MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 18, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. 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:

 

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14

Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, District No. 17

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer

Janine Hansen, Independent American Party

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, State of Nevada

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 285.

 

Assembly Bill 285:  Revises provisions regarding filing of declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy. (BDR 24-705)

 

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14, Clark County, sponsored A.B. 285 as a result of two experiences that she had had while running for office in Clark County.  Mrs. Koivisto said in 1998 the gentleman who filed to run against her did not live in the Assembly district he was running to represent.  In the last election, the gentleman that filed to run against her was a convicted felon, a sex offender who had not registered as a sex offender with the police as he was required to do, which was another felony (Exhibit C).

 

Mrs. Koivisto said she brought this legislation because it was too easy to file and run for office.  If one wanted to run for office, all one had to do was give his name.  Identification was not required.  The person would be looked up on the voter list, which showed that the he lived where he said he lived, and he would be a candidate.  Mrs. Koivisto thought the process needed to be tightened up and handled seriously.  She said things that had happened to her and other candidates had cheapened the process.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani went over the proposed changes, which would amend the actual Oath of Office to include language that a person had not been found guilty of treason or a felony, and that a candidate would be required to submit a fingerprint card, authorization, and a fee.  She asked Mrs. Koivisto if that summed up what she had proposed.  Mrs. Koivisto replied that it was.

 

Assemblyman Anderson believed A.B. 285 was a good piece of legislation.  He was concerned about the fingerprint card.  He asked Mrs. Koivisto if she envisioned the candidates’ fingerprints and background information being filed in the Central Repository in Nevada. 

 

Mrs. Koivisto responded that candidates only needed to submit fingerprints and background information once.  Mr. Anderson asked if the first time a person ran for office he would have had to be fingerprinted, paid for the fingerprint card, and brought the fingerprint card with him when filing.  Mrs. Koivisto said that was correct.  Mr. Anderson said there was a backlog on getting fingerprints processed of approximately two months. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto said the sexual offender who ran against her was caught when stopped by the police for a traffic violation.  She said if a background check could be done without fingerprints, that would be okay with her, but she thought some type of background check should be done.

 

Assemblyman Beers said he liked the bill.  He referred to Section 8 on page 5, lines 34 through 36.  He was not comfortable with the results of the background and fingerprint checks being confidential.  Mrs. Koivisto responded that when the result of a background check came out, it was too late to take names off the ballot.  She thought if background checks could be done when a person filed for office, they would not be placed on the ballot in the first place.  It would be a tool for the Registrar of Voters or the county clerks to have a cleaner process.  Mr. Beers thought that when a background check turned up a sexual offender, that information should go out to the public.

 

Assemblywoman McClain said the problem was that the only check done on a person running for office was finding out if that person had registered to vote.  If a person was a registered voter, that person was acceptable as a candidate.  She realized background checks could not be done on every person registering to vote, but felt background checks should be done on people who filed to run for office.  Ms. McClain thought that might deter people from fraudulently registering to vote.  She thought there should be some way of determining whether registered voters were qualified to be registered voters.

 

Assemblyman McCleary asked if the filing process could be structured so that people who decided at the last minute to run could still enter the race without waiting for the results of the background check.  Mrs. Koivisto thought that was a valid concern.  She referenced Mr. Anderson’s comment about the two-month lag in processing fingerprints.  She said there had to be a quick way to do background checks.  When a person went to buy a gun, their name was input into a computer, and the seller could find out almost immediately whether or not that person was a criminal. 

 

Assemblyman McCleary hoped the clerks would be able to answer his question.  He thought it might be as simple as making a phone call and asking if the person was a felon or had warrants out on him.

 

Assemblyman Anderson stated the Brady Bill required a background check at the time of a gun purchase.  A yes or no answer would be received within 24 hours.  A full fingerprint check took approximately two months.  He said Megan’s Law required sexual offenders to be tracked.  Mr. Anderson said that Nevada had not moved into the area of full disclosure.  He said teachers were fingerprinted and had to pay for fingerprints each time they were relicensed, even though the prints were not actually taken every time. 

 

Assemblyman Grady asked if Mrs. Koivisto’s intent was for the bill to apply only to state officers or to everyone.  In rural areas, it would be difficult to find someone to run for a water board, volunteer board, or other local office if the background check was required for everyone.  The fees could also pose a problem.  Mrs. Koivisto was not sure if it could legally be limited to a certain group or class of people.  She said the check that was done with the Brady Bill would be sufficient. 

 

Assemblyman Conklin stated that he had signed on to the bill because he liked it.  He asked if Mrs. Koivisto or Research had looked at what states with similar programs had done.  Mrs. Koivisto said she did not know what other states had done. 

 

Assemblyman Christensen asked if it would be possible for a candidate to file for office and have the elections office verify the candidates within five or seven days following the filing cutoff so they could still get their name on the roster.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she had not signed on to the bill because she had reservations about doing background checks on individuals simply because they had run for office.  She said Mrs. Koivisto had been in a unique circumstance because her opponent had not had his rights restored, and he had violated the law again by not having registered as a sexual offender.  She asked how a name could be removed if, within a certain period of time, it was discovered the person was not qualified as a candidate.  She also wondered how to go about removing a deceased person’s name from the ballot.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Michelle Van Geel to do a scan of other states to see whether any had done background checks or required fingerprints of anybody running for office.  The Committee needed to discuss whether the bill pertained to federal and state races, whether jurisdictional issues would be crossed, and whether they would create a double standard.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani was concerned about the fingerprints.  She said there might be a way to do a check that was quicker and simpler without invading confidentiality.  She said “hits” could come up that had nothing to do with a felony that an opponent could use.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated care needed to be taken on what would be shown; she did not know what was shown on a Brady check.  Civil name checks done by casinos could show hits where a person had not made a payment on time.  The person might not even know the information existed, but it could have an effect on being hired for a job.  She said the Committee needed to be specific on what the hits would look for.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said more research needed to be done.  In one case, a name could not be removed from the ballot because it was after the deadline.  If that happened, they might post a form in the polling area.  Ms. Giunchigliani said they needed to discuss steps on how to remove a candidate’s name from a ballot when that candidate was not permitted to run for office. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain said part of the problem had to do with fraudulent addresses.  Some candidates did not live in the districts they had run to represent.  She thought more documentation was needed.

 

Assemblyman Conklin said the Committee should consider substantial penalties for candidates who were felons and filed and ran for office.  He thought a confidential background check could be done on successful candidates, similar to how employers dealt with background checks.  They chose their employees, then did a post choosing/pre-employment screen.  If a person chose to run knowing they had a felony record, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law with exorbitant penalties.  It could be a preventive measure.  Mr. Conklin asked if anyone had checked to see if they could actually do the fingerprinting and background checks prior to being elected, and if it was constitutional. 

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, said the clerks had originally asked to have identification verifying that the candidates lived where they said they did.  To file as a candidate, one did not have to be a registered voter.  One had to be a qualified elector, which meant being qualified to register to vote.  He said there was a candidate, “Steve ‘Captain Truth’ Dempsey,” who had filed without giving an address.  He claimed he was homeless and gave an area where he generally “hung out.”  Chairwoman Giunchigliani interjected that the United States Constitution stated that a person did not have to be registered to vote in order to vote.  One had to be a qualified electorate.  The Nevada Constitution said the same thing.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Committee needed to look at the homeless situation.  She said a homeless gentleman had run against her twice, and she knew he did not live where he said he did.  She verified that he lived in Pahrump and had an investigation done.  But some of the homeless candidates, such as veterans, were legitimate.

 

Mr. Lomax reminded the Committee that as they did their research, especially when they had discussed removing a name from the ballot or notifying the public that a candidate had been disqualified, the clerks’ attempt to get the mail ballots out to the overseas voters.  The goal was 45 days prior to the election, but it could not be done in Nevada because of when the primary occurred.  The clerks tried to get them mailed out 40 days prior to the election per Nevada statutes.  In Mrs. Koivisto’s situation, Mr. Lomax’s office had already sent out mail ballots and printed all of the other ballots.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the Committee could add an amendment proposing that if someone had been found guilty of a felony, even if votes had been cast, that those cast votes would be invalidated.  Mr. Lomax said they could decide what they wanted to do.  In Clark County, they considered the office vacant if that person had been elected, because they had never qualified to file for that office in the first place.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought that would be a better way to do it.

 

Assemblywoman McClain disagreed.  She thought the vacancy would have to be filled by appointment, and it would have to be the same party.  Mr. Lomax said it was difficult when something like this happened when the ballots had been mailed and people had participated in the voting process. 

 

Mr. Lomax understood the bill to say that regardless of what an investigation had found, the resulting information would be given back to his office and he would have to keep it confidential.  If he had to keep it confidential, he did not understand why the investigation had been done in the first place.  He thought the intent was for him to keep them confidential if they had nothing to do with the person’s qualifications for office.  However, if he found out someone was a child molester, they would not want him to keep that information confidential.  Mr. Lomax said that if the Committee wanted background checks to be done, he would rather not know about it.  The information should be sent to the District Attorney’s office for prosecution, as that was what he would do. 

 

Mr. Lomax stated that if the Committee proposed to charge fees for background checks or fingerprint cards, the way the law was written now, the candidates were going to pay the fees to the General Fund, and his office would have to pay the FBI and whoever else was doing the research approximately $50 per candidate.  He thought it was an odd way of collecting fees, making his office pay for it initially, and then having the county reimburse the candidates.  He said his budget would be $15,000 short based on the number of candidates they had.

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, said a candidate had filed for office, and it had subsequently been discovered that he was a felon.  He had registered to vote and had voted in several elections.  His opponents had been interested in what had been going on, so Mr. Glover’s office opened an investigation.  The candidate had been convicted in the state of Maryland on two felony counts and had spent ten years in prison.  Mr. Glover spoke with the man, and the man’s argument was that in the state of Maryland, people did not lose their rights when they were convicted of a felony.  Therefore, he felt he was justified in filing for office and registering to vote.  The District Attorney advised Mr. Glover that due to the felony convictions, the man was not a qualified elector under the Nevada Constitution.  The man told Mr. Glover that he had contacted the state of Maryland, and they could not restore his rights because he had never lost his rights.  He had no place to go to.  The District Attorney declined to prosecute the man for registering, filing for office, and voting in an election, because he had had no intent to defraud. 

 

Mr. Glover said there had been a situation in Nye County where the voters had elected a public administrator who was an ex-felon.  The newly elected public administrator started embezzling the day he took office and was subsequently removed from office.  Mr. Glover said it would have been helpful to know that the person had been an embezzler in other places before they turned estates over to him. 

 

Mr. Glover discussed several ways of handling the fingerprinting of candidates.  He wondered if they could bring a deputy sheriff to his office to fingerprint the candidates all at once, or if the candidates would have to go to the sheriff’s office to have it done.  He asked if fingerprints taken in one county would be accepted throughout the state.  He said there were a lot of technical questions that needed to be worked out.  Mr. Glover said the clerks wanted information about candidates regarding where they lived and if they could prove they lived there.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that in her felons’ rights bill, the situation discussed by Mr. Glover had occurred.  If a person was guilty of a misdemeanor in another state and moved to Nevada, that misdemeanor might be a felony under Nevada law, making that person a felon in the state of Nevada.  She said it was double jeopardy, and the Committee needed to be careful to not disenfranchise people inappropriately.

 

Mr. Glover related a story about a man from a prominent family in Reno who had registered to vote and had in fact voted.  He had received a jury questionnaire with the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”  The person answered that he had.  The gentleman’s wife called Mr. Glover’s office and was very concerned.  He asked the woman what the situation was.  She said her husband had had a felony in Berkeley, California, for possession of marijuana in 1965.  Mr. Glover said that was an example of what would disqualify a person from running for office.

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, said she was responsible for fingerprinting and work cards at their Lake Tahoe office.  When A.B. 285 came out, she had asked her staff to keep track of the fingerprinting process.  On January 24, her office had started tracking fingerprinting and work card responses.  To date, they had not received responses on any of them.  She said they had a backlog, which was a major concern.  The information would not be back in time to pull names off of a ballot.  She also did not see the point of keeping the information confidential after they received it, because it would not do anybody any good.

 

Janine Hansen, Independent American Party, said she had serious concerns about the bill.  She thought one portion of the bill had merit: The Declaration of Candidacy should include the fact that the person was a qualified elector.  She did not believe that portion was in the current statute.  According to the Nevada Constitution, a candidate must be a resident of the state for six months and the district or county for 30 days and could not have been convicted of a felony or treason in a state or territory of the United States, unless her rights had been restored.  If a candidate had to be a qualified elector, those requirements already applied to her, and the bill was redundant. 

 

Ms. Hansen had a question regarding the child molester in Las Vegas.  She asked if he had been prosecuted for having filed erroneously.  If he had not been prosecuted, there was no reason for AB. 285, because some punishment should have been imposed upon him for having violated the law.  She said new election laws should not be passed if the current election laws were not enforced. 

 

Ms. Hansen said the bill would increase the cost of running for office and that $50 was a significant amount of money to pay for a background check.  She said when she went through a background check to get a concealed weapon permit, it had taken four months to get the results.  The Independent American Party and all qualified minor parties had to submit a list to the Secretary of State showing all of their candidates who would be running before any of those candidates could file for office.  She said the clerks were trying to diminish the amount of time they had to file for office, which made it more difficult to file.  It placed an additional burden on candidates, in that limited time period, to complete all of the requirements.  She said it diminished the number of candidates they could actually have. 

 

Ms. Hansen stated that every time the clerks made it more difficult for candidates to file, they lost candidates.  The Independent American Party would file in the courts if the bill passed as written, because they felt it was unconstitutional.  Many of their candidates objected to a background check, not because they were felons, but because it violated their rights of free speech and assembly, their Fourth Amendment protections of search and seizure, and prior restraint. 

 

Ms. Hansen said people could not be prevented from doing something in advance.  There might be a penalty imposed on someone who filed and was later found to be a felon, but there could be no prior restraint restricting people from filing.  It violated their constitutional rights.  She said she wanted people to be qualified electors and to honestly sign the oath. 

 

Ms. Hansen did not know if a background check on candidates, similar to that in the Brady Bill, would be constitutional.  The cost of a Brady background check was $15, as opposed to $50 for a complete background check.  She wondered what would happen if an Independent American Party (IAP) candidate filed, and the IAP turned in that name as a part of their list.  Currently, the list could not be amended.  Minor parties did not hold primaries, so they would not be under the time restraints of the primary, but they would be for the general election.  She asked if the IAP could amend their list and put in a new candidate if someone was disqualified.

 

Ms. Hansen referred to a press release by Secretary of State Dean Heller in which he noted that he had asked for action by the Attorney General against 200 candidates who had not filed certain reports.  Ultimately, about 33 remained in violation.  Many of those were filed against, including IAP candidates who were challenging certain reporting laws.  She said the article mentioned that 15 candidates were never filed against.  Ms. Hansen quoted Secretary of State Heller: “Given the fact that influential lawyers, judges, and former legislators are on the list of the 15, the neglect of the statutory deadline by previous administration of the Attorney General’s office creates the appearance of playing favorites for those who are politically connected.”  She said that pointed out two things: One, that election laws were not being enforced.  And secondly, would there be discrimination in terms of whom it was going to be enforced against.  She said all of the Independent American Party candidates were targeted for enforcement, but some of the others were not.

 

According to Ms. Hansen, regardless of how many laws were passed, it rarely determined how many honest people participated in government.  People should be required to sign an oath stating that they were qualified electors, and if they violated that, there should be some enforcement, which had not happened in the past.  She believed that would correct the problem.  She reiterated that if the bill passed in its current form, the Independent American Party would challenge it in court.

 

Ms. Hansen referred to the bottom of page 4 where it stated a candidate was required to produce a valid driver’s license or identification card issued by a government agency that contained a photograph.  She said the IAP challenged that requirement a couple of years ago.  The court responded in favor of their challenge, saying they did not have to have a Social Security number or government ID, because all government IDs cost money, and that would constitute a poll tax, which was unconstitutional.  She said this was the same type of restraint, because candidates would have to pay $50 or $15 for a background check.

 

Ms. Hansen said one of their candidates had a problem with the Clark County Registrar of Voters with regard to his address.  Some of their candidates did not have a driver’s license, Social Security card, or government ID, and yet they were legitimate candidates; some did not have a utility bill, because they were living with their parents, not by themselves; some did not have a bank account or regular paycheck.  She said those candidates could sign an affidavit saying they were who they said they were.  Ms. Hansen said people should know that, should they file knowing they were felons, a penalty would be imposed against them and that penalty would be enforced.  She thought that would resolve a lot of the concerns brought forth by this bill. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Hansen and said she would look into the issue of the photograph and the ID.  She said the Committee would be sensitive to the minor party issue, because if the dates were changed, they did not want to jeopardize what had been worked out several years ago.  There would need to be a mechanism to allow the minor parties to substitute their list.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 285 and opened the hearing on A.B. 289.

 

Assembly Bill 289:  Provides for names of candidates to be listed on ballot in accordance with randomized procedure of alphabetization. (BDR 24-907)

 

Assemblywoman Weber, District No. 5, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit D).  A.B. 289 addressed randomization of candidate names on election ballots, whether primary, nonpartisan, general election, or city office.  Ms. Weber discussed the proposed amended sections of Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 293.256 through 293C.262, as follows:

 

NRS 293.256, Section 2, pages 2 and 3:

                        1. Drawing of lots

                        2. Computer or other device that generated characters at random

           

                        Examples in this section were given regarding:

·        how the surnames were to appear.

·        if the surnames of two or more candidates began with the same letter.

·        if the surnames of two or more candidates were the same.

·        if the surnames of two or more candidates were the same and the given names of those candidates began with the same letter.

 

Page 4:

 

 

Page 5:

 

 

Pages 5 and 6:

 

 

Page 7:

 

 

Ms. Weber then focused on the political aspects of the bill.  She stated that no single candidate should hold an advantage over another by way of the election process.  Under reasonable standards of fairness, ballot formats should not determine the outcome of an election.  The candidate preferred by most of the people should be the one who won the election.

 

Ms. Weber said that political professionals had taken for granted that the top spot on the ballot provided an advantage to the candidate whose name occupied it by as much as 2.5 percent.  According to the article “First Guys Finish First,” written by Jennifer Steen (Exhibit E), candidates had brought lawsuits to prevent their incumbent opponents from enjoying that advantage.  Most states employed the fixed ballot, alphabetized process. 

 

According to Ms. Weber, these effects were most readily seen in races where there was no party affiliation, minimal publicity, and no incumbent.  Name order effects seemed to be stronger in areas where voters were less knowledgeable about politics.  When citizens heard that voter turnout was forecast to be low, “citizen duty” compelled some to cast votes even though they lacked sufficient information to make informed choices.  Statistics showed that the first ballot position had increased value in outcomes of those election results.  Ms. Weber said when one took into account additional factors such as added length of ballots, increased wait time at the polls, or lack of a marked sample ballot for reference, the choice of selecting the first name position on the ballot could be timesaving and dramatic.  She remembered how many times in school she would choose the first position on a multiple choice exam if she did not know the answer.  She thought that theory of choice might apply to elections as well.

 

Ms. Weber stated that a variety of approaches existed within the 50 states regarding name order on the ballot (Exhibit F).  Of the 34 states where data was available:

 

Ms. Weber thought it was interesting that Mississippi had had one House bill and two Senate bills introduced in both the 2001 and 2002 sessions to alphabetize the name order on the ballot, and all of the bills failed.  She went on to say that in April of 1997, Senator Dina Titus, Clark District, No. 7, brought S.B. 292 to the Senate Government Affairs Committee.  The bill included a section on randomization of the ballot.  Then-Registrar Kathryn Ferguson had testified, “A lottery offered a more equitable approach than the current alphabetical listing of names,” and pointed out “‘if the filing officer was a candidate for office, an alternative list of individuals who could draw names would have to be established.’”

 

In conclusion, Ms. Weber said she had reviewed the technical changes of NRS 293 to allow for the randomization of candidates’ names on the ballot.  She had also reviewed what other states had done.  Evidence and studies showed that name position listed first on the ballot did have an advantage and could, in some circumstances, influence the outcome of an election for the wrong reason.  According to Ms. Weber, the psychological order effects predicted that “primacy effects,” or biases toward selecting the first object considered in a set, was truly predictable.

 

Ms. Weber referred to the article “The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes,” written by Joanne Miller and Jon Krosnick (Exhibit G).  The article compiled documentation from the past 50 years regarding numerous lawsuits filed by candidates denoting that elections were disadvantaged when their names were not listed first on the ballot.  Ms. Weber urged the Committee’s consideration of this bill allowing for the randomization procedure of alphabetization for candidates’ names on the ballot.

 

Assemblyman Conklin thought it was important to point out that in The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau had said that instead of elections, we should draw straws for the Senate, and that way the Senate would always be representative of the population.  Mr. Conklin had some concerns regarding Ms. Weber’s request.  He said many in their body might suggest that they had too many names at the upper end of the alphabet, which supported that theory.  However, in going through the 2002 General Election results, over 50 percent of the Committee members had defeated opponents whose names came before theirs alphabetically.  He asked Ms. Weber how she could justify her request, considering the numbers were far greater than what they might consider an anomaly.

 

Ms. Weber stated that by presenting with her part of the alphabet being represented at the end, one would believe that she was fighting for that purpose.  She wanted the Committee to see that depending on the sample size, it could be supported statistically that there was bias towards the first candidate on the ballot.  She said it seemed to decrease in races where there was no incumbent.

 

Assemblyman Christensen wanted to disclose that “Christensen” started with a “C.”  He suggested the possibility of alphabetizing by first names rather than last names.  He asked what kind of feedback Ms. Weber had received from people regarding A.B. 289.  Ms. Weber responded that people believed candidates listed at the top of the ballot had an advantage.

 

Assemblyman Beers said that 39 of the 42 members in the Assembly started with a surname letter “P” or lower.

 

Assemblyman Grady commented that Assemblyman Atkinson was present to listen to Ms. Weber’s bill.

 

Assemblyman McCleary said he did not believe that the location of a candidate’s name on the ballot was a factor.

 

Ms. Weber said that when she reviewed the 2002 election results, the person who prevailed usually occupied the first or last position on the ballot.  It rarely was a name found in the center of the ballot, unless it was an incumbent or a person well-known in their community.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said there was a tendency to go with the first name on the ballot.  However, there was a 50 to 70 percent drop-off from the presidential and gubernatorial races to the local races. 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce asked Ms. Weber why she had gone with randomization rather than drawing of lots on her bill.  Ms. Weber replied that she had not made a proposal on how to change the ballot.  She said it was the best interpretation the bill drafters had.  She had no leaning toward one or the other.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani brought up the recent Esmeralda County race where two candidates had drawn cards to determine a winner.  The two candidates had selected the same card, so the winner was determined by the cards’ suits.

 

Assemblywoman McClain said if a candidate were identified as the “bottom of the ticket,” people would look for that candidate.  People had a tendency to not go to the middle, because they had all learned that in school about multiple-choice questions.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said if they did not know the answer, they were supposed to pick “C.”

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that Ms. Weber was not tied to the randomization process.  She said if the Committee were going to consider A.B. 289, they would need to make sure there was a balance to allow for two candidates with the same name. 

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, said if the Committee were to pass A.B. 289, they would need to specify whether the randomization applied to every race or every election.  Mr. Lomax referred to page 3, lines 42 through 44, which stated that if two candidates had identical names, they would draw lots to decide who went first.  In a “David Parks v. David Parks” race, that would not have helped the voters.  He said that would be an issue if the bill were to go through.  There was currently nothing in the law that would help him differentiate between identical names.  He said his office had thought of adding “incumbent” behind a name, but had been told they would be sued if they did that.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought there was a bill in drafting that dealt with that issue.

 

Mr. Lomax believed the bill was strictly for the candidates, and not for the voters.  When a voter went in to vote, they looked alphabetically to find their candidate.  Randomizing candidates would slow the process down.  When voters needed to make 50 or 60 choices on a ballot, it was easier to list names alphabetically.  His office provided audio voting, and randomizing candidate names would make it more difficult for those voters.  In Mr. Lomax’s limited tenure as Clark County Registrar, his office had gone to court three times on this issue.  In each case, it was ruled that whatever statistical advantage there was for the candidate, it was overruled by the inconvenience of the voters.  The current Nevada Revised Statutes required the order to be alphabetical.  Mr. Lomax recommended that the Committee leave the ballots the way they were.

 

Assemblyman McCleary asked if a candidate could put whatever name he or she wanted on the ballot.  He remembered that one year “God Almighty” had run against U.S. Senator Harry Reid.  Mr. Lomax said if it were a legal name, they could do that.  Currently, names on ballots were listed by surname and then first name.  Candidates could then have a 10-letter nickname.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out that God Almighty had lost that race.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce asked if a person could run under a first name that was a nickname but was not a legal first name.  Mr. Lomax replied that that was correct.  He said candidates had to file under their given name, and then they specified how they wanted their names to appear on the ballot.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that she filed using her full name, “Christina,” but had it appear as “Chris” on the ballot.  She went on to say that if she wanted to appear on the ballot as “Ziggy,” she would have to get a legal name change.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson, District No. 17, joked that he knew it appeared as though he were against A.B. 289 because his last name started with an “A.”  But he said he was actually concerned about the potential problems for a voter, because voters were used to going down a list of candidates in alphabetical order, which concerns he said Mr. Lomax and Mr. McCleary had covered very well already.

 

Ms. Weber said she was honored that Mr. Atkinson would attend a Committee meeting at such a late hour to hear testimony and to make sure the process was equitable for all.  Mr. Atkinson responded that A.B. 289 was not a partisan issue, so he felt they should all be in support of one another, although he did not support this bill right now.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 289 and opened the work session on A.J.R. 3.

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 3:  Urges Congress to amend Social Security Act by repealing certain provisions that require reductions in social security benefits for persons who also receive certain federal, state or local government pensions. (BDR R-839)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO ADOPT A.J.R. 3.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said 14 states still had their own retirement systems, wherein those people who were public employees were not allowed to collect their full Social Security benefits.  She reminded the audience that A.J.R. 3 called on Congress to overturn that policy and to end the discrimination. 

 

Ms. Weber said she was surprised that the issue had not come up since Congress enacted it in 1987.  She said she had empathy for those who were being discriminated against. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was involved as an employee with the National Teachers Association years ago when the federal government was attempting to pull all of the single state retirement systems to bail out Social Security.  She said they had fought against that part of it.  Ms. Giunchigliani said no one had realized that Congress had inserted a caveat that punished those states for fighting the federal government on that portion.  She said there used to be 20 to 22 states with their own retirement systems, and they were now down to 14.  Those states that had gone into the system were not impacted.  She told the Committee that she had not been aware of part 2; her husband was a public employee, so they would both be affected. 

 

Assemblyman Conklin added that there were term limits in the state of Nevada.  For those not part of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and were working towards their own retirement by putting a substantial amount of money into Social Security and then were legislators four months out of every two years, at ten years they had a big decision to make.  He asked if they continued to serve the public, or did they err on the side of their own retirement so they could take full advantage of what they had been paying into for some time.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 125.

 

Assembly Bill 125:  Makes various changes to laws governing elections. (BDR 24-294)

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst, said the first page of the work session document (Exhibit H) provided a brief history A.B. 125 and listed the proposed conceptual amendments.  Tab A included amendments presented by Alan Glover, representing the Nevada Association of County Clerks.  Tab B included information which eliminated the practice of noting the identifying number of a ballot next to the voter’s name in the poll book, eliminated the requirement to make the Election Department an early voting site, and eliminated the requirement that a county commissioner be present during a recount.  In addition to that, Ms. Van Geel said she had also been in contact with Larry Lomax and Alan Glover concerning precinct boundaries.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said one of the amendments regarded the printing of the ballots, which HAVA required.

 

Mr. Lomax said the language Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to was actually introduced as an amendment to the HAVA bill by Senator Ensign.  He did not know Mr. Ensign’s reason for putting it in there.  He said it was the same language Nevada currently had in its statutes.  Mr. Lomax said the voting machine must be capable of producing a paper ballot.  His office would produce them if required, but it took three people two weeks to accomplish that task.  He said at the last election they had to print 387,000 pieces of paper, which had been put in boxes, locked up, and could not be seen unless ordered by a judge.  Those papers were stored for 22 months and then thrown away.

 

Mr. Lomax said elections were becoming expensive, and there was a lot of waste involved.  He said he was trying to save manpower and money.  The language for HAVA had yet to be defined.  Mr. Lomax said he was a member of a standards committee, which consisted of 55 clerks and 55 secretaries of state from around the country.  That Committee was going to decide on voting machine standards.  Mr. Lomax said there was a strong argument saying that the machine must be able to print paper ballots.  If his office needed to print paper ballots for a recount, they would print them.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed with Mr. Lomax.  If the Committee decided to go forward with the bill, she asked that they allow it the way the clerks originally proposed it.  She believed the Secretary of State’s issue was that the clerks had to be able to produce the paper ballot if someone wished to receive one.  She asked Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, if she was comfortable with that language.

 

Ms. Parker said her office agreed with Mr. Lomax.  Her interpretation of the language in HAVA was that the machine had to be capable of printing the paper ballot.  If the standards board determined otherwise, federal preemption could be argued in the interim to certify the voting system.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that could be done through regulation, and then it would need to be readdressed at the next session. 

 

Ms. Van Geel said the information contained in Tab A clarified language that had been discussed at the February 20, 2003, Committee meeting.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani believed the only proposed amendment to A.B. 125 that might prove controversial for the Committee was the first one.  A.B. 125 currently stated, “...or provide identification including, without limitation, a driver’s license or other official document indicating their current address.”  She said it looked like they had picked up the language from Mrs. Koivisto’s bill.  Ms. Giunchigliani said Ms. Hansen also had raised a question regarding the issue of how narrow that would be drawn.  She thought the Committee should make sure that it legally allowed flexibility for those who were conscientious objectors.  She said there had been rulings in the state that handled it otherwise.  She also mentioned that Ms. Hansen had suggested a notarized statement to allow for those who did not agree with the ID requirement.

 

Mr. Lomax said the language included in the bill came out of HAVA.  He said that HAVA required a person registering to vote to show identification.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought more research needed to be done so they would not wind up in court.  She said the Committee had both the HAVA bill and Mrs. Koivisto’s bill.  She thought they could delete lines 37 to 41 on page 6, giving the Committee more time to discuss it.  She said there was similar language in the HAVA bill that came from the Secretary of State’s office and Mrs. Koivisto’s bill.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the rest of the proposed amendments were generic.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS IN TAB A WITHOUT SECTION 5.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

Ms. Van Geel said there had been discussions with Mr. Lomax and Mr. Glover regarding technical changes to precinct boundaries.  The suggested changes would not affect areas with a population of 50 or more and would be less than one hundredth of a percent change.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani reminded the Committee that they had discussed adjustments that needed to be made based on lines that had been drawn.  She said that while Mr. Lomax looked at voter registration, the Committee had to take population into consideration.  Some of the precincts that caused a problem might have had 25 to 100 registered voters, but in some cases they had upwards of 1,000 in population that would be affected.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she had made a judgment call with Legal, and she was presenting that they not change anything with a population under 50 people, regardless of what the registration was.  In most cases, it was 1 to 2 people.  The whole point was to eliminate mail precincts.  They could not go over a 10 percent variant without being accused of gerrymandering.  Had the Committee accepted all of the recommendations Mr. Lomax had presented, they would have been at 10.75 percent, putting that at risk of being challenged.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the only language they were recommending was to accept precinct boundary changes that affected populations under 50, and would be less than one one-hundredth of a percentage change.

 

Assemblyman Conklin said many of his precincts were under 1,000 people, and many of them were under 500.  He asked if the one one-hundredth of a percentage change was of the total population of a district.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded that in each precinct there was a variant.  Assemblyman Beers said he had introduced legislation on March 17 to fix one of the areas in his district.  He said they had different jurisdictions that they had apportioned for.  Any time the combination of all of the sets of lines created a unique balance for somebody, that somebody or the people that had that same ballot became a new precinct.  The reason they had seen a preponderance of mail-in districts during their last campaign was because of the overlaid lines causing chunks of isolated ballots.  He said that cost money in terms of executing the election, because they all had to have different ballots.  There was a potential of introduction of difficulty in the process of the election, because the people in Clark County that programmed the computers had to go through a set process for each precinct.  Mr. Beers suggested giving the registrars the ability to combine mail-in precincts of under “X” number of voters or 50 people, whatever the Committee decided the number to be, into adjacent precincts with the goal of eliminating mail-in precincts.  He also suggested putting a districtwide limit on variations in the population between the new districts they created.

 

Mr. Lomax said there were small mail precincts of approximately 0 to 15 people.  He suggested merging one mail precinct with another, which would eliminate a ballot style.  From his perspective, it gave those voters an Election Day polling place.  He said those people had no place to vote on Election Day; they had to vote by mail, and they did not like it.  He said his office had received a lot of complaints about that.  Mr. Lomax’s office was trying to find a way to alleviate of those problems as well as they could. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that some of those precincts had populations in the hundreds, and that could skew the balance that was there.  She said she would duplicate the list that Mr. Lomax and Scott Wasserman had worked on, along with Mr. Lomax’s map, and she would take that part out of the bill and use another bill.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she would provide the Committee with copies, giving them a visual aid, so people would not think the Committee was manipulating votes.  She said the rest of the items in Tab B eliminated the polling place at the Government Center, clarified the legal rights for temporary branch polling places, dealt with employment of the recount board, and allowed the election workers to sleep before having to count votes.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani also said that one of the amendments eliminated the practice of noting the identifying number of the ballot next to the voter’s name in the poll book.  Larry Lomax said his office did not put a ballot number in the roster book with electronic voting.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the Committee would not include item 3, which eliminated the practice of noting the identifying number, until it was researched further.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 125, INCLUDING ITEM “A” AS AMENDED IN THE PREVIOUS VOTE, WHICH EXCLUDED SECTION 5; AND ACCEPTING ITEMS 4 AND 5 AS DESCRIBED UNDER TAB “B”.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Anderson was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 5:46 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: