent for the Douglas County facilities to meet the higher standards, and said the answer was yes. He noted he understood Senator McGinness’s point that in the smaller counties there should be lower standards, and acknowledged it was contained in the provisions addressing all other counties. The provision requiring gaming establishments to have had a license for 10 years is now proposed to be reduced to having been licensed for 5 years, he said. He said in his opinion the bill does need clarification if what Senator Titus is recommending, specifically, the higher standards be made applicable to Douglas County and Carson City. He added it is appropriate to make it clear they have the ability to establish their category regarding population. Mr. Whittemore said he did not know if a population limit was appropriate because the legislation deals with the Internet. He said the same problem with trying to come up with these variations exists on the Assembly side.
Chairman James said a standard can apply to all counties with exception of Clark, Washoe, Douglas, and Carson City. He asked Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, if the statewide justification would work if the abilities for interactive gaming are in place in the excepted counties but not in the others.
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, responded, “We could certainly adopt whatever distinctions between those categories we want.”
Senator James asked for other objections or questions about amendment four. Amendment number five, he said, is to close a loophole Senator Porter brought to the committee’s attention regarding betting on a fixed sporting event. Senator James explained Tab E (Exhibit C) has the Gaming Control Board’s letter proposing language. The chairman asked for questions and then went on to proposed amendment number six.
Amendment six (Exhibit G) addresses landlords from outside of the state who run national franchises and receive gaming revenue without being subject to our state gaming laws, Chairman James said. He read the suggested language: “If the application is for a restricted license on premises not owned by the applicant, the application shall include a sworn and notarized statement from the owner of the premises stating whether the consideration paid by the applicant for use of the premise has been or will be increased because of the operation of gaming on the premises.” He explained this provision helps the Gaming Control Board determine whether, through a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, the person is seeking to get gaming revenue without being subject to the State’s suitability requirements.
Senator Porter asked if, for example, a 7-Eleven (convenience store) is going to have its rent increased because of gaming, is the landlord receiving a gaming tax.
Senator James said the amendment is included to make sure the Gaming Control Board is aware of the possibility, and so, at such time as they decide, they can ask someone to come forward and be examined for suitability. If under penalty of perjury, landlords sign statements to the Gaming Control Board stating they are not getting any money from gaming and it appears otherwise, they will have a problem with our state gaming authorities. Chairman James said this issue was brought to him by a number of small nationally franchised establishments that have restricted gaming licenses allowing them to have a few machines. Compared with other states, rent prices are substantially higher in Nevada for no justification. They are never willing to admit it is because there is gaming on the premises, he commented.
Senator Washingtonasked if the same rent disparity holds for other national businesses that do not have gaming devices. He asked, “Is there a substantial difference in the rent in those that do and do not?”
Senator Jamessaid he did not know. All this amendment is going to do is require they not raise the rent in order to get gaming revenue, because they are not supposed to be doing that. He continued, “They are subject to [Nevada’s] discretionary suitability [rule] because they are involved with the gaming licensee, since they own the property. We do not let people own the [gaming] property, unless they are suitable, but we do not require everyone to come forward [to be scrutinized] for suitability.”
Senator Washington asked if the gaming commission would be responsible for enforcing or policing this. Chairman James said the gaming commission is going to collect information over a period of time and then determine if the issue needs to be addressed.
Chairman James announced, “The motion would be to amend and do pass with all of the amendments.”
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND DO PASS A.B. 578.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator Care explained his vote:
It is with some reservation I vote against the bill. I think we all realize Internet gaming is inevitable; we want Nevada to be ready for it and ahead of anybody else. Unfortunately, we can only meet 120 days every other year, and cannot do this topic justice. My vote is not a reflection on the debate whether Internet gaming is evil; I am not even interested in that. I have several problems with this bill, which I have expressed. To me this is not gaming, but is instead e-commerce. I do not see the correlation between taxing Internet gaming the same way we tax established resorts. We really have not discussed the issue.
I am bothered by the immediacy of the licensing and application fees; there has not been any study on the figures. My fear is Internet gaming, when it comes, will be open only to the very few who can afford to get into it. I am also bothered by the fact, in Clark County, there can only be an established resort with an unrestricted license, because that cuts out the entrepreneur.
My preference would be a bill commissioning the authorities to draft regulations on the presumption Internet gaming is coming, and then the Legislature can review those regulations next session, getting into those policy issues like taxation application fees.
I do not know how we would handle problem gamblers or, individuals participating at 2 a.m. because they are lonely. We heard testimony earlier this session . . . but we did not address that.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I have to vote against the bill. I am not comfortable embracing this concept in the very short time we have had to consider it.
Senator Wiener also expressed concerns, citing attendance at numerous hearings pursuing similar legislation. She noted:
Once again, the committee is dealing with some concepts never approached before. I somewhat echo my colleague’s sentiments that doing a study and setting up the system would be a more appropriate step. I am going to reserve my right to think about the bill more before voting on the floor.
Senator Titus then voiced support of A.B. 578, stating her main reason for support is Dennis Neilander is in charge. She said, “There are very few people I would trust my life to, and Dennis is one of them. I believe that if he oversees this, we can guarantee things will be put into place, so we will be ready if Internet gaming does become legal.”
Chairman James added, “Dennis [Mr. Neilander] has been involved from the very beginning and has given me a good feeling about how this has been developed and how it will be administered.” This bill, he said, sets up a way to license Internet gaming; the legality question of it, however, is a matter of federal law.
Chairman James moved to the other gaming bill on the agenda, A.B. 466. He said the proposed amendments were on page 25 of the work session document (Exhibit C).
ASSEMBLY BILL 466: Provides for issuance of statewide work permits for gaming employees. (BDR 41-244)
Senator James said the amendment contained language developed by labor counsel and had been explained in some detail at a prior hearing.
Mr. Neilander announced there was another amendment he wished to suggest, one having nothing to do with the topic already discussed, but rather, technical in nature. The additional amendment would be to change the number of days within which an applicant files.
Mr. Neilander explained:
Currently, when the applicant files with the county or local jurisdiction issuing the card, there is a 24-hour period when that jurisdiction transmits the application to us [State Gaming Control Board]. From that period there is a 90-day window within which we review the application. Because of some changes you may have heard about with the central repository and some of the criminal records databases, we now cannot get information back from the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) within the 90-day period. We are asking you to extend the period to 120 days. It should not prejudice the applicants because they are already working; it is just a matter of us getting those records back within the time [frame].
Scott Scherer, Member, State Gaming Control Board, added the amendment would entail, in the first reprint, changes to page 3, line 16. It would change the 90-days’ reference to 120 days, making temporary work permits valid for 120 days so the applicants could continue working during that 120-day period. Then page 3, line 42, would also change the 90-day period to 120 days. Mr. Scherer said he discussed this amendment with Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27, who sponsored the bill. He said Assemblywoman Leslie does not object to the amendment. Mr. Scherer added the FBI is making some changes to its computerized system. Once it is operating, he said, it would significantly speed up the turnaround. He suggested if the committee had any concerns about this it might choose to sunset this particular provision in 2 years, and have the time period go back to 90 days. He said the Gaming Control Board would be comfortable with such a provision because the FBI will have the computer system up and operating.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 466.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Care said he appreciated the intent of the amendment, stating:
The language of [Nevada Gaming] Regulation 19, [which] we currently have, governs this for unions and representatives. There is a 1993 case [in the] Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals], Hotel Employees v. Nevada Gaming Commission. “What is required is that the statutes and regulations provide a reasonable basis for identifying the persons that have a significant impact on the gaming industry. Whether employers, employees, or collective bargaining representatives, and for applying a reporting of disclosure requirements for those persons with the objective of diminishing the threat of racketeering activity. The application of the regulations cannot place an unreasonable burden on collective bargaining representatives, or one that is unrelated to the basic objective of eliminating racketeering.
Senator Care announced he supported the amendment and the bill because the resort association has put on record the intent of the bill and it would not be used for any other purpose. He noted in a 1987 case, the Nevada Supreme Court went back and looked for legislative intent on 1975 legislation, which is currently the law. He said, “If that is the purpose of the bill, and for no other reason, and we are not trying to freeze out attempts to organize dealers or anybody else, I can support the amendment and the bill.”
Mr. Whittemore reported significant and extensive discussions with Senator Care with respect to the matter of intent. He said it is not to freeze out the notion of allowing or not allowing organizing; rather, it is to make sure the state’s interest in protecting the gaming industry from the influence of racketeering is maintained to the highest degree.
Mr. Wilkinson asked if the changes from 90 days to 120 days, or possibly to sunset, were going to be pursued. Chairman James responded, “No.”
Chairman James introduced discussion on Assembly Bill 574, the next bill on the list (Exhibit C, page 4).
ASSEMBLY BILL 574: Makes changes to provisions concerning programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs for certain offenders and provisions concerning sentencing of certain persons sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole. (BDR 16-1327)
Chairman James said there is a proposed amendment from the Fiscal Analysis Division [Legislative Counsel Bureau] to repeal the part of the statute setting payment for the cost of the program to the Department of Prisons. Currently, Chairman James explained, this statute is not utilized, and those provisions are built into the budget for the respected agencies in a different manner. He asked for a motion.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 574.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator James presented A.B. 576, which is a stay-of-execution and appeal-of-judgments bill involving tobacco litigation funds. He said there are no amendments proposed and would accept a motion.
ASSEMBLY BILL 576: Revises provisions concerning stay of execution and appeal of certain judgments. (BDR 2-1153)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 576.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James next addressed Assembly Bill 581, and the list of proposed amendments (Exhibit C, pages 5-7).
ASSEMBLY BILL 581: Makes various changes concerning orders for protection against domestic violence. (BDR 3-480)
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, said all amendments are agreed upon by the parties mentioned in the document (Exhibit C). Essentially, she explained, the amendments clarify what an officer can rely on when enforcing a foreign order of protection against domestic violence. All these concerns were fleshed out in the hearing in the Assembly committee, and they are things to help an officer understand whether an order is authentic, Ms. Hart said. On the second page, she continued, there is some clarification regarding the immunity for officers. Two of the proposed amendments came from law enforcement input and a third came from discussions with the trial lawyers, she said. Ms. Hart explained the third is an amendment to chapter 17 of NRS to clarify these might be foreign money judgments, and do not need to be registered. The whole purpose of this bill is to make sure a foreign protection order against domestic violence does not have to be registered in order to be enforced, she concluded.
Chairman James asked for questions on the amendments and then called for a motion.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 581.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James advanced to Assembly Bill 27, prohibiting juveniles from working on highways.
ASSEMBLY BILL 27: Prohibits entity that supervises juvenile who is ordered to perform work or community service from placing juvenile on highway except under certain circumstances or other dangerous situation. (BDR 5‑671)
Senator Porter opened the discussion announcing there are a number of proposed amendments (Exhibit C, pages 7-8) he described as “friendly amendments.” The first concerns making sure the supervising entities obtain permission and their rules comply with governmental regulations. He said the second amendment, suggested by Senator Washington and Mr. Garner [Val Garner, Lobbyist, City of Reno], asks for parental consent. The third amendment, Senator Porter continued, is timely notification of parents. He explained this is in reference to the tragic loss of the six young adults in Clark County.
Senator Wiener said at the hearing when the amendments were first introduced, the third amendment came about as somewhat of a law enforcement response to the second proposed amendment. And, she said, number two would be to get parental consent prior to juveniles going out to work, and number three would allow parents to know in advance where the youth would be working. She recounted, officials said it was logistically difficult to let agencies know each day where they are going to go.
Chairman James deferred to Senator Porter to handle the discussion of A.B. 27, explaining he currently represents a party involved in the litigation arising from that unfortunate accident.
Senator Porter asked if we have one amendment, do we need the other?
Senator Washington explained the second amendment was basically asking for parental consent before a juvenile worked near a highway. The third amendment, he said was based on Leonard Pugh’s (Director of Juvenile Services, Washoe County) comment, stating it was difficult to tell the parent exactly in what area the child would work, however, the parent does receive notification they will be working on a certain day and at a certain time. Senator Washington clarified, what he and Mr. Garner questioned was not how long and where they were going to work, but when, how many hours, and if the parent was notified. He added if there is some way to combine the amendments, it would be fine.
Senator Wiener said the concern law enforcement had was the “when.” She explained the language drafted in number three was because sometimes the logistics make it difficult to get on the phone and call every parent. Senator Wiener said she wondered if the intent of the “where” and the “when” was covered in the language.
Senator Porter offered, under Senator Washington’s amendment, parental consent could be obtained before juveniles do any work at all.
Senator Washington said if parental consent is granted, the specifics of location and whereabouts of the work site could be worked out.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 27.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Care noted when Speaker of the Assembly Perkins (Richard Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23) was testifying on the bill, he (Senator Care) said he was prepared to suggest an amendment. The amendment would raise the cap in cases of wrongful death associated with the state from $50,000 to $200,000. “Speaker Perkins also told me he did not want anything to get the bill killed,” Senator Care said. He added he had therefore agreed not to propose the amendment, but to suggest the issue be visited in the next legislative session.
Senator Titus said an interim study was supposed to come up with recommendations to raise those caps.
Senator Washington said he sat in on the interim study committee, which went through extensive hearings involving the state and local entities. He said there was a proposal issued and recommended, but it started in the Assembly and never made its way out. It recommended raising the cap, but the problem was the state said it did not have the money or a mechanism to meet the obligation.
Chairman James began discussion on A.B. 37, child support formula.
ASSEMBLY BILL 37: Revises provisions governing maximum monthly amount that certain parents may be required to pay for support of their children. (BDR 11-1051)
Chairman James said there are a number of proposed amendments (Exhibit C, pages 9-11). The main amendment, submitted by all of the District Attorneys, raises the cap to $550 annually. The second amendment, he said, would revise the deadline to July 1 for determining the new obligations of support based on the consumer price index. This would provide the time frame for which the amount applies, a fiscal year, July through June calendar year, he said. The chairman continued the Trial Lawyers Association proposed to change the December 15 deadline for determining the amount and to increase the cap for each salary range.
Senator Porter verified with Myra A. Sheehan, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, she supported the language from the Assembly for her amendment.
Chairman James asked Ms. Sheehan if she supported the third amendment. Ms. Sheehan replied, “No, we do not.”
Chairman James asked if anyone supported changing the income ranges to $75,000.
Senator Washington questioned Ms. Sheehan asking:
Myra [Ms. Sheehan], if we implement this bill and pass it out, what is the cause and effect? Are we going to lose more on the back end from actually paying child support or the front end for those that can afford it? Are the numbers going to decrease from those that are not going to pay child support? Is it a concern?
Ms. Sheehan responded:
Senator Washington, the cause and
effect of this bill is that it is going to increase the cap for child support,
but only as a presumed cap. The court
continues to have the ability to deviate from the child support formula, up or
down. It does not affect anybody who
does not reach the cap, so the 18 percent is still in place for one child and
25 percent for two children. What it
has done is increase the cap at a certain level for each income level. The Assembly brought it up on a scale for
each income level only if you reach the
cap. So, what it will do is increase
the child support obligation of those people that make more money, [to more]
than they have been obligated to pay in the past.
Senator Washington said, as a person who works with people at the impoverished level, “Once they get caught in that loop, it is typical for them not to get out of it and they never get caught up.”
Ms. Sheehan assured Senator Washington the people about whom he is concerned are not affected by this bill. She explained the bill affects those people who reach the cap because they have higher gross incomes.
Chairman James noted the committee declined to process amendments 3, 4, or 5 (Exhibit C), and they would be eliminated.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 37.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The next bill discussed was Assembly Bill 82, which relates to meeting costs for certain temporary and extended orders.
ASSEMBLY BILL 82: Makes various changes concerning orders to protect person from crime of stalking, aggravated stalking and harassment. (BDR 15-35)
Ms. Hart opened the discussion stating, “The sole purpose for this amendment (Exhibit C, page 11) is to bring Nevada into compliance with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which supplies $1.2 million in annual funding to the state of Nevada.”
Senator Washington announced he was voting against the
bill. He explained he is against
domestic violence but his fear is if there is an altercation or dispute
and if someone chose to “get back at somebody” by filing a false affidavit and
having an order served at that person’s workplace, it could potentially cause
problems.
Senator Care recalled the day this bill was first heard Senator Washington raised his concerns about it. He suggested Senator Washington’s concern might be the subject of a different bill down the line and added there were other policy reasons for enacting this bill as amended. Senator Care said he has, in Senator Washington’s absence, raised Senator Washington’s reservations.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 82.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman James recessed the meeting at 11:32 a.m.
He reconvened at 11:45 a.m. Chairman James returned to A.B. 82 and asked for a motion.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 82.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James announced he would accept another motion as Senator Washington had his questions answered and would like to vote in favor of the bill.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 82.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 254, which makes changes regarding marriages and marriage licenses. He said he was not present for the first discussion but understood there were some amendments (Exhibit C, Tab H; and Exhibit H).
ASSEMBLY BILL 254: Makes various changes to provisions governing marriage. (BDR 11-95)
Senator Porter asked if the law allows these changes to happen.
Chairman James responded he understands the changes are allowable under the law, but added if the committee was not in support of the proposed amendments found in Tab H (Exhibit C), he would consider a motion to do pass.
Senator Washington asked how the bill is altered by the amendments. He said he had performed some weddings, and it was not unusual for people to come forward and renew their vows.
George Wm. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Chapel of the Bells, stated he was concerned about first seeing the proposed amendments (Exhibit C, Tab H) an hour and a half prior to this work session. He said the amendments would create a whole new level of marriage in Nevada vow renewals. Currently vows are renewed with a certificate in 15 Nevada counties. He said the original objective of this legislation was to clarify the language. Mr. Flint expressed:
I sincerely believe that this eleventh-hour approach on the part of Washoe County to bring forth eight pages of amendments is unnecessary. For 4 months, several of the counties and several of the chapels have attempted to get Washoe County to sit down and work with us, and [the county has] refused. So an hour and a half ago, the issue has been somewhat muddied with eight pages of frivolous amendments that do not need to be addressed. The bill is a good bill, and it had several hearings. I believe that all it accomplishes is to confuse everybody involved. The particular amendment that you have in front of you (Exhibit H), was [proposed] because there was some concern from two of your members that licenses for vow renewals should carry the verbiage issued . . . Most of the counties do this. To attempt to make our opposition happy, we put it into the law. Then there would be no question that if it is a couple renewing their vows, then the license would say so.
Senator Care pointed out that which is already licensed cannot be licensed again. He said the concern was what was needed for a simple renewal of a marriage vow would not be a license of original marriage, but something demonstrating it is a renewal of vows. Senator Care said, “I do not know if the bill currently does that, but the amendment would do it.”
Senator Titus added, “If this would make people feel more comfortable, then let us put it in there.”
Amy Harvey, Clerk, Washoe County, said Washoe County supports the portions of A.B. 254 submitted as amendments (Exhibit C, Tab H and Exhibit H).
Chairman James explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit H) would say the license is issued for renewal of vows for an already married couple. He asked Ms. Harvey if she supported the amendment. She responded, “Yes, I believe so, from what I have heard here.”
Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County said she had nothing to add if the motion is just for that one amendment.
Chairman James asked for any further testimony.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said her organization supports A.B. 254. Ms. Lusk said:
Washoe County has raised again an issue
raised in the Assembly of the potential for this legalizing same-sex
marriage. We were assured in the
Assembly by the Legislative Counsel Bureau that was not the case, and I would
simply like to ask for reassurance it would not be the case. There was an amendment proposed on the
Assembly side to resolve it. The
Legislative Counsel Bureau said the amendment was not needed, since Nevada law
is currently male and female, it would remain.
Is that the case?
Chairman James asked if there was a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.
Ms. Lusk responded affirmatively, stating it is to be voted on again. She said this bill would not expand marriage licensing. Ms. Lusk continued all the amendments Washoe County offered and, additionally, what they have been saying is they think the renewal of vows would open it up to couples married elsewhere. Ms. Lusk said she would like to be assured that would not be the case.
Mr. Flint offered to allay Ms. Lusk’s fears by reading some of the particulars from A.B 254:
On page 2 of the bill, NRS 122.020, section 4, says, “A male and a female person, at least 18 years of age . . . may be joined in marriage.” Further down it says a legally married couple may obtain a license to renew their vows. It does not change any existing language, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau assured us it would not open the door for what Ms. Lusk is speaking to. We had gone with an amendment to clarify it further, and were told it was not necessary. I believe if you read the existing language, it keeps marriage in Nevada strictly male and female, which means vow renewals would have to be strictly male and female.
Mr. Wilkinson stated he did not agree. He said the language of A.B. 254 is certainly open to confusion, based on the fact the renewal-of-vow ceremonies would not be limited to people who were married in Nevada. Presumably, he continued, a legally married couple coming from another jurisdiction could be a male-male couple or a female-female couple. Mr. Wilkinson said the language could be clarified.
Mr. Flint reported the amendment presented in the Assembly, which was ruled unnecessary, was three words on line 12, page 2, saying, “issue of marriage license to legally married ‘male and female’ couple.” He claimed the counsel bureau from the Assembly said it was not necessary to clarify “male and female” couple. Mr. Flint said, “But, if you would be so inclined, I would be most grateful to put that matter to rest by inserting between the word ‘married’ and ‘couple,’ the simple words, ‘male and female.’”
Chairman James queried whether people who had a same-sex marriage legal somewhere else could get their vows renewed in Nevada.
Mr. Flint responded, “We do not want to do that. That would make some people nervous.”
Chairman James then asked if Nevada has to give full faith and credit under the constitution to a marriage valid in another state.
Mr. Wilkinson answered:
Mr. Chairman, that is a rather complex question, and it is not entirely clear. There was the Defense of Marriage Act [House Resolution 3396 of the 103rd Congress], which was passed by Congress, and there are certain limitations. This bill does not imply that, because it is talking about a renewal of vows as opposed to an actual marriage ceremony. However, [with regard to] the impact of the constitutional amendment, if adopted, [I am] not sure how that might play into the renewal of vows.”
Chairman James stated he did not think same-sex marriage applied to A.B. 254.
Ms. Lusk agreed, reiterating the issue had been raised creating the necessity for a clear record stating it is not the intent of this committee.
Chairman James repeated: “It is not the intent of the bill to change the law regarding whom you can marry in Nevada. That will be dealt with in another forum.”
Senator Care asked what would be the legal effect of renewing vows. He said he has come to the conclusion the bill is fine as it is.
Ms. Lusk added, there is some question about the legal
effect of the renewal of vows, including considerable discussion regarding the
renewal of vows “fixing” a previous marriage problem and there remains some
question in that regard.
However, Ms. Lusk stated, if the committee makes a clear record of its intent,
coupled with the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s opinion it would not be the
effect, then it would be sufficient.
Senator Titus responded she intended to make a motion, adding some of the questions being raised had even occurred to her and were not her intention either.
Senator Porter announced he had met with Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County Assembly District No. 25, this morning and she is opposed to the bill and she supports Washoe County’s opposition to the bill.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 254.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman James moved on to Assembly Bill 327, regarding the penalty hearing for first-degree murder. He said he did not know what the committee’s sentiment was adding, “We have processed a comprehensive bill where we had substantial discussion on a moratorium on the death penalty so all of these things could be studied.”
ASSEMBLY BILL 327: Revises order in which arguments must be presented during penalty hearing in cases where death penalty is sought. (BDR 14‑1082)
Senator McGinness queried the status of the study bill, stating he had heard it died in the Assembly. He suggested all these issues be included in that study.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, reported what remains is Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 21. Ms. Waldron said it is known as the death penalty study and scheduled to be heard tomorrow in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of issues regarding death penalty and related DNA testing. (BDR R-1265)
Assemblywoman Christina (Chris) Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District 9, confirmed Assemblyman Bernie Anderson’s study committee bill will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics tomorrow. However, she said, the bill that came over from the Senate and is alive and well did not get the votes to move out of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary last week. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she spoke with the chairman of the Assembly judiciary committee who said the bill has not died, but it has not passed. Today’s agenda in the committee includes a huge amount of work session legislation, she said. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said A.B. 327 deals with the rules, rather than warranting a study on how it will be argued. She added, if there is another death penalty case, it allows for rebuttal to occur.
Senator Washington reiterated the bill passed out of this committee is still sitting in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, which has a comprehensive study measure. Then there is an Assembly Concurrent Resolution that has not made it over here, he repeated, adding, “I agree with my colleague, Senator McGinness; it would be nice to put this all in one study, as opposed to passing out bits and pieces.“
Michael Pescetta, Concerned Citizen,pointed out the moratorium bill provides death penalty hearings can still continue during the period of the moratorium. He said A.B. 327 allows the defense the last argument in the penalty phase, which would occur whether or not the moratorium bill survives. It, he explained, was not a part of the study subjects from the moratorium bill from the Senate Committee on Judiciary. He expressed the opinion A.B. 327 is an improvement that should be considered and dealt with now because it is not part of the study subject.
Senator Care said it seemed any study would be so comprehensive this subject would be a part of the study. Senator Care repeated, “I think the bill stands independently and I am prepared to vote on it.”
Senator Porter noted he was concerned A.B. 327 might be in conflict with an earlier bill passed referring to the victims of crimes’ last testimonies. He asked if there was a conflict.
Mr. Wilkinson assured Senator Porter A.B. 327 deals with death penalty hearings, and the other was regarding sentencing hearings for any other crime.
Chairman James asked Mr. Pescetta if most other states allow defense counsel to present last in death penalty hearings. Mr. Pescetta responded most states do allow the defense to argue last. However, he added, he did not have a list of states available.
Chairman James said he would accept a motion.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 327.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MCGINNESS AND SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO).
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 328, regarding the restoration of civil rights.
ASSEMBLY BILL 328: Makes various changes concerning sealing of criminal records and restoration of civil rights. (BDR 14-122)
Chairman James said the amendments are found at Tab I (Exhibit C). He explained he had proposed them to remove all the inconsistent sections of A.B. 328. Then, he said, the consistence amendments were the ones raised in response to his amendments to deal with the issues. Chairman James said subsection 1 amendments can be stricken. He explained the committee would be adopting the consistence amendments to clarify the language.
Ms. Lusk commented the issues she raised were mainly issues of confusion in the language. She indicated the amendment resolves the confusion in language, however, Ms. Lusk continued, it leaves the question of what would be placed before the judge when he is not really making a decision. She explained if, in fact, the person has received a pardon, then restoration is automatic; and if it is worthy of the judge’s time, the amendment responds to it. She stated her issue was a question of confusion and clarification.
Chairman James asked for a motion.
Senator Washington asked if sealing the records would allow civil rights to be restored for voting, running for office, and other things. He also asked whether the specified time frames included any probationary period and time served in jail.
Mr. Wilkinson explained the sealing of records is a completely separate issue from the restoration of civil rights, stating those things are not linked. As to the Senator’s second question, Mr. Wilkinson said, the period after which the records could be sealed is basically from the latest event, which is usually release from custody.
Senator Care added the court has discretion. He explained, the practice is if a person seeks to have the records sealed, his counsel files a petition, which is part of a simple kit, which is the procedure if the District Attorney has reason to oppose the sealing of records.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 328.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James directed the committee’s attention to Assembly Bill 331, dealing with background checks on volunteers.
ASSEMBLY BILL 331: Makes various changes concerning dissemination of records of criminal history by central repository for Nevada records of criminal history. (BDR 14-304)
Senator Titus voiced appreciation for the concern of Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Clark County Assembly District No. 13, who sponsored the bill, to have the safest and best people working as volunteers. However, she said, there is a lot of opposition to this bill. Senator Titus said:
[There is opposition from] everybody from Bridgehouse [Bridgehouse Ministries International] to the Girl Scouts, and I do not think this is workable at this time. It puts a cost on the volunteers, and it is hard enough to get people to be civically active and volunteer. I would suggest we not process this bill.
The chairman asked for a motion.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 331.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 353, regarding the prohibition of the death penalty for the mentally retarded. He repeated his statement regarding the comprehensive moratorium study, which would allow all of these issues to be studied.
ASSEMBLY BILL 353: Prohibits sentence of death for person who is mentally retarded. (BDR 14-801)
Mr. Pescetta said two competing study bills are pending, but during the interim, the judiciary committee and this Legislature should join Missouri, Arizona, and Florida and say, “Executing the mentally retarded is wrong, no matter what happens in other areas of the death penalty.” Mr. Pescetta said he did not think comments made in prior testimony (by David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Office of the Attorney General), which are included in the work session document (Exhibit C, pages 16 and 17), were accurate. Mr. Pescetta asked if Chairman James would entertain any discussion of those issues. Mr. Pescetta said he thought A.B. 353 would bring Nevada into line with the laws in other states not allowing mentally retarded people be subject to the ultimate penalty.
Mr. Pescetta continued, the ex parte hearing is not an ex parte hearing on the issue of mental retardation itself, but on what evidence might otherwise be privileged.
Mr. Pescetta discussed the various time frames specified in A.B. 353, point two in the document (Exhibit C, page 16), stating those can be extended. He said the terminology of the bill is “not less” than x number of days and suggested the parties can always agree to extend those. Mr. Pescetta said the appeal provision is beneficial because if part of the function of excluding the mentally retarded from the death penalty is to avoid an expenditure of resources on a capital trial, the sooner the determination is made, the better.
Finally, Mr. Pescetta said, the effective date of the bill (Exhibit C, page 17) could be made fully retroactive. He said:
I have to say, this is something where the better should not become the enemy of the good, and something where we can make clear to the Governor, who has a pardon application for a client of mine [who is mentally retarded], this Legislature does stand against executing people who suffer from mental retardation.
Chairman James responded to Mr. Pescetta:
Which is the reason you would have a comprehensive analysis of this, and a discussion with time to gather the evidence of how to define mental retardation. Also, how other states do it and how the litigation would be affected. It would be the most enlightened approach, and then in the meantime, not carry out any death sentences for a period of 2 years while it is accomplished.
Mr. Pescetta agreed with the chairman about the most enlightened approach. However, he said, “For clients that I have, and for people that are coming up who suffer from mental retardation, I think we need to exclude this category now.”
Senator Care asked Mr. Pescetta to explain why it is necessary to have the ex parte hearing retained in the bill as it is now.
The ex parte hearing, Mr. Pescetta said, is to allow the defense to submit to the court all the evidence it may have that might be privileged and not disclosable. Then, he continued, the court can make a judgment of how much of the evidence must be disclosed to the prosecution for the purpose of the public hearing.
Senator Care queried about an in-camera submission. Mr. Pescetta replied, for the purposes of this bill, an in-camera submission would be fine.
Senator Titus stated mentally retarded people absolutely should not be executed. However, she continued, “I voted for a bill that said we would have a moratorium on the death penalty, and this would be one of the things we would study. I would suggest that we not process this bill until we see what happens on the Assembly side.”
Chairman James said he agreed and announced, “No action.”
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 370, orders for protection against workplace harassment. He said he had some concerns with the bill, as did Senator Titus.
ASSEMBLY BILL 370: Authorizes employers to obtain orders for protection against harassment in workplace and establishes procedures for obtaining such orders. (BDR 3-720)
Chairman James proposed the language be narrowed to apply to more serious acts such as harassment, as it is defined in the law, which would cause a reasonable person to be fearful.
Mr. Wilkinson read the NRS 200.571 definition of harassment, “The person by words or conduct places the person receiving a threat in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.” He said it refers specifically to a threat to cause bodily injury.
Chairman James said the first thing necessary is to narrow the scope of the bill to the defined conduct. He stated, “We have an existing definition of harassment in the law, which is a criminal definition. It should provide the appropriate due process notice of the crime.” The chairman continued, it is a prior restraint on certain activities, and needs to be defined narrowly.
The second problem, Chairman James said, is the order issued for an indefinite period of time, without notice, and without any bond. He said A.B. 370 needs to provide that every reasonable effort to give notice will be obtained. Then, he said, there needs to be an affidavit submitted to the court documenting every reasonable effort notice, prior to the issuance of the initial order, has failed. Only on the faith of the affidavit, Chairman James said, can the court issue an ex parte order, and the ex parte order cannot exceed 15 days. Within 15 days, notice is given, he explained, and the parties come back in front of the court, at which time the court could enter an order for a full-blown hearing.
With respect to the payment of attorney’s fees and costs, Chairman James said he saw no reason to put a provision in the law allowing one side of the litigation to get attorney’s fees and costs, but not the other side. Rather, he suggested, it should just say the prevailing party is entitled to apply to the court for attorney’s fees and costs after a full-noticed hearing.
Chairman James added he saw no reason to include a good faith amendment because he said it was already addressed in section 17 (Exhibit C, page 18).
Ms. Hart agreed, stating she believed a good faith requirement is in section 17, subsection 1, paragraph (a). She said she had another minor amendment to make an important clarification in section 12 (Exhibit I). She stated it clarifies section 9, subsection 3, paragraph (b), regarding when an officer can act on a violation of this order to arrest, with or without a warrant, if the person has received a copy of the order.
Chairman James described the amendment as fine and good. He asked if everyone understood the amendments and opened the discussion for any questions or comments.
Senator Care said he understood the first and second amendments (Exhibit C), but did not recall the third one. The chairman responded the specific language is not one of the amendments.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 370.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James called a recess at 12:31 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 12:41 p.m., and opened discussion on Assembly Bill 394, stating there is a minor amendment not supported by the sponsor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 394: Requires court to advise defendant of immigration consequences of plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (BDR 14-1088)
Chairman James said the amendment is pretty minor and concerns the language “without limitation” (Exhibit C, page 19). He said, on page 4, lines 45 and 46, it reads, “My attorney has answered all my questions regarding this guilty plea agreement and its consequences including without limitation immigration consequences if any.” He said that was the concern.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 394.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 417, dealing with domestic violence cases. He said it amends the “burning bed” defense put in place in 1993.
ASSEMBLY BILL 417: Revises provisions concerning admissibility of evidence in certain cases involving domestic violence. (BDR 4-1175)
Chairman James credited testimony from Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, “and company,” who said this “makes the evidence work properly, so it goes for or against.”
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 417.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The chairman moved on to Assembly Bill 429, protecting children from abused and neglect, and termination of parental rights.
ASSEMBLY BILL 429: Makes various changes concerning protection of children from abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights and guardianships of minors. (BDR 38-294)
Chairman James announced Senator Porter heard this bill initially and there were a substantial number of amendments (Exhibit C, pages 20-23), but the amendment is the same in each section, deleting the statutory reference to NRS 432B.410. He asked Ms. Combs what the effect of that is.
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, responded, “There was a concern whether it was technical or not. The Legal Division [Legislative Counsel Bureau] concluded originally in drafting it may cause some people confusion. As it is drafted it is consistent throughout the chapter.”
Chairman James asked for clarification the proposed amendment is technical in nature and there are no problems with it.
Mr. Wilkinson said, “It could go either way, I do not think it really matters. There are quite a few sections that refer NRS 432.410 . . . It was necessary to cut a few sections out of that inclusive reference so the NRS, standing on its own, does not make any sense. So, we could go ahead and do that if it would make it easier to understand.”
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, requested the committee include the provision as a being an important way to force the agencies to get the reports to the attorneys ahead of time. He said the time frame proposed was satisfactory.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 429.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James said next is the unarmed combat bill, A.B. 446.
ASSEMBLY BILL 446: Revises provisions relating to unarmed combat. (BDR 41-1195)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 446.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Next, Chairman James announced the issuance of gaming tokens by the State of Nevada is on the agenda, A.B. 456. Senator James said A.B. 456, which provides for the issuance of gaming tokens by the state, has raised substantial concerns about using the artifact historical minting press to press commercial amounts of anything.
ASSEMBLY BILL 456: Provides for issuance of gaming tokens by State of Nevada. (BDR 19-506)
Senator Titus said, “I do not think the State needs to get into the business of making gaming tokens.”
But, Senator Washington said:
I kind of like the bill, and it is not mandatory that they do it. It is permissive language, and would add validity and value to the State when we set up these gaming tokens. I know the Stateis notinit to develop and pass out tokens, but it does bring in some small revenue. That revenue could be used to maintain and keep the press operating.
Chairman James said, “I was very concerned because we had all the history and museums . . . here in opposition to this, based on the notion this is something we should be looking at and learning about, but not using to run coins. There is no limitation on the number of designs.”
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 456.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.)
*****
Next, Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 500, which calls for a study to determine if racial profiling plays a part in traffic stops in certain areas of the state.
ASSEMBLY BILL 500: Directs Attorney General to conduct study of traffic stops by Nevada Highway Patrol and by law enforcement officers in certain counties. (BDR 23-386)
Chairman James noted the amendments (Exhibit C, pages 26-27), and proposed not processing the amendment regarding the meaning of “reason.”
Senator Titus said, “Under amendment 2, let us say to use ‘comparable’ but not ‘similar.’ I would move we accept amendment 1, amendment 2, [and] under amendment 3, only item (b).”
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 500.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James said Assembly Bill 547, regarding changes of securities, had no proposed amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 547: Makes various changes to provisions governing securities. (BDR 7-502)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 547.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The next bill, Assembly Bill 33, dealing with trusts for the care for animals, was introduced by Chairman James.
ASSEMBLY BILL 33: Expressly validates trust for care of animals. (BDR 13-17)
Senator McGinness said he thought testimony in this committee had indicated this could be done now, and A.B. 33 was not necessary.
Senator Care concurred with Senator McGinness stating, “That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I talked to one of my partners who has been doing this, and she stated a good practitioner could do this with available law.” Senator Care stated he was not convinced of a need for the bill, and intended to vote against it.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 33.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE AND SENATOR MCGINNESS VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Assembly Bill 305, dealing with video voyeurism.
ASSEMBLY BILL 305: Prohibits video voyeurism and distribution of product of video voyeurism. (BDR 15-118)
Chairman James proposed amending the bill to make the crime one where it is done for financial gain, and where the videotape records the person in some state of undress.
Senator Titus voiced support, stating, “I would certainly support that because I think it is much too broad right now and creates a bad situation. I know we heard these awful examples, but I think the way you suggest limiting it is much better.”
Mr. Wilkinson asked for clarification of the change. He said, “Are you changing ‘for the purpose of sexually arousing . . . himself or other persons’ to the specific intent being ‘financial gain’?”
Senator James responded, “We are adding to [it] the specific intent of financial gain.”
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 305.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator James said next is A.B. 397, which would amend the hearsay rule.
ASSEMBLY BILL 397: Provides for admissibility in evidence of certain statements made by unavailable declarants. (BDR 4-997)
Chairman James said a number of concerns were raised and noted there is a catchall hearsay rule now, so he did not see any reason for this.
Senator Titus agreed, stating it was in the statute already.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 397.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James asked, “Do you remember A.B. 77 was the change in the unclaimed property division, [in] which we accepted one of the versions that would raise $11 million for the General Fund by making these changes? We referred it to finance [the Senate Committee on Finance] and they do not have time to deal with it. We need to rescind our action, and amend and do pass it.”
ASSEMBLY BILL 77: Revises provisions governing unclaimed property. (BDR 10-410)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 77.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 77.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James opened discussion on Senate Bill 36, the forfeiture bill.
SENATE BILL 36: Revises provisions governing forfeiture of property. (BDR 14‑14)
Chairman James said the bill was amended in the Assembly so 70 percent of the money in excess of $100,000 remaining in the account at the end of each fiscal year is determined based upon the accounting standards of the governing body controlling the law enforcement agency in place March 1, 2001. The effect of the amendment is to make the $100,000 an annual number rather than a quarterly number, as a base above which 70 percent is distributed to the school districts. Chairman James said, “I fully agree with this.”
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 597 TO S.B. 36.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator James next discussed Senate Bill 204, which relates to substances and revises the definition of “manufacturer.”
SENATE BILL 204: Revises definition of “manufacture” of substance. (BDR 40 ‑470)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 676 TO S.B. 204.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James began discussion of Senate Bill 34, which relates to guardianship.
SENATE BILL 34: Revises provisions relating to appointment of temporary guardians and to investment for minors of their proceeds of compromises from legal disputes. (BDR 13-1070)
Looking over S.B. 34 as amended in the Assembly, Chairman James noted, “They took out ‘psychologist.’”
Ms. Combs added, “One of the sections of the bill dealt separately with situations involving financial loss, and the [psychologists’] certificate portion was not included in that. The Assembly amended the bill; for adults the certificate from the physician would be required.”
Chairman James said he had requested this bill and did not have a problem with this amendment.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 679 TO S.B. 34.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator James said, “The last one is S.B. 87, Senator Wiener’s bill, relating to domestic violence.
SENATE BILL 87: Provides that minor who needs assessment, evaluation or counseling as result of battery which constitutes domestic violence against certain other persons is eligible for compensation from fund for compensation of victims of crime. (BDR 15-854)
Chairman James asked Senator Weiner what the Assembly had done to S.B. 87, and she responded, “They gutted it, but they did preserve the section that children of domestic violence could be included in the definition of victim.”
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 677 TO S.B. 87.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Without further business to address, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 1:06 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann Bednarski,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: