MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

February 11, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Tuesday, February 11, 2003.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Grady

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dean Heller, Secretary of State of Nevada

Susan Bilyeu, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State

Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County

Alan Glover, Nevada Association of Court Clerks

Joshua Hansen, Independent American Party

Christopher Hansen, Independent American Party

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting as a quorum.

Michelle Van Geel, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, serving as Committee Policy Analyst, presented a Committee Brief (Exhibit C).  Measures heard in the Committee pertained to Title 17, the State Legislative Department; Title 24, Elections; and portions of Chapter 281, Ethics in Government.  Ms. Van Geel said the Committee would select the topics that would be studied in the interim.  During the 2001 Session, the Committee was referred 27 bills, 16 of which were enacted into law, and ten resolutions, seven of which were adopted.  Topics on those measures ranged from assisting the elderly and disabled persons during elections, changing reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures, and redistricting and reapportionment.

 

Ms. Van Geel discussed voter turnout for general elections.  In the 2002 election, 58.9 percent of registered voters had voted.  It was up 10 percent over the previous non-presidential general election.  She also spoke of some of the legislative proposals that might come before the Committee during the 2003 Legislative Session.  The list of measures was compiled using the bill draft request (BDR) list that was published by the Legal Division.  The BDRs in the Committee brief were organized into three categories: Elections and Campaign Practices, Ethics in Government, and Legislative Affairs. 

 

Ms. Van Geel concluded her presentation with a list of key election officials in Nevada, which included representatives from the Secretary of State’s Office, county clerks, and members of the Commission on Ethics.  She let the Committee members know that if they needed any information on previous legislation or upcoming legislation, she would be happy to get that for them.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that the Research Division always did an excellent job.  According to Committee rules, if something needed to be researched based on Committee work, they would need to go through the Chair.  If it was research for a Committee member’s individual bill, the member could go directly through Research.

 

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, gave an overview of the State of the Election Report  (Exhibit D).  He said one of the goals of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (Exhibit E) was to avoid what happened in Florida after the last federal election.  Mr. Heller stated the key issues were butterfly punchcards, lack of uniform standards from county to county, and numerous complaints of voters having access to the ballot box.  HAVA dealt specifically with federal elections.  As Secretary of State, Mr. Heller believed that the rules that dictated the federal races must also dictate our statewide races.  It would be difficult to have separate rules.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if HAVA took statutory authority, or if it was limited in the federal statute.  Mr. Heller stated his office had submitted bill drafts that touched on those issues, and those bill drafts would be coming before the Committee.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that the punchcard was not a problem in Nevada.  She went on to say that the Secretary of State and State regulations had done a good job, so Nevada was not operating under the same type of imperative as Florida.  Mr. Heller said there were some states that had more problems than Florida.  The reason Florida was highlighted was because they had 25 electoral votes, and those votes had made a difference in that presidential race.  New Mexico had more problems than Florida but only had a fraction of the electoral votes.  Other states experiencing problems were Illinois, Oregon, and California.

 

When asked if what happened in Florida could happen in Nevada, Secretary of State Heller said that Nevada had good recount procedures, Clark County had a modern direct record system (DRE); there were standards in place for determining voter intent for all voting systems; and butterfly ballots were not used.  However, there were still punchcard systems in Nevada, and there was not a statewide voter registration system in place.  Most election officials believed one of the best ways to avoid election fraud would be to have a uniform statewide voter registration system. 

 

Mr. Heller stated HAVA placed more responsibilities on the states.  If the Department of Justice had a concern and wanted to investigate, they would look at the states.  They would go after the Secretaries of State, not the counties.  The federal government authorized $3.8 billion for the HAVA bill.  Nevada must develop a state plan in order to receive approximately $25 million of the federal money.  Of that $25 million, $20 million was subject to development of the state plan, and $5 million would be “free money.”

 

Susan Bilyeu, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, presented the Committee with an overview of the HAVA requirements.  She felt the biggest hurdle was the implementation of a computerized statewide voter registration system by January 1, 2004.  Ms. Bilyeu provided a list of BDRs her office would be introducing during the 2003 Legislative Session (Exhibit F).  BDR 413 sought to establish a statewide voter registration system.  An amendment would be added to exempt them from the Request for Proposal (RFP) process due to the short time frame involved.

 

Assemblyman Anderson brought up the problems various state agencies had experienced with their computer systems and asked Ms. Bilyeu why she felt their system would be more successful than those of other state agencies.  Mr. Heller stated that the federal mandate required the new system to be in place by January 1, 2004, and it would be an incredibly large ordeal.  He said there were options in the bill to defer and request additional time, but he said that would subject the state to loss of funding.  Mr. Heller said his office would need the Legislature’s help in allowing them to avoid the RFP process, because that alone would take four to six months before they could select a vendor, and they only had eleven months to implement the system.

 

Ms. Bilyeu stated that Clark County, Washoe County, and Carson City had implemented their own voter registration systems within the past five years.  Her office hoped to take their knowledge and experience and work closely with them in implementing the statewide system and creating a system that would work for Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Anderson said he presumed that Ms. Bilyeu’s office had done a preliminary examination of the systems that were in place in the three large voting areas that she had identified.  Ms. Bilyeu said there were three vendors in place:  Election Systems and Software (ES&S), which the majority of counties used; Diebold, which had bought out Data Information Management Systems (DIMS); and Votec in Clark County.  Mr. Anderson asked if the preliminary investigation by the Secretary of State’s Office had determined whether the systems were compatible or not.  Ms. Bilyeu responded that the bill called for one unified system.  She said compatibility would not be an issue, as they were required to choose one vendor and one system.  Mr. Anderson then asked if one of the counties would have to give up their system.  Mr. Heller answered by stating his office had been in contact with all of the vendors, and the vendors had assured him they could do the job by the first of the year and could make all of the systems compatible. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked where in public law she could find the definition of implementation of statewide voter registration.  Ms. Bilyeu said it could be found in Section 303(a)(1)(A).  Ms. Giunchigliani did not see the definition being as explicit as what was stated by the Secretary of State.  She thought they had an option to define what was meant by a statewide system.

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, stated that on page 1708 it did say, “uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration” system.  Ms. Parker went on to say that they had attended several conferences with some of the congressional staffers who had drafted the bill, and in the conference committee report, the House and Senate Conference Committee approved the final version of the bill with specific language stating that interfacing of several different vendors’ systems was not acceptable and what they were contemplating was one vendor.  In response to Mr. Anderson’s questions, Ms. Parker said there was another wrinkle, in that the system had to interface with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Social Security, and Vital Statistics.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what the penalty would be if Nevada said “no” to the federal government regarding implementation of the statewide system.  Ms. Parker replied that some of the congressional staffers threatened to withhold highway funds.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that we could threaten to withhold any taxes that we collect here and not send them on to the federal government.  Ms. Parker said if Nevada did not comply with HAVA, it would risk becoming a preclearance state.  Once a state was determined to be a preclearance state, everything that state did regarding an election would be run through the Department of Justice first.  She said there was an enforcement section in Title IV of the act that specifically stated the Department of Justice would come in and look at the system.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said perhaps they would love what was being done in Nevada.  From her understanding, DMV records were far more than just voter registration records in each of the local governments.  She stated it was wrong of the federal government to not recognize that fact and to make them have to go spend more money.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani went on to say that the intent was to comply.  She said there would be a way to get a program up and running that could feed the Secretary of State’s system, connect to the DMV, and allow them to manage their system.  If something could be found where they could be compatible, then they could accomplish what the intent of the federal mandate was.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the Act read, “computerized, statewide, voter registration list,” not “computer program.”

 

Assemblyman Beers said the implementation of the program was not complicated.  He stated he had access to a list of over 700,000 Clark County voters on his laptop.  He asked if there was a set portion of the funding that had to be spent on the software.  Ms. Bilyeu replied that there was not.  Mr. Beers said if there was savings on the software end, maybe the state could get bigger and better voting machines on the election end.  Ms. Bilyeu said the funding was broken down within Title I and Title II.  Title I was what was termed “free money,” which was the $5 million that Nevada was estimated to get that could be used for anything that improved the administration of elections.  Title II money must be used in meeting the requirements of Title III; it did not earmark and specify how the money must be used.  Ms. Bilyeu said it was up to the states to say where the money would be allotted in meeting the requirements.  Mr. Beers asked if the money could be used for background checks when people showed up on Election Day to vote.  Ms. Bilyeu thought the intent was to match Social Security numbers.  Mr. Beers thought the other 300,000 Nevada voters could be added to the Access database and it would work just fine.  It was not good for the kind of statistical compilations and manipulations required by the Secretary of State, but he felt it was the direction the whole state should go as it went down the computerization paths.  He said Nevada was not a big state and did not need a California system.  He thought it could be done for a lot less money, and the Secretary of State’s Office could use the remaining resources to handle the rest of the mandate’s stipulations.

 

Secretary of State Heller said his office was talking to the vendors, and the process weighed heavily upon what the Clark County system did.  He stated they were well aware of the size of their database and the number of registered voters that they had on their system. 

 

Assemblyman Beers asked Mr. Lomax, Clark County Elections Department, if he had database access from multiple physical locations.  Mr. Lomax replied that they did access their databases from multiple locations, both on a daily basis from their two primary offices and then at election time.  The early voting location was in real-time data communication with the master database and was able to query and find information about voters.

 

Mr. Heller stated that Nevada was one of the few states that did not have statewide voter registration databases available.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many states did not have statewide voter registration databases available.  Mr. Heller replied there were approximately ten.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani then asked if any of the other states had a variety of types of statewide voting systems.  Mr. Heller said there were probably more.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a breakdown. 

 

Ms. Bilyeu said she had been speaking to many of the state election directors, getting RFPs, information on what they implemented, what their requirements were, and what they had been working from.  Every state had different fundamental statutory requirements that they had to meet.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if many of the other states had adopted the HAVA requirements and put them into place prior to it being implemented, possibly in anticipation of the implementation of the federal law.  Ms. Bilyeu said yes.  Mr. Heller said the majority of them were upgrading their current systems to meet the requirements.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it would be good to see what those forty states did, what they looked like, and whether they had upgraded or had simply applied to the feds and said, “We’ve already gone and done this in anticipation of your law.  Are we okay?”  She said samples of the RFPs showing what they asked the vendors for would be helpful.  Ms. Bilyeu said she could provide a state-by-state breakdown that generalized each system in each state and broke them into four different categories.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that would be helpful.

 

Ms. Bilyeu said Voting System Standards fell into two categories: having uniform systems throughout the state and accessibility of the polling places.  The bill required at least one system at each polling place be accessible to the disabled community.  Under Title III of the bill, meeting that requirement would mean one DRE system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place must be implemented by January 1, 2006.  Any system purchased with federal money after January 1, 2007, must be ADA-compliant.  Under the bill, the only system meeting that requirement, which was found under Title III, would be the touch-screen system. 

 

Ms. Bilyeu defined provisional voting as going into the registrar’s office on Election Day, being informed you were not on the list, and being allowed to vote anyway.  Provisional ballots were kept separate from the other ballots, because research had to be done to verify whether or not a voter was qualified to cast a vote on that day.  The Secretary of State’s BDR 560 proposed Election Day registration.  Ms. Bilyeu said that if Election Day registration were not implemented, there would be a timing problem in Nevada.  Researching, canvassing, and obtaining official results would cause an overlap of time that would make it impossible to get ballots out 40 days prior to the election.  In order to accomplish this, the county clerks were requesting to move the primary.  Many states with provisional balloting had a time frame of 14 to 28 days.  The Secretary of State’s BDR amendment asked for a provisional balloting time frame of 14 days.

 

Ms. Bilyeu said the bill had several requirements dealing with sample ballots, voting machine instructions, and provisional balloting information that must be posted at each polling place on Election Day.  For a person to vote on Election Day, the bill required anyone registering by mail to appear in person, present ID, or mail in a copy of that ID with their absentee ballots.  Nevada required persons registering to vote by mail for the first time to appear in person.  Ms. Bilyeu said her office wanted to implement changes allowing a person wishing to vote via absentee ballot to mail identification information to the county clerks with their absentee ballot.

 

Assemblyman Anderson said it had become a problem for high school students who often had voter registration drives as part of their government classes.  They would go to college out of state, and when it came time for them to vote, they discovered that they had to find a notary public to verify the votes.  It was one of the discouraging factors for a young person’s vote, for whom the act of voting was a big deal; getting a sample ballot was a big thing.  Mr. Anderson asked if the bill would take care of the problem of having to appear in front of a notary in order to verify the signature.  He said that Nevada had made it difficult for young people and others who registered through DMV, or anywhere else, to be an active voter when they knew they were potentially going to be out of the state for a short period of time.  He stated it also made it difficult for people in the military.

 

Mr. Heller thought Mr. Anderson made a great argument for same-day voter registration, because they had found that same-day voter registration increased the turnout of students from fifteen to twenty percent.  He said they had poll workers from his office close to the UNLV campus where students were turned away in abundance when they found out they were not registered.  Mr. Heller said there were many impediments that made it difficult for people to participate in the voting process.  He thought some of those issues could be avoided by same-day voter registration.

 

Assemblyman Anderson said he was more concerned about people who wished to vote in their home precincts than about those who had temporarily changed their residencies, such as students from southern Nevada who went to school in northern Nevada.

 

Mr. Heller said there were states that did not require a signature by a notary public.  Mr. Anderson asked if a notary public would still be required in Nevada.  Susan Bilyeu responded that it would.  She said it had been one of the criticisms of the requirement that people show up in person to vote and of the disenfranchisement of that specific group of people.  She stated Congress put that provision in to help that group specifically.

 

Ms. Bilyeu then discussed the administrative complaint procedure for election complaints that related to violations of the provisions of the bill found within Sections 301, 302, and 303.  She said a complaint procedure was currently in place for the state, but thought the state needed to take a look at those and decide how to handle the complaints on a uniform basis.

 

Renee Parker stated the federal government was operating without a fiscal year 2003 budget.  She said her office had been watching the Omnibus Appropriations bill, and at the beginning of January there had been no funding for the bill.  There was now $1.5 billion that the President was backing and the Senate approved and it was in conference committee.  Ms. Parker stated that the latest information she received prior the meeting was that it was still incorporated in the Omnibus bill, and they were working on making cuts and discussing pro rata cuts in that bill.  The $1.5 billion for election reform under HAVA did remain.  She predicted the bill would pass on Friday.  For fiscal year 2003, the bill had $2.6 billion in federal funds, which was approximately $1.1 billion short of full funding for the fiscal year 2003 appropriations in the Help America Vote Act.  Her understanding was that there was $650 million under Title I, which included two parts.  Nevada was eligible for the minimum funding under Title I, which was $5 million, which they called “free money.”  This “free money” was not really free, as there were strings attached and federal reporting requirements.  She said it was free to the extent a state match was not required.  Ms. Parker said it was also “no year” money, in that it would be put into an account and tracked under federal law.  Her office would have to set up a federal election fund to receive the money and track it.  It would continue in that fund indefinitely until the funds were expended. 

 

Ms. Parker said the Governor had authorized the Budget Office to bring a bill draft request to implement part of their agency budget request.  In their agency budget request, they had requested the matching funds.  The Governor did not have a recommendation for matching funds, but he did have a recommendation for federal receipts under the Act.  The Secretary of State’s office would be submitting a bill draft request to set up the election fund to receive all of the funding. 

 

Ms. Parker said that of the $650 million, there was another section in Title I that related to the punchcard buyout system for those who wanted to buy out all of the punchcard systems in the state and replace them.  Ms. Parker thought they would be better off using the minimum $5 million and not going with the punchcard buyout, as there were strings attached that would require additional reporting requirements.  Because Nevada was eligible for the minimum $5 million under the Act, the $5 million could be used for updating anything that would improve election administration for the state. 

 

With the $1.5 billion, Ms. Parker’s understanding was that the $650 million under Title I would be fully funded.  If Congress passed the fiscal year 2003 budget and included the $1.5 billion, the Secretary of State’s office would be able to apply and receive those funds within 60 days.  Title II of the Act was the portion that required a state match.  Under Title II, Nevada was eligible for the minimum of $20 million, which was also referred to as “no year” money.  If Nevada was not eligible for the minimum, there would be fiscal year ends attached to that.  Ms. Parker said it did not apply to the state of Nevada.  She believed the state matched approximately $1,022,000.  That figure was in their agency budget request, not in the Governor’s recommended budget request.  The Budget Office was requesting the Secretary of State’s Office to set up that fund to receive those monies.  Her office could not receive those monies until the Governor’s State Plan was approved and certified to the federal government.

 

Ms. Parker stated the federal government did not approve the State Plan.  The State Plan was submitted with the Governor’s signature, and as long as it stated Nevada was going to comply with all of the requirements of the federal bill, the state would be eligible for the funding.  The state would have to meet the timing deadlines and set up electronic fund transfer mechanisms.  Although statewide voter registration was required to be implemented by January 1, 2004, there was a self-certifying waiver for certain of the requirements.  One of the risks in applying for that waiver and certifying that it was needed, in Ms. Parker’s understanding, was if they doled out all of the federal funds that were appropriated January 1, 2004, the full funding under this bill anticipated 85 percent of the states asking for all of the money they were eligible for under this bill.  That would be full funding.  Nevada was not currently at full funding.  If, on January 1, 2004, the Secretary of State’s office said it needed a waiver until 2006, Nevada would not get the funds, but 85 percent of the states would ask for all of the funds because they had been able to comply.  There would be a risk that all of the federal monies would be gone, and Nevada would not be able to receive any when it did comply.  That was one of the reasons the Secretary of State’s Office was trying to push the statewide voter registration system and waive the RFP process: to try and ensure that Nevada complied and was eligible for the funding in time to receive it. 

 

According to Ms. Parker, the President’s 2004 budget proposal recommended $490 million for fiscal year 2004 funding under the bill.  That was short of the $1.2 billion appropriated under the bill for fiscal year 2004.  Ms. Parker stated she would know by the end of the week whether they would be getting any funding for fiscal year 2003.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $5 million came from the $325 million punchcard buyout or the match.  Ms. Parker responded that the $5 million was in Title I, along with the $325 million “free money.”  According to Ms. Parker, none of that money was subject to matching funds.  She stated Nevada was only eligible for the $5 million minimum under Title I.  If the state were going to do punchcard buyout, they would actually be better off just trying to get the “free money” because the $5 million applied to both of those portions of Title I.  She said they could get the $5 million and do the punchcard buyout, but there was additional criteria that would have to be met.  Ms. Parker said there was an application process that the General Services Administration would be sending up as soon as they got funding for fiscal year 2003.  She said that if we said, “We’re going to comply with all the portions of this Act, and we’re eligible for the first $5 million in “free money,” within so many days there would be an electronic fund transfer.  Other agencies that had dealt with federal funding told Ms. Parker it was not likely that it would happen that way.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked where the one-tenth of one percent voting age population proportion definition percentage came into play.  Ms. Parker responded it was under Title I, Section 103.  She said she had a memo from congressional research staff based on Nevada’s numbers that showed the state was eligible for a minimum of $5 million.  Ms. Parker went on to say that the state would have received less than $5 million if the calculations had been done, but since $5 million was the minimum, it would get the $5 million.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the way she looked at Title I, under eligibility and in general, it stated that to receive a payment under the program, as long as the state submitted a notice to the Administrator, the state would do one of the following: 

• certify that Nevada would use the payment to replace punchcard voting systems or lever systems
• comply with laws in section 906
• comply with the replacement voting systems under Section 301
• provide such other information and certifications as would be required by the Administrator

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if she were to go to Title II, would that be where a committee was established.  Ms. Parker said yes.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what the money would be used for under that committee and what the intent would be.

 

Ms. Parker said that under Title I, Section 102, Ms. Giunchigliani had gone through the list for replacement of punchcard or lever voting machines.  In Section 101, it was required that they use the funds provided under this section to carry out one of the following activities:  complying with the requirements under Title III, improving the administration of elections, and educating voters.  Ms. Parker said that was where they would receive the $5 million and apply it under Section 101.  They would not get into Section 102 because that had additional strings and the items listed by Ms. Giunchigliani.  There was no reason to do that because they were still only eligible for $5 million in total between 101 and 102.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that according to Ms. Parker, they could not use the $5 million to get rid of the eight punchcard systems from the eight counties that had them.  Ms. Parker said they could because that would be improving the administration of elections.  She stated they just did not have to do it under Section 102.

 

Ms. Bilyeu used California’s large population as an example.  She said that under Title I, California would calculate the voting age population according to the formula in Section 101.  If they chose to take part in Section 102, which was the punchcard buyout, they would get an additional $4,000 per precinct to buy out the punchcards.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it rewarded the population sizes more than anything else, and since Nevada’s did not hit that peak, it did not make sense to apply under Title II.  Ms. Bilyeu stated that Section 101 was the “free money,” Section 102 was the punchcard buyout, and Section 103 said if a state did not have enough population, it would get $5 million.

 

Ms Parker explained that under Title II, Nevada was eligible for $20 million for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Title III.  In order to receive any portion of that $20 million, the state must put up a five percent state match.  All funds received under Title I or Title II must go into a specific election fund that would be set up pursuant to statute and tracked under federal law.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what the requirements by the federal government were under Title II.  Ms. Parker replied that the problem was Title III.  In Title II, states received money to meet the requirements found in Title III.  The requirements in Title III must be complied with whether or not the state received federal funds.  Ms. Parker said they had to complete the process of certifying and creating a state plan, let the federal government know they were going to comply with Title III, and then federal funds would be released if the state put up matching funds.  If a state chose not to do that, it would become a preclearance state.  Ms. Parker said states were required to comply either way.  It could end up being an unfunded mandate if federal government did not appropriate the funds.  According to Ms. Parker, the news from Washington was good in that she anticipated the first level of funding would come through.  Of the $1.5 billion, her understanding was that Title I, Section 101 money would be fully funded, so Nevada would receive the minimum of $5 million.  The only requirement would be to get the election fund set up.  Once Nevada received the first $5 million, they would be mandated to put a statewide voter registration system in, because they would not want the Department of Justice coming in and telling them how to run state elections.  Part of that $5 million could be used for the statewide voter registration system because they did not appropriate money under Title II.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she thought this was the biggest bureaucracy she had seen in a long time.  She asked why they did not just give the states money to put a computerized system in and that would be it, especially since the law only affected the federal races and not the local races.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Governor had not put the five percent match in the budget.  Ms. Parker said that it was in the Secretary of State’s agency budget.

 

Secretary of State Heller repeated that they were grappling with the statewide voter registration system that must be implemented, the buyout of the punchcard systems, and the touch screens that must be installed in every precinct.  In every polling place, there must be at least one DRE touch screen.  In resuming his presentation, he said that one of the interesting numbers was that voter turnout from early voting had consistently increased.  He said they were up to 41 percent total for early and absentee voters, and that number would increase once Washoe County started advertising.  The numbers were very high in Clark County and most of the other counties.  He thought Washoe County needed to make the public more aware of the early voting process.  Mr. Heller said voter turnout had increased during the last two voting cycles by ten percent, which was a good performance indicator as to how the election administrators around the state were doing.

 

Assemblyman Anderson asked if it would be helpful if the Committee mandated for early voting sites to be predicated upon some sort of a numeric population district area so that there would be an equality of opportunity.  In some counties, early voter registrations seemed to be relegated to the courthouse and one other location, and his community only had early voter registration, on the traditional Nevada Day.  Mr. Heller responded that early voting was very widespread.  He said they did not see the same distribution of early voting sites in Washoe County.  He said that was the responsibility of the Registrar, and if there were questions to answer on that issue, he would certainly like them to come forward and answer those questions themselves.  His office did not dictate to them where they could put their early voting sites, but it was clear the results in Clark County showed that a lot of emphasis and effort had been put in to reduce the amount of turnout on Election Day itself.  Mr. Heller felt Washoe County had room for improvement.

 

Mr. Heller once again mentioned election reform goals, including implementation of a statewide voter registration system (BDR 413), upgrading the voting systems throughout the state, campaign finance reform (BDR 558), Voter’s Bill of Rights (BDR 270), and Election Day registration (BDR 560).  He stated that one of the concerns and issues his office had was the number of forms required at the beginning of each year.  During an election year, there were forms for the reporting of contributions, disposition of unspent contributions, and ethics.  He said Assemblyman Beers had introduced legislation during the last cycle to combine them into one related form so it would be easier for the candidates and elected officials to comply.  He said it would also be easier for the voters to have access to the information. 

 

Mr. Heller said his office had looked at combining the contributions and expenses reports, Disposition of Unspent Contributions Report, reports of contributions in excess of $10,000, and the ethics reports.  He said they wanted to simplify the filing requirements by making the Secretary of State the funding officer in all cases.  He stated that by the time they received complaints from the clerks and registrars that candidates had not filed, the candidates had already been assessed fines from $1,200 to $1,800.  Mr. Heller thought they would be able to monitor filing and react more quickly if candidates filed directly with his office.

 

Mr. Heller stated his office wanted to work on making electronic filing mandatory.  He said they had used a pilot program during the last election cycle in which over 80 candidates used electronic filing.  Overall, he thought the process was beneficial not only for his office but also for the candidates that did use it.  He personally used it and found it easy to use.  There were some errors they had to correct, but that was why it was called a pilot program.  Mr. Heller thought electronic filing would serve the public better in that, once candidates sent it to his office, it would immediately be posted on the Internet and the public would have access to those reports. 

 

Mr. Heller went on to say they wanted to require reporting of contributions of $1,000 or more within 24 hours.  He then showed the Committee an example of a campaign contribution and expense report filed last year (Exhibit G).  He felt it was important for the general public to have access to the information so they knew for what they were voting, for whom they were voting, and the tendencies of that candidate.  He thought the person who filed the incomplete report (Exhibit G) had not served the general public.  He said there were candidates who did not file at all.  According to Mr. Heller, some candidates did not feel the need to file or failed to file for myriad reasons.  Mr. Heller thought that the campaign contributions and elections reporting could be improved to avoid many common violations if candidates could avoid the three reporting periods and if the law stated that, if a contribution or accumulation of contributions exceeded $1,000, the candidate could report it immediately via the State Department Web site.

 

Assemblyman Beers asked Mr. Heller if he had asked the candidate who filed the referenced report (Exhibit G) if the problem had been with the “under $100” piece.  Mr. Heller replied that he did not think that was the issue because he did file; he chose to pay the necessary fines that came with being late.  He said the person did not call his office to ask for specific information or to voice concerns regarding filing the report itself.

 

Assemblyman Anderson mentioned that in the last campaign cycle, for the first time, he had hired an accountant to do the report for him.  He came to the realization as he closed his books that he had an unusual $1,000 check that he had received early in the first calendar cycle that had somehow been overlooked.  He then had to include it in the final amended version so that it would be there.  Mr. Anderson stated that all candidates wanted to make sure the Secretary of State’s office had an accurate view of where they received their money.  He did not like the characterization of “We vote by where the money comes from.”  He did not believe that was true for any of the people holding public office. 

 

Mr. Heller replied that he had not said that.  Mr. Anderson said he thought it was somewhat characterized that way, as if that was why the public made that assumption.  Mr. Heller said he talked about “tendencies,” not how a candidate votes.  Mr. Anderson replied he had not believed there was a “tendency.”  He went on to say that he was grateful for any contribution he received and that the public should know where the money came from.  Mr. Anderson said he had two concerns about the process.  First, it had become complicated.  He asked Mr. Heller if filing via computer was the only way it could be done.  Secondly, he was concerned about the 24-hour requirement of reporting a $1,000 contribution.  Mr. Anderson went on to say that in some cases, he had not determined if he was going to be running for public office again and had received campaign contributions that were unsolicited.  He said he would either send those on to the Secretary of State’s office or return them to the person who sent them, because he may not have decided to run again.  He asked Mr. Heller how that would be handled.

 

Mr. Heller responded that one of the definitions of a candidate was that anybody who had received $100 then became a candidate.  At that point they would be expected to put together a bank account and to start reporting where those funds were coming from.  Mr. Heller discussed the issue of whether or not a candidate had access to computers.  He said what they were trying to do was propose some ideas.  He said that did not mean they were not subject to some differences or negotiations.  Mr. Heller said they might want to put a threshold on it, and he said the Federal Election Commission (FEC) did that.  He said those contributions under a certain dollar amount would be paper filings, and those with larger amounts, perhaps those greater than $50,000, could file electronically, unless they did not have computer access.  In that instance, they could be given the benefit of the doubt and provide a paper filing.  There could be negotiations if someone were concerned about reporting $1,000 within 24 hours. 

 

Assemblyman Anderson wanted to know why it would be best for the public to know that a candidate had received a contribution within 24 hours or within five days.  He wanted to know why that was such a concern.  Mr. Heller responded it was because some did not file the reports at all.  He said some candidates would rather pay a fine than file in a timely manner and be scrutinized while following the law.  He said there was only a short period of time in which the public had access to this information, and he thought some people did everything they could to avoid it. 

 

Mr. Heller stated that before he was in office, and before the Internet, access to that type of information was difficult.  If a person wanted to see a contribution report that was 50 pages long, that person would have had to call the Secretary of State’s office and be charged 50 cents per page.  The money would have to be sent in advance, the check would have to clear, the copies would be made, and the packet would then be mailed to the person.  It would have taken 10‑20 days after the election before they had access to the information.  Mr. Heller said his office was trying to make the information readily available to the general public because he believed they had a right to know and to see the information.

 

Assemblyman Anderson agreed that the information needed to be made available to the public.  He thought the burden was that not all people running for public office had a computer.  Even those candidates who were able to raise a substantial amount of money might not have a large enough budget to purchase a computer terminal.  Mr. Anderson stated they might be running a very tight campaign where every mailing counted, and asking a “shoestring candidate” to file electronically as the only means violated a very basic right. 

 

Mr. Heller said he was not arguing that there was not a digital divide out there, but he would argue that most candidates, if not all candidates, did have access to the Internet via their public libraries.

 

Assemblyman McCleary asked Mr. Heller if he had trouble collecting paper copies of the contribution reports on time.  Mr. Heller responded that he had trouble collecting that particular one (Exhibit G) on time.  Susan Bilyeu stated that out of 1100 candidates statewide, 150 were late or had not filed the first reporting period, 100 had not filed in the second reporting period, and 120 had not filed in the third reporting period.  Mr. McCleary did not think it was realistic to expect people to report within 24 hours.

 

Assemblywoman McClain disagreed that the general public cared about campaign contributions people received.  She thought the people who cared were the opposing candidates and their campaign managers.  Mr. Heller invited her to come work in his Elections Division and observe the kind of interest actually shown in the reports.  Ms. McClain said that she did not hire a campaign manager or accountant.  She said she input her campaign data into an Excel spreadsheet and then transferred it in writing to the form provided by the Secretary of State.  She thought filing online was one more added burden.

 

Mr. Heller replied that he too had had neither a campaign manager nor an accountant.  On top of the burden of running for statewide office, he had been able to fill out that particular form.  He said the form was programmed to do all the accounting automatically.  When the report was due, it would be electronically filed with the office.  Mr. Heller said people would be able to print out copies, sign them, and send them in to the office.  He stated that if she or Assemblyman Beers wanted to use another version, they should give his office the authority to audit those so they could examine them and have authority to ask questions.  Ms. McClain apologized for not checking out their form online because she had another setup and did not have time.  She was concerned that someone might see her daily input before the form was electronically filed.  Mr. Heller stated no one would see it until it was filed.  He said under the requirement that his office had asked for, contributions of $1,000 or greater would be reported immediately upon being entered into the system.

 

Assemblyman Grady stated that when he had first received the packet from the Secretary of State’s office, he had wondered if he even wanted to go through all of it.  His second thought was that it was a full employment application for CPAs.  He said he had done his own, but was concerned that he might not have done it right.  He then went to see his CPA.  The CPA’s comment was, “What are you worried about it for?  There’s no teeth in it anyway.  Regardless what you put down, who cares?”  Mr. Grady said that was his concern.  He felt if it was made simple so they could all do it, and there was a reason to do it, and there were some teeth in it, then he would support it, but right now he thought it looked like an exercise that drove people crazy. 

 

Mr. Heller said his office got frustrated from time to time because there were no teeth in the forms and his office had no authority to audit the forms unless they received a written complaint in the office.  He said they had come before the Legislature in the past to ask for audit authority.  Mr. Heller said if they had audit authority, they would see more timely filings.  He stated it was hard for the Elections Division, registrars, and clerks around the state to keep track of 1100 candidates every election cycle.  He said that did not take the city cycles into account.  He thought the key was simplifying. 

 

Mr. Heller said they had changed the form for the third reporting period because of confusion on the first and second reports.  He said there were some candidates who would leave up to $120,000 unspent, and when they would get into the next election cycle, they quit reporting it.  There would not be a beginning balance.  Mr. Heller said that as a result tens of thousands of dollars would be unreported as to where they were spent.  He said their third report reflected the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) report.  Mr. Heller said they went straight to the FEC report with beginning balances and ending balances that carried over to the next reporting cycle, so they were doing the best they could.  He said some laws that were not clear and needed to be simplified hampered them.  He said he would like to take the third report and actually photocopy it and put it into the NRS instead of trying to define it and put it into the NRS because that caused trouble with interpretations.

 

Secretary of State Heller said the Governor had approached him and said he did support the reforms, but did not necessarily support same-day voter registration.

 

Assemblyman Beers said he would be interested in seeing a breakdown of how many requests the Secretary of State’s office received each month.  He wondered if it peaked at election time, or had steady demand over the course of all twelve months of the year.

 

Mr. Heller responded that he would like them to see the reports showing their election Web site hits.  He stated the hits spiked during the election cycle.  He said he would be happy to make that information available.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if those hits would only be for the actual campaign reports or if they were looking at other information.  Mr. Heller said he thought they could break it down.

 

Assemblywoman Weber said she waited until the last minute to file, and wanted to commend the staff for giving the alternative fax number to get everything in after 5 p.m., because she had not realized the amount of time it took to complete the forms.  She asked if the Secretary of State’s office provided on‑site assistance to candidates who had questions.

 

Ms. Bilyeu said they could call their division at any time.  She stated that Kristi Geiser, Campaign Finance Officer, was very helpful in filling out the forms, giving guidance, and answering any questions they had.

 

Ms. Weber said she had not worked on the form as she went along, so it took her eight hours to complete it.  Ms. Bilyeu said they could work on the form as the contributions came in and went out instead of waiting until the last minute.  She said the Web site was secure and was a very useful tool in keeping the information readily available to the candidate.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought the discussion was healthy because it caused everybody to think a little bit differently.  She did not think there was anything wrong with the mandatory filing, but thought they needed to take the different needs of the candidates into consideration.  There were small races around the state where there was no computer access.  Ms. Giunchigliani thought the availability of computers would be helpful, and a simplified form would be helpful also.  She said she still did hers by hand and had her husband review it.  She was concerned about the $1,000 piece because she did not know what the benefit of that outcome would be.  She thought the Secretary of State wanted to make an attempt to make sure that if groups wanted to look at the filings and know who the contributors were, they would know that.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted to know what threshold and for what purpose was the $1,000 stipulation.  She thought that was still open for debate.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification of simple filing requirements.  She said that currently if a person filed for statewide office, they had to go to Carson City.  There were filing officers for those in the southern part of the state, and asked if candidates would still file wherever they usually did.  When candidates filed their campaign reports, currently they gave them to their filing officer.  Ms. Giunchigliani thought there was a problem because during the last election cycle, there had been a statewide candidate who had submitted his information at the office in southern Nevada, but since he was a statewide candidate, the information had to first be sent to the Secretary of State in Carson City.  The information had not been available publicly for about five days.  She asked how he anticipated that part of it being fixed, and if their intent was that the candidates e-mailed or faxed their information, which would then be put online immediately.

 

Ms. Bilyeu said they were talking about the filing officer as it related to contribution expenditure report forms.  She said her office had enforcement responsibility over the contributions and expenditures and there were problems with transmission.  She anticipated her office being the filing officer for the contributions and expenditures and for the disposition of all other campaign finance forms.  They would make forms available on the Web immediately upon receipt.  Currently, they had a 24-hour turnaround for those forms that were filed with them.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said if the form had not been done electronically and was mailed from Clark County, there would be a four or five-day delay before anybody could actually see whether a statewide candidate was filing.  Ms. Bilyeu said they had a new office manager in Southern Nevada who had been faxing forms to the Secretary of State’s office in Carson City, so they were aware of who filed at the time of filing.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if they would be permitted to make copies for the press and other interested parties.  Ms. Bilyeu responded yes.  She said they had initiated the filing of contribution and expenditure reports and filing for office in southern Nevada in 2000. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said a fine was not working and asked what would be a better way to enforce the requirements for people who were not sending in their forms.  She asked if the Secretary of State had authority or did the Ethics Commission have authority to say that candidates who did not file would lose their seats.  Ms. Bilyeu said Utah prohibited such candidates from running for election again and that Nevada could do that.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce stated that as the system currently worked, candidates filed at 5 p.m. ten days before the election.  She asked how long it took them to scan that information in so that it was available.  Mr. Heller responded that for 15 percent of the applications, it took 24 hours.  Ms. Pierce thought that was rather quick.  Mr. Heller went on to say that what his office scanned were those that specifically were filed with his office.  He said it did not include Ms. Pierce’s, as hers was sent from the Registrar’s office to the Secretary of State’s office.  At that point, forms would be scanned or kept on file.  He said the majority of them were not filed.  Ms. Pierce stated that if they were faxed in, they would be scanned immediately.  Mr. Heller said that was true. 

 

Ms. Pierce said her concern was that people would do their filing at the public library.  She said if someone did not have a computer, going to the public library would not automatically make them computer-literate.  She did hers the low-tech way with a pen and piece of paper.  Ms. Pierce said she was concerned about those candidates who thought the process was daunting and would not run for that reason.  Mr. Heller thought she raised good points and said those issues would need to be discussed as they went through session.

 

Mr. Heller thought the majority of opposition had to do with the issue of same-day voter registration.  He said that as Secretary of State, if he did not do everything he could to increase voter registration and voter turnout, someone else should be elected Secretary of State.  Currently, Nevada was ranked 47^th in the country in voter turnout.  Mr. Heller said that the six states that currently had same-day voter registration had the top registrations and voter turnouts across the board.  He said same-day voter registration could not be implemented without a statewide voter registration system.  He thought Nevada was four or five years away from actually doing that, but he did want direction and authority from the Committee to go forward and plan the statewide voter registration system, evaluate same-day voter registration, and determine how those two systems would coincide with each other.

 

Mr. Heller’s argument was that states with same-day voter registration showed an increase in voter turnout of students, minorities, women, and independent voters.  He said those groups were most affected by same-day voter registration.  He further argued that being 47^th cried for some change in the way we registered and cast votes in this state and the importance of going in a different direction.  After talking to officials in the six states that had high voter turnout and same-day voter registration, none of them could give an example of voter fraud associated with that system.  He said he was only asking for an open mind while going through the bills and discussing statewide voter registration.  He wanted to get out from the bottom of the barrel of voter registration and voter turnout so Nevada could look for new ways to serve the citizens and voters of the state.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce asked for the names of the six states with high voter turnout and same-day voter registration.  Renee Parker stated they were Idaho, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin.  Mr. Heller said Nevada could not have same-day voting without a real-time statewide voter registration system.  He said there was one registrar who would be happy to do a pilot program during the coming election cycle to take a look at what the plusses and minuses might be in going forward on this project.  Mr. Heller said it would be a good idea to try something now in one county, see what the plusses and minuses were, and bring the results back to this Committee so that they could see what worked and what did not work and perhaps guide legislation by that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani appreciated the dialog and said they would have a discussion.  One concern she had regarding voter turnout had to do with how campaigns were being run.  She said a statewide voter registration system, same-day voter registration system, and early voting were not what was driving it down.  At some point, because candidates had become so efficient at targeting voters they needed to appeal to because they had voted in the last general election, there was a tendency to ignore those who had voted perhaps only once in the last four years.  She stated that was how an inveterate voter was created.  Unfortunately, because of financial costs, they had directed in a very narrow way, therefore not appealing to those other voters whom she thought they needed to do a better job of educating.  There was a cost factor, and that was a decision many campaigns had had to make.  She felt those issues needed to examined.

 

Same-day voter registration, according to Ms. Giunchigliani, added to the cost of campaigning because someone might show up; a candidate would have to send a mailing to his entire district over and over again just in case one person decided to register on Election Day.  She said they had made it easy in this state to get registered to vote.  She thought they had an obligation as candidates and government officials to help people feel more a part of the process so that they had a reason to turn out to vote.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that they would have discussions about engaging a voter or potential voter.  She said public officials did not do a good job of going to the schools, and did not do a lot of civics in high schools.  There were key places where public officials had not brought as much hands-on education as they possibly could into the high schools to engage the young men and women in the electoral process.

 

Mr. Heller talked to some of the surrounding states about their closing dates for registration.  Nevada’s was 30 days before Election Day; California’s was 15 days prior to Election Day.  He thought some individuals could be captured by narrowing the registration window by ten or fifteen days.  That way, they could catch some of those individuals who were either moving into the state or connected with the election.  That would also make it so his office was not bombarded with complaints from people being told they had to have their registration in his office within a 30-day period but could not vote for two years.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought it might be worthwhile to listen to the clerks as far as what the impacts were on mailing out ballots. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if people registering to vote had to show identification under HAVA, and if so, was it specifically a driver’s license.  Secretary of State Heller said they were given options.  Ms. Bilyeu responded that they had to show a copy of ID if they had registered to vote by mail.  She said identification could include a driver’s license, utility bill, or other forms of ID.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a Social Security number was required.  Ms. Bilyeu responded that on the voter registration applications, it was required that the person filling out the registration application present either a valid driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked if there were residency requirements.  Ms. Bilyeu stated that the close of registration certified that the person was a resident of the state within 30 days of the election.  Ms. McClain asked how that would be verified on Election Day.  Ms. Bilyeu said that would be done under provisional balloting.  The clerks would have to do research to make sure that the person who came before them had actually lived within the state the appropriate amount of time, met all of the residency requirements, and was entitled to vote in that election.  The same situation would be faced with same-day voter registration, requiring the person voting to sign an affidavit of some kind.  Mr. Heller thought it would be appropriate to have the clerks and registrars answer that question because the requirements might vary from county to county.

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, and Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, representing the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials, made the next presentation.

 

Mr. Lomax wanted to emphasize how significant the HAVA bill would be at the county level.  He said it would create an enormous amount of change in the way voting was conducted.  He stated it was civil rights legislation and was passed in the same vein in which the 1965 Voter Rights Act and the 1993 Motor Voter Act had been.  Mr. Lomax said that not only could the Attorney General sue the state, but disabled groups, minority groups, and activist groups had all been actively involved in the drafting of the legislation and were all standing by to sue states and counties.  He said there was great pressure on the state to comply, and the state was required to comply whether they received or refused to accept federal funding. 

 

Mr. Lomax said that Clark County had already been undergoing change in anticipation of statewide voter registration.  They had added touch-screen voting machines, incorporated Spanish voting, and would be using audio voting in the upcoming municipal elections.  Now the federal government was compelling them to comply with even more changes.  From Mr. Lomax’s perspective, a statewide registration system was much more than a list of names of voters.  He said the names and addresses of voters were irrelevant unless they were used to conduct an election.  That was where their challenge was coming from.  He said they used the registration systems to print and monitor the sample ballots, precinct the voters, conduct early voting, and maintain the voter history.  The law required them to have a single vendor if they complied with that aspect of the law.  Mr. Lomax said it would create significant difficulties for counties that had to switch.  He further said that it had taken them three years to convert to the system they currently had, which included a year of research and three years of conversion, and they were just getting it the way they wanted it.

 

Mr. Lomax said there was a lot of confusion in the state regarding ID requirements.  When the Motor Voter Act was passed in 1993 and people were able to register to vote by mail, it had eliminated ID requirements.  The law had been changed a couple of years ago as a result of a court case to eliminate the requirement to provide any kind of identifying number, and it was now possible for anyone to take a stack of registration forms, take them home, write a name and address, check a party, date it, sign it, and mail it in.  They would then be assigned a make-believe number and be input into the system.  It was easy for people to fraudulently register, and people were taking advantage.  This law would change that, in that it would require an identifying number on a registration form when they registered to vote.  It specifically stated a Nevada driver’s license number.  If they did not have that, they would ask for a Social Security number.  If they had neither of those, they would be required to sign an affidavit stating they had neither of those and only then would they be assigned a number.  Mr. Lomax was in favor of that requirement, but he knew that some people would disagree with that.  He said that a statewide voter registration system without identifying numbers was meaningless because otherwise there was no way to track people with false names and addresses. 

 

Mr. Lomax went on to say that it also required provisional voting.  He said they received many registrations by mail.  As of January 1, 2003, anyone registering by mail was required to also mail in a copy of their ID.  Nobody was aware of that yet, so nobody was mailing in copies of identification.  When the 2004 elections occurred, all of those voters would be required to bring in an ID with proof of identity and residence, and they would be asked for that information at the polling place.  If they did not have it, they would have a problem.  When voter registration cards went out in the spring, there could be an attachment warning everybody that they needed to bring an ID to the polls.  If they showed up to vote without an ID, Mr. Lomax’s office would be required to let them vote provisionally.  A provisional ballot meant the voter cast the ballot, but it would not be counted at that time.  It would be set aside until the voter’s identity and eligibility could be verified.  Only then would the votes be added to the totals or not, and that took time.

 

There were three types of provisional voters: the people who did not have IDs, anyone who showed up at a polling place claiming they were registered but were not on the rolls, and everyone voting after 7 p.m., if a judge ordered the polling place to stay open after 7 p.m.  Provisional voting required new technology.  Each voter must be able to privately ascertain whether or not his vote was counted.  This must be accessible over the Internet or via the phone with a toll-free number and a coded system.

 

Mr. Lomax anticipated there would be 20,000 to 50,000 provisional voters in Clark County alone, which would take time to sort out.  He said his staff was so pressured between the primary and general election that he felt there would have to be some adjustment to the date of the primary for them to get the job done.  Mr. Lomax stated the biggest challenge would be the last requirement, which stated that, as of the 2006 elections, “Any disabled voter,” undefined, “must be able to vote unassisted in any polling place in America.”  At a minimum, he said that would include DRE technology at every polling place.  Their touch-screen machines had the software available to support audio voting, which would be used at the municipal elections.  There was a significant cost for machines just in Clark County.  He said they had the technical ability and the technical support to use those machines.  Every other county in the state would have to acquire not only new voting machines, so they could put those in every one of their polling places, but, almost as complicated, was the support to go with the machines, which included the ability to tabulate the results, maintain the machines, and to use that technology, plus the training of people who worked in the polling places.  He would then have team leaders who had two different kinds of machines in every polling place.  They would have the regular machines and the touch-screen machines, and then they had to be able to deal with any disabled voter that came into the polling places.  It would be an enormous challenge to implement this throughout the state.  Mr. Lomax said there would be a lot of legislation required to help them get through the process.

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked why they needed the last four digits of the Social Security number.  Mr. Lomax replied that the implementation of the statewide voter registration system required interaction between the DMV and Social Security.  Once it was in place, the registration would be run through the agencies to confirm that the person really lived there.  There had been heavy debate in Washington because many wanted the full Social Security number used.  It had been determined that a combination of a name, a birthdate, and the last four digits were sufficient to identify somebody.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, said the clerks and registrars were very interested in the Committee developing and approving the account number for the Secretary of State so they could accept the federal money coming in.  He felt the sooner that went through, the better off they would be.  He stated his office strongly supported the Committee appropriating the $1 million for the match because those requirements were there anyway, and if they did not get the matching money, the $20 million could come out of the state General Fund, and that made no sense.  Regarding statewide voter registration systems, the clerks’ concern was that there were more than three systems that the counties used to manage their lists of registered voters.  He said rural counties used a company called ADS, located in Carson City, so there were four different file management systems to convert.  Mr. Glover felt they were making it more complicated than it should be.  He said the Secretary of State needed a list of registered voters, but did not need the ability to produce roster poll books, to pay election workers or to keep track of them, or to do petitions.  Different counties had sub-conservancy districts that they had to break out.  Carson and Douglas converted their systems a year ago for around $130,000.  He said there were problems with the system that had not yet been corrected by the vendor.  During the conversion to ES&S from one of the vendor’s other products, signatures were lost.  He said every time there was a conversion, they lost part of their information.  They did not have a desire to convert to yet another system.  They wanted to get the voter information to the Secretary of State that met the requirement.  Hopefully, the statewide committee, the Elections Committee, the Secretary of State, and the clerks could work on a system that preserved the systems and information and let them manage their elections.

 

Mr. Glover stated that Carson City had peculiar requirements for early voting, which was very efficient.  He said Douglas County had problems with small sub-conservancy districts for which they had to produce a ballot.  He said that Elko, Humboldt, and the other counties had strange situations they had to accommodate.  He felt if they could get legislation to handle provisional balloting, the other things could fall into place.  He thought the biggest political problem they had was to convince the Legislature that they did need a change in the date of the primary election.  He said they would provide information showing how that overlapped.  He went on to say veterans’ groups and certain members of Congress were very interested in making sure that overseas military personnel received their ballots on time, and they extended that to a 45‑day period.  Mr. Glover felt Nevada was in jeopardy if they did not try to accommodate the military in this area, but because of the date of the primary that would not be possible even if an election was perfect and there were no challenges.  He said Nevada did not want to be the state that ended up in the Supreme Court.  Nevada had good election law that had worked well.  He said Nevada needed to implement the new statutes and do the best job they could to be fair and equitable to everybody and have an honest election that was open to people so they could vote.

 

Assemblyman Anderson said he appreciated the support and information received from the Clerk’s offices and the Secretary of State’s office.  He was concerned that some important factors had been lost, particularly in the large communities.  The maps were not as accurate as they had been, voter lists were not accurate when they walked door to door.  Mr. Anderson realized that the computer programs and voter machines had become more sophisticated, but he was not sure that moving into the new system would make it easier for the public to vote.  He felt the process was more sophisticated but less efficient.

 

Mr. Lomax pointed out that the law required them to make the changes whether they wanted to or not.  When he was in Washington and spoke with the staffers who had written the law, he had felt they clearly had no concept of what voter registration systems accomplished.  They looked at it as strictly a list of names and addresses, and they were looking from the perspective of the Florida situation.  He said the staffers had had a mini-revolution when they briefed the clerks who had been there wanting information on how to do sample ballots, absentee ballots, voter history and other things.  Mr. Lomax said there were challenges to work out, but it was federally mandated that they solve the problem.

 

Mr. Glover said the clerks had a lot of fears.  He said they had been trying to integrate their systems and were nowhere near making it work.  He said a lot of it had to do with transmitting old information to the new system, and it was a frustrating problem.  He said he was apprehensive that they could actually make the statewide system work, and certainly not within their allotted time period.  He agreed with the Secretary of State that if they tried to work diligently at it to come up with the best system, he thought they had to take their chances with the federal funding.  He said it would not be easy, and there were things that, if done, could truly jeopardize their actually running an election in two years.

 

Joshua Hansen, Independent American Party, said he had heard a couple of things that worried him, particularly on the voter registration issues.  He said a lot of the changes to voter registration over the last couple of years were the result of his lawsuits.  Mr. Hansen commented on Title II of HAVA by bringing up the special rule for applicants without a driver’s license or Social Security number.  He referred to Mr. Lomax’s mention of an affidavit for people who did not have either of those.  He stated “affidavit” was not mentioned in HAVA, so he assumed that was state-mandated, and asked how that worked. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked him to testify and then they would get answers for him.  She said she would either put it in writing or transmit it to him.

 

Mr. Hansen said a number of the regulations dealt with providing a Social Security number and several different types of identification, which he opposed.  He said most of them fell under mail-in voting.  He wanted everyone to be clear that many of the mail-in voting regulations did not apply to those who registered in person, because he did not have a driver’s license and would not get one.  He did not have a Social Security number.  He said neither of those was required to live and work in the United States, and to require them to vote would be a serious problem.  He wanted to make sure provisions were made so that people like himself, who did not have identifying numbers, would still be able to vote.  He liked much of the content in HAVA, but stated that oftentimes what is in the law and what actually gets implemented are two different things.  Mr. Hansen also noted that Mr. Lomax had specifically stated that there were a lot of activist groups waiting to sue.  Mr. Hansen said he was part of one of those, and since this was federally mandated, anything connected to it would be under the scrutiny of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Mr. Hansen’s main concern was what a person would need to provide when filling out the affidavit without a Social Security number or driver’s license.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she would make a note of that because the Committee did not have a legal advisor at the meeting due to some staffing changes.  She suggested to Mr. Hansen that he either fax or e-mail questions to her, and she would have LCB staff take a look at them, or he could do what he had always done in the past, which was sue.  Mr. Hansen said he was actually concerned about some of the changes made after he sued.  He thought maybe that it was a little too easy, and he did not want anyone to create false voters.  He went on to say that there were other people like him, and it was a legal way to exist in the United States.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was a valid point, and she further went on to say that she would be happy to have the legal staff take a look at any questions or concerns he might have.  She agreed that the portion dealing with identification was ambiguous, and appreciated his raising those questions.

 

Christopher Hansen, Independent American Party, said it was very clear that the requirements were only for people who registered by mail.  He said the Independent American Party was in favor of restrictions on registering by mail, since they had been opposed to mail registration from its inception.  He said they were in favor of as many restrictions as possible to make it more difficult to register by mail.  He said they were also in favor of applying in person without being required to provide Social Security or driver’s license numbers.

 

Mr. Hansen then addressed the information covered by Mr. Heller on the reporting requirements.  He brought up Mr. Heller’s statement that the Secretary of State wanted a quicker reaction time when people filed the information so they could assign the penalties more quickly.  In the year 2000 election, there had been a five-day requirement in the Nevada Administrative Code that made it possible for Mr. Heller to get those out.  According to Mr. Hansen, Mr. Heller could not comply with that.  Mr. Hansen felt that since the five-day requirement had been removed because Mr. Heller could not comply, his saying he wanted to get those out quicker was “kind of odd” because it did not fit with what he had done to his own requirements.

 

Mr. Hansen thought it was “important to note that the Secretary of State’s office did not take a single non-filer to court for years until my son, Joshua, sitting next to me, called Heller’s office ‘incompetent.’  Immediately after that, we were sued.  My nephew was sued over a $25 fine.  That $25 fine, almost an identical one, was waived at the identical time for the identical reasons, and yet they have taken it to court against my nephew in what can only be considered a harassment case, which is continuing on.”

 

Mr. Hansen wanted to point out that if they wanted to enforce those statutes, they should be changed from civil to criminal.  Currently, they were civil penalties.  He said that according to the United States Supreme Court, “a civil penalty that is strictly punitive is considered quasi-criminal,” from Wade vs. United States.  Mr. Hansen went on to say that a quasi-criminal penalty meant that the Fourth Amendment applied.  He said the Fourth Amendment said the government had to have a warrant in order to get your paperwork.  Mr. Hansen understood that he was required to send in his paperwork.  The Fourth Amendment applied in that, in order to get the paperwork, the Secretary of State would need a warrant.  Mr. Hansen thought these statutes should be changed to criminal to make them stronger.  The only problem, according to Mr. Hansen, was if the Legislature tried to make it criminal, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments would apply.  The Fifth Amendment already applied, and it was demanded that one sign these forms “under penalty of perjury.”  He went on to say, “Mr. Heller has put down on the form that you are to ‘affirm’ under penalty of perjury.”  The Nevada law read “swear or affirm.”  To only have “affirm” there was a violation of Mr. Hansen’s religious sentiment, which was a violation of Nevada law since Nevada was required to have a perfect toleration of religious sentiment.  Not only were they “to have” a perfect toleration of religious sentiment, they were to “secure” a perfect toleration of religious sentiment.  So Nevada, on that form, was in violation of Nevada law.  If failure to submit election paperwork was made criminal, it would not be enforceable because nobody would have to send the paperwork in.  It was already in a legal quagmire in that people were not required to send it in anyway, because it was a civil penalty.

 

Mr. Hansen went on to say that he hoped he could get a videotape of the February 11, 2003, meeting so he could have a record of the statements made by the assemblymen.  He said he would be able to use the videotape in court to demonstrate that people were concerned about running for office because of all of reporting requirements.  Mr. Hansen said it had been a problem for the Independent American Party for years.  People had quit the IAP after running for office and receiving civil penalties.  Mr. Hansen said when Mr. Heller referred to a “fine,” it meant it was criminal matter.  If it was a civil penalty, it would be civil.  He said different rules applied.  Mr. Hansen thought that was important to note, as every word had meaning.  He went on to say that Mr. Heller had said, “If we would switch this over to electronic, then people could just go down to their local library.”  Mr. Hansen said that two of the IAP’s  candidates lived 100 miles from the nearest library and would have to travel that distance to find a library and file electronically.  He said if they received a contribution of $1,000, a person in that situation would not be able to comply with the 24-hour requirement.

 

Mr. Hansen went on to say that the laws were restricting people and making it difficult for the Independent American Party to field candidates.  He said they had at least five candidates who wanted to run for office, but when they had seen all the requirements and paperwork that needed to be filled out they had decided not to run.  They were afraid.  Mr. Hansen said he heard the fear in the assemblymen’s voices when they talked about how difficult and taxing it was to fill out the forms and the problems it created for them. 

 

Mr. Hansen said he had not had to fill out any paperwork to run for Congress.  He said if a federal-level candidate did not receive $5,000 in contributions, they were not considered a candidate.  He thought that would be a reasonable limit to set for minor candidates, although it would still be in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

 

According to Mr. Hansen, Sandra Tiffany had once said to him, “Chris, the reason you’re dangerous is because you’re one of the few people in Nevada that ever read the law.”  Mr. Hansen said he read the Nevada statutes almost every single day.  He said that few people that voted on laws ever read them.  He wondered how many congressmen actually read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.  He said he had read the entire Title 26 Income Tax Code.  He said that was one of the reasons he was dangerous. 

 

Mr. Hansen said there were many people who believed there were laws on the books that required certain things that actually did not.  The reason they were able to get the Social Security number stricken in Joshua Hansen’s case was because the law did not say a Social Security number was required, yet everyone thought that that was what it said.  But it did not say that.  Mr. Hansen said when they finally sued, even the District Attorney had said that it was required.  He said the only thing that was required was a box to be placed on the form for a Social Security number to be voluntarily placed there.

 

Mr. Hansen referred to a recent editorial in The Bugle in Las Vegas, which he thought was a pro-gay newspaper.  He stated the Independent American Party could not be considered a pro-gay political party.  The editorial said “they should go and get the information from the Secretary of State so that they could boycott people that gave to Question 2 in order to get the constitutional amendment which was passed to change the Constitution.”  Mr. Hansen said those were the reasons why, in 1958, the NAACP had refused to give such information to the state of Alabama because the state of Alabama could have used that information to crush the NAACP.  He thought this kind of information was being used to harm political parties, to harm political candidates, and to be used against contributors.  He said it was already being published in newspapers that opposed his political party, making it another violation of the Constitution.  Mr. Hansen said the IAP had the right of freedom of assembly.  When they had to fill out all the forms, their freedom of assembly to have their political party was “trounced on.”  He said the laws were unconstitutional.

 

Mr. Hansen said he had found over 20 violations of the Nevada Constitution that were to be considered when using the reporting laws.  He said they hurt the political process.  He referred to Dean Heller’s mention of the many hits on the Secretary of State’s Web site.  Mr. Hansen said he and other political advocates visited the Web site every day.  He said the IAP and other political advocates were working on a political plan to find all of the people that made $5,000 contributions.  The Libertarians, Greens, and the Independent Americans were working on this, because there was a limit of $5,000 that could be given.  Mr. Hansen said they could contact those people and say, “Oh, you gave $5,000 to Dean Heller.  We want to make sure a Democrat is never elected to that office, so we want you to contribute $5,000 to the Independent American Party.”  He said they would run a candidate against the Democrat, and only send out mailers to the Democrats to ensure that a Democrat was never elected. 

 

Mr. Hansen said the information that was required could be used directly against the candidate.  And he said that it would be, because the minor parties were looking into using the information directly against their opponents just as the “gay movement” was looking to use it against people.  He thought it was dangerous for a candidate to send out information and swear to it under penalties of perjury.  Mr. Hansen said the law should be stricken. 

 

Mr. Hansen said the Ethics Committee had the opportunity to sue him for $80,000 because he refused to fill out their unconstitutional forms.  They did not file against him for $80,000.  They had only filed for $6,175, because, according to Stacy Jennings, the Ethics Commission felt it would inhibit candidates from running for office.  Mr. Hansen said that eight years ago he had refused to file on time and was not taken to court.  Six years ago he had refused to file on time and was not taken to court.  Four years ago his son had refused to file on time and was not taken to court.  Mr. Hansen said there were no teeth in those laws until he had made “a stink about the whole thing and embarrassed Mr. Heller so that he was forced” to do something.  He said not one candidate had been taken to court all those years, even though some people had not turned the forms in.  He said these laws were dangerous and unconstitutional. 

 

Mr. Hansen said the Legislature had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.  He hoped they would uphold the Constitution and defend people that “did not go into the Socialist insecurity system;” the new “national ID card system,” the driver’s license system, which Mr. Hansen said the Legislature had promised would never occur; and the Social Security number, which Congress had promised would never be used as a national identifier.  Mr. Hansen said, “They lied to us.”

 

Mr. Hansen wondered why the state of Nevada did not hold Congress to its promise to not use the Social Security number for identification.  He said it was a violation of religious liberty to many people living in the United States.  Mr. Hansen said Nevada should stop accepting federal funds, because if Nevada did not take federal funds, they would not have to comply with federal laws.  He said the federal government had changed from using the commerce clause “to force everything down the throat of the state” to the spending clause, because the states had been used to getting federal money.  He said there was nothing in the Constitution of the United States that allowed for the federal government to give states money, yet the states accepted it.  And because of that, according to Mr. Hansen, the states “become slaves to the federal government and destroy our wonderful nation that was established on separation of powers.”  He said the states were supposed to have separation of powers from the federal government.  When the states accepted federal funds, they surrendered their sovereignty.

 

Mr. Hansen interpreted Title 42, Section 666 of the U.S. Code, as requiring Social Security numbers for every license – hunting, fishing, business, law, medical – in the state of Nevada.  It would not have had to be implemented if the state of Nevada had not accepted funds from the federal government.  This was done under the spending clause.

 

Mr. Hansen said our liberty was being taken away by the federal government step by step.  The Patriot Act had been knocked down by 16 cities in this nation, which were now Patriot Act-free zones.  He said it was the state’s responsibility to protect our liberty.  He asked the Committee to maintain Nevada sovereignty by saying “no” to the federal government and not “selling out” their constituents.

 

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, stated she was concerned about the federal law.  She said one of the problems faced today as identified by the Social Security Administration was that identity theft was the fastest growing crime in the United States today.  Ms. Hansen said one of the problems with having a statewide voter registration system was the possibility of identity theft.  People could go to their local voter registration office and get the Social Security number of anyone who had registered to vote.  Ms. Hansen said she changed her Social Security number so that it would not be available for just anybody to use.  She said with this bill, driver’s licenses were linked to Social Security numbers in many cases, and this was being pushed for nationally.  It created a problem for those concerned with identity theft, which Ms. Hansen thought should be addressed in order to maintain integrity.  She stated there were many brilliant computer hackers, and if they could get into the Pentagon’s computers, they could probably get into the Nevada Secretary of State’s.  She was not comfortable with the fact that information was going to be available electronically.  Ms. Hansen encouraged the Committee to consider that. 

 

Another issue Ms. Hansen had was that some people who did not live in Clark County were concerned about the changing of the voting machines.  They wanted a paper trail.  In HAVA, it appeared a paper trail was required.  She was not sure whether that was available through the Sequoia machines in Las Vegas, but she believed it was required.  Ms. Hansen stated she had just been in a meeting with the national presidents for the Eagle Forum.  The California president had told her counties in California that had refused to have touch-screen machines and other systems that did not leave a paper trail were being sued by the California Secretary of State to force them to comply.  She felt there would certainly be a destruction of any kind of autonomy through the bill in the individual counties and the methods they preferred, such as the systems that they had spent a lot of money on and a paper trail that they wanted to keep.

 

One of the things in the federal bill that Ms. Hansen was concerned about was provisional voting.  One of the answers that Secretary Heller suggested was that Nevada implement same-day voter registration.  She said it was possible to have provisional voting just for the federal offices, because the bill actually only applied to voting in federal elections.  She said one would not have to apply provisional voting for the rest of the races in the state if there was concern about voter fraud.  A provisional ballot could be used for federal races only.  She said there had been some Motor Voter circumstances where people had to be allowed to vote just for federal offices and not for state ones.  All those rules would not have to apply to every single voting situation in Nevada because they only applied to the federal ones. 

 

Ms. Hansen said that, according to the Constitution, the federal government did have the authority to mandate certain things for federal offices, but not for every other voting circumstance in the state of Nevada.  She had helped 50 of the candidates for the Independent American Party.  She said they had had many inexperienced candidates who wanted to become involved in the political process.  Ms. Hansen thought a larger field of candidates would promote voter turnout.  The rules and reporting requirements had not improved the honesty of any candidate.  If they were honest to begin with, they were going to be honest throughout the process.  In Washoe County, the IAP had had 13 candidates running, and the Democrats had had ten.  She thought one of the reasons was because of the draconian requirements that hurt all parties and created a situation where people became increasingly uninterested in voting because it had become more difficult.  She was sure they would have the opportunity as the process went on to speak to the individual issues in the bill. 

 

Ms. Hansen said she appreciated Assemblywoman McClain’s comments about who was interested in the reporting requirements.  Ms. Hansen thought that often people who were interested in opposing a candidate were on the Web site trying to find information they could use to try to squash a campaign.  The same thing was true of the Ethics Commission.  She said they had candidates against whom the Ethics Commission had filed complaints that had been dismissed, but they had been treated as guilty until proven innocent.  She said this harmed the political process, and she did not think it improved one person’s individual honesty.  According to Ms. Hansen, the press was interested in contributions people were getting, but she did not think the people at large were interested in every individual donation.  She thought the system had gone completely beyond what it was meant to do and that the reverse was happening.  She said it was being used against candidates rather than to help honest candidates. 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Hansen for her point about the provisional ballot.  She thought it was quite valid because with provisional balloting, no count would be complete for approximately two weeks, but the everyday elections could have some closure.  Ms. Hansen said it did not only apply to the provisional voting requirements.  She thought there might be other issues they might look at that applied to federal elections and maintain the integrity of the process in Nevada.  She felt Nevada did not need the federal government’s rules to improve its system; she thought the federal government should look at Nevada’s system and perhaps improve their own.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 6:27.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

 

 

DATE: