MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
March 25, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Tuesday, March 25, 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 Vonne Chowning, District No. 28, Clark County
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District No. 42, Clark County
Assemblyman Rod Sherer, District No. 36, Churchill, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye Counties
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Edward Taylor, Clark County resident
David Bowman, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Nevada Department of Public Safety
Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Steve Robinson, State Forester-Firewarden, Nevada Division of Forestry
Karen Coyne, City of Las Vegas
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters
Daniel Burk, Washoe County Registrar of Voters
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Good afternoon. [Roll called] With the indulgence of the Committee, as well as the individuals in the audience, I am going to have to do the hearing a little bit out of order. We are going to take A.B. 328 first, and I would ask Assemblywoman Chowning to come forward. The reason we are doing that, and I appreciate the audience’s willingness, is her constituent that needs testify could not get to the Grant Sawyer Building, and so we are going to hook him up by telephone. Good afternoon.
Assembly Bill 328: Requires Secretary of State to submit advisory question to voters concerning regulation of sale and use of fireworks in all counties of State of Nevada. (BDR S-787)
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Good afternoon. Thank you very much. For the record, I am Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, representing District 28 in Clark County. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee, for allowing me to present A.B. 328 today. Assembly Bill 328 is a ballot measure so that the people of the entire state of Nevada can make their voices heard. They will tell the State Legislature “yes” or “no” that the State Legislature should direct the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations regarding the sale and use of fireworks in all counties in this state.
There have been many instances of tragedy and fires that have occurred in our state due to fireworks. This is a health and safety measure. As elected representatives, I believe that it is our duty – and indeed, I am proud to have that duty – to look out for the safety of our children and our adults. When you put an item that is designed to explode, to leave the ground, to emit sparks, it is dangerous. If you put them in the hands of children, it is most especially dangerous. There is a big difference in the manufacturing of items of fireworks. Some are considered safe and sane, and those that are labeled safe and sane are indeed safer than others. But, ladies and gentlemen, you still must take a match and ignite a fuse in order for those items to work. If you put that in the hands of a child, then the ramifications can be very tragic. The fuses are safety fuses with the safe and sane fireworks, and that means that they ignite slower. The other items are fireworks that are considered Class C fireworks, and most of the time they have a paper fuse. This means they ignite instantaneously.
That is why there needs to be uniformity. Our state is the last state, the only state left in these United States, to not have a state fireworks law (Exhibit C). We are the weakest state in the union. Being the weakest state in the union, to not take a stand for public safety, I think is appalling, embarrassing, and one that I am not willing to put up with.
What we have is a lack of uniformity, so that in one county, explosive, dangerous items that can leave the ground were allowed to be sold. But they are illegal in the neighboring county. One county, which is Clark County, allows the sale of safe and sane fireworks. Hundreds of nonprofit organizations sell safe and sane fireworks and do wonderful things for the community with the money and the dollars that are derived. But a neighboring county, Nye County, allows the sale of explosive items that leave the ground and are Class C fireworks. They are not allowed for use, however, in Nye County. The people who purchase the items have to leave Nye County within 24 hours, and they may not ignite in their county. So what does that do? People are forced to be lawbreakers in a neighboring county or in a neighboring state. If they take the items into California, they are breaking state law in California. If they bring the items into Clark County, they are breaking local ordinances. There are other counties in our state that are far more restrictive. Washoe County allows no sale of any kind of fireworks. What you see is a patchwork and a problem for the rest of our state because of the lack of uniformity. We have Indian reservations in our state that allow the sale and use of fireworks. Usually it is Class C fireworks, and they have safe and sane fireworks.
For many years, people have said, “But you can’t do anything because you cannot regulate the Indian reservations.” But, ladies and gentlemen, with a state law we would have some teeth, because the items would have to be ignited and used on the reservation. Signs could be posted outside the reservation stating it is against Nevada law to ignite any items purchased here or other than safe and sane or whatever regulations are adopted outside of the reservation. To stand and say, “If we cannot do anything about the Indian reservation,” to then put up with that and say, “Well, then, we just don’t care about the safety of our children and our adults. And we don’t care about the fires that are caused to our homes and to our forests and to our lands. We’re just going to put up with that and not do anything.” That is a cowardly way, and one that I will not endure.
We have something that happened on September 11, 2001. Especially after 2001, I think that it is even more appalling that our state does not have a state law regulating items that are dangerous and that explode. In some of your backup material that I presented, you see a picture of a little boy in Las Vegas who suffered burns over the entire top half of his body (Exhibit D). These were caused because he and his friends got into a trailer that had some fireworks in it. That was a tragedy that should not have occurred. Will this accident not occur ever again just because we have a state law? Well, hopefully it would not. But at least there would be regulations stating certain kinds of fireworks are okay for use, certain kinds of fireworks are not okay for use. This is just one example of children that have been hurt.
I also have some statistics from the City of Henderson, Clark County, and the City of North Las Vegas and various fires that have occurred there (Exhibit E). But this, ladies and gentlemen, are not all of the fires that have occurred. What is not stated here is the Peavine Ridge fire that happened a few years ago that caused $700,000 [of damage]. With a state law, the people that caused the fire at Peavine Ridge, people that cause the other fires that are stated here, would hopefully have to pay for the costs that they have caused. But without a state law, we have no teeth. We have no uniformity. People are not made to pay for the injury and for the fires that they cause.
If you look at the bottom of the page for North Las Vegas, you see that in 2001, 250 pounds of illegal fireworks were confiscated and destroyed. The people should have had to pay for that cost, but without a law they do not have to pay for that. Who incurs the costs? Our cities and counties. They should not have to endure that cost. In 2002, approximately 3,700 pounds of fireworks were confiscated.
If you live in Las Vegas, I think that you realize and you know that our Fourth of July has become a holiday that, for most people, is not able to be enjoyed as we would like, because people are afraid to leave their homes because of all of the skyrockets and everything that are going off. It almost looks like a war that is occurring. It has gotten worse and worse. For these reasons, I ask you to please take a stand for public safety, for our citizens of our state. Let the people have their voice, and let them say how they feel. Should it be, or should it not be? I believe that the people will say “yes.” And with that, I will answer any questions. There are other experts here that far better versed in the intricacies of fireworks and fire safety than I.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Assemblywoman Chowning. Are there questions from the Committee? I think you mentioned that we have passed it out of this House several times, not as an advisory question, but as an actual legal restriction. Unfortunately, we could not get action on the Senate side. To me it makes sense to at least allow the voters to have that opportunity. I know that one constituent that you had spoken with many times will be thrilled to see this part, and that is Ms. Throckmorton.
I just have one question. Should we insert “Class C” so we know which fireworks this is pertaining to? Maybe the fire marshal, when he discusses it, could talk about that. I notice from your backup information he or she already has a right to regulate display or commercial, not consumer [fireworks] (Exhibit F). Maybe we need to make it clearer so they do not think we are opening up the door on the other issue, which he already has jurisdiction for.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the fire marshal can address that. What this does is set in place that the fire marshal would hold hearings throughout the state in order to adopt regulations. Based upon those hearings, and based upon their decision, then they would adopt regulations. The regulations could state that only a certain amount of fireworks would be able to be allowed for sale. Naturally, any county could adopt their own ordinances to be more restrictive.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
The intent was county by county. What if it passed in 15 counties and not in 2 of them? Would he or she then develop regulations because of the overwhelming number? Or would it be by total population? What is your thought on that part?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
The State of California has a statewide law. The State of Utah has a statewide law that is regulated by the state Fire Marshal.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So you would not worry about county by county. If it passed, then he or she would have the right to develop the regulations.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Correct. But each county would then have their own control.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
They could then adopt ordinances or regulations based on what the fire marshal did on how to implement them.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
And they could be more restrictive then. For instance, the situation we have now where one county allows something that is a danger and is illegal in a neighboring county, that type of thing would not be able to be, because there would be a uniform standard.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. I see no further questions. With everybody’s indulgence, we will go to Mr. Taylor. Please just state your name for record, and go ahead and proceed with your testimony.
Edward Taylor, Citizen, Las Vegas:
Thank you very much. My name is Edward Taylor, and I am a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, Clark County. I thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. I have supported Vonne Chowning for years in her quest to ban illegal fireworks in Clark County. And my neighborhood, in particular, which is an upper middle class neighborhood, appears to be a war zone every year. I am one of those persons who does not want to leave my house. In fact, I have spent a couple of Fourth of Julys up on my roof with a water hose in the event that some lunatic started my property or my home on fire.
I would like to say I have lived here for 22 years, and I am appalled that some juvenile, or some adult with a juvenile mentality, can cause extensive damage to my property, or anyone else’s property, while carelessly and knowingly using illegal fireworks. What is even more appalling and unbelievable is this illegal behavior is considered a misdemeanor. Some scofflaw can cause thousands of dollars in damage and be simply charged with a misdemeanor. What is more frustrating is our Metro Police Department’s stance on this issue. They want you or myself to physically ID the offender, which leaves you or myself open for reprisals toward your home, your vehicle, your pets, and your property. It is outrageous. I hope with all my heart that this legislation that you have before you can be put on the ballot. Then, and perhaps finally then, homeowners in Las Vegas and Clark County and their families, pets, and property can be kept safe from irresponsible idiots who have caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage over the years I have resided here. Please, please, please get this on the ballot. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor from the members of the Committee? There are none. Thank you for your testimony.
Edward Taylor:
Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You are welcome to listen in longer, if you would like. Thank you.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
We have the Deputy Chief Fire Marshal in attendance, and some others who probably want to come forward, Madam Chair, with your indulgence.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
If they would come in a group of two or three they are more than welcome.
Dave Bowman, Assistant State Fire Marshal:
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Committee, Assemblywoman Chowning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Dave Bowman, the Assistant State Fire Marshal. The Division of State Fire Marshals supports A.B. 328 and believes it is proper to let the people of the state of Nevada decide if the sale and use of fireworks should be regulated statewide.
According to the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), in 1998 there were an estimated 21,700 fires involving fireworks as reported to fire departments. Many more were not reported. There was actually $15.6 million in direct property damage as a result of these fires. Fireworks-related fires have typically caused at least $20 million in property loss each year in the past decades. On a typical Fourth of July, fireworks cause more fires in the United States than all other causes combined. But because most people encounter the risk of fireworks only once a year, most Americans do not realize how great the risk is. The NFPA also reports that the number of injuries associated with the amateur use of fireworks continues to rise. In the year 2000, fireworks injuries reported to hospital emergency rooms rose more than 29 percent from 1999, to 8,500 injuries. Without discussing further details, the figures underscore the fact that the risk of fireworks used measured as a rate of serious injuries per hour of exposure ranks with the highest risks of any known product. Meantime, injuries associated with public displays remain low, indicating that fireworks are best handled by professionals whose shows are spectacular but safe.
The State Fire Marshal’s Office currently regulates display or commercial fireworks, also known as 1.3 fireworks, and storage, but it specifically exempts fireworks designated as “consumer,” the old Class C fireworks, or 1.4G fireworks, except for storage. If tasked with the development of regulation, as Assemblywoman Chowning mentioned, the Fire Marshal’s office would be tasked with holding public hearings to determine the extent of regulation. In short, we support the ballot question that would allow the voter to decide if the State Fire Marshal’s Office should adopt regulations to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in all counties of this state. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Prepared statement (Exhibit G)]
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Mr. Bowman. Are there any questions? Thank you for your testimony.
Rusty McAllister, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Introduced himself] Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada represents approximately 2,000 firefighters throughout the state of Nevada. We are also in support of this legislation. It is our belief that anything that we can do at the legislative level to reduce the amount of damage and injuries that are caused by fireworks-related fires is a good thing, not only for the public, but also for the firefighters themselves. As you can see by the numbers that have been thrown out as far as numbers and responses, on a normal Fourth of July we are putting our fire engines on the street approximately 700 times a day, just for fireworks-related calls. That is a lot of time for fire engines that are 20,000-pound vehicles going red lights and siren up and down the streets. It puts the public at danger, and it puts firefighters at risk. Anything we can do to reduce those numbers is a good thing, not only for ourselves, but also for the public. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Are there any questions from the Committee? Thank you very much for your testimony.
Steve Robinson, State Forester-Firewarden:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Steve Robinson with [the Division of] Forestry. The reason for my being here today, and my piece of this is in the overall wildfire area and in our fire protection districts across the state. As you may know, fireworks are prohibited in the fire protection districts that the state manages along the Sierra, down at Mount Charleston, and out in Elko and White Pine County. Prohibited. Federal lands, federal land managers, Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also prohibit on their lands.
I guess I would ask you to consider in addition to the injuries involved and the hazards we are putting our firefighters before, I would have you consider the confusion across the state with these multiple jurisdictions—the feds, the states, and the locals. We really are confusing our people. Enforcement is, frankly, a nightmare with the supply of fireworks coming from all different kinds of sources. It looks as if this could address that issue and come up with some consistency, not only for our firefighters, but also for our citizens. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Are there questions from the Committee? Thanks for reminding me, because I know that at Mount Charleston we had the ban, but we were always worried that somebody would come up from town and not realize that that was there.
Karen Coyne, City of Las Vegas:
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Committee members. [Introduced herself] I am with the City of Las Vegas. The mission of the Las Vegas Fire and Rescue is to promote community safety by protecting life, preventing loss, and providing support and relief to those in need. We are constantly and consistently striving for a safer community. Based on these beliefs, we express our support for A.B. 328 and welcome a standardized rule for the sale, use, and enforcement of fireworks. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much. I see no questions. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify either for or against A.B. 328? Seeing none, we will close the hearing, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 293. Thank you.
Assembly Bill 293: Revises provisions relating to appointment of committees to prepare arguments advocating and opposing certain ballot questions. (BDR 24-312)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District No. 42, Clark County:
Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, A.B. 293 does one simple thing. We passed a bill a couple of sessions ago which [stipulates that] when a question or a referendum appears on a ballot in county or local governments, the clerk, who actually is the registrar of voters by definition, will collect people who are interested in writing the answers to questions that the ballot asks. Madam Chairman, I forgot to identify myself. I am Harry Mortenson, Assemblyman for District 42.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. I knew you would get there.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
There are two committees appointed. One is for people who are for the bill, and the second committee is people who are known to be against the bill. It has worked out very nicely in writing the ballot questions many times in Clark County. I am very happy with the way it has occurred. Inadvertently, we left out school districts and perhaps some other entities that have not appeared yet to put questions on the ballot. This bill simply adds other entities that may have been left out, one of which is school districts.
I learned about this because there was a ballot for the school district in Reno. There were several people who wanted to be on the committees, and they were advised that the committees did not apply for school districts. I am wondering whether Mr. Lomax and Mr. Burk are here. Madam Chair, if they could come up.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
They both did sign in. Remind me, Mr. Mortenson. So it really only applied to county, or county and cities. What would be a quasi-public corporation?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The older bill applied to any question that the county commissioners or city council or clerks put on the ballot, and it excluded anyone else.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay. And my good chairman from Judiciary told me that quasi meant things like water districts. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Lomax.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters:
Larry Lomax, Registrar in Clark County. I talked with Mr. Mortenson last week about this bill, because we were trying to make sure we understood what the goal was and what we were trying to achieve. There is this bill, and there are two bills which are going to come before this Committee subsequently, A.B. 528 and A.B. 436, which also address statewide ballot questions and ballot question committees. One is statewide, and another is focusing on this issue here.
As Mr. Mortenson just made clear, what he is really interested in is capturing some of the districts where it was unclear to us whether or not we were supposed to appoint committees. In Clark County, the way we had interpreted it—and I think Dan [Burk] did it the same way—was if it was a countywide, then we were in charge of appointees. If it was smaller than that, as is evidenced right now by the Clark County/Las Vegas Library District question about to go on the ballot, we did not get involved in appointing committees to write their arguments for and against. They prepared the arguments however they did. The issue becomes what size jurisdiction are we interested in, and I think that is what the Committee needs to focus on.
The way this bill is currently written, according to my district attorney, every question in Clark County would now require a committee, whether it was the Moapa 911 question or the Sandy Valley question. That is not Mr. Mortenson’s intent. I suggested on the phone last week that perhaps we could limit it to jurisdictions, or whatever all the proper legal terminology is, where there are 60,000 people or more, which is the same limit that currently applies to cities. The law now applies to cities of 60,000 or greater, so there would be some consistency there. I am not stuck on 60,000. It just seemed like a logical place to start. Then it would make it clear to us when we get involved and when we do not get involved.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Let us say, for example, it was 60,000 and the Library Board. Does that go countywide, or just certain jurisdictions that are affected by the taxing part of it?
Larry Lomax:
For Clark County, I am looking at the number of voters. I suppose I would have to look at the population of the district rather than the voters. For instance, the Clark County Library District would apply. The Henderson Library District would apply. The Boulder City Library District would not apply. It would just depend on the population within the district. The one thing you may want to consider there, the way this is written, is that the Clark County Commissioners would be appointing the committees to write the arguments for and against the Henderson Library District question. Or perhaps the North Las Vegas Library District question if they have got enough people. It may be more proper to have the governing body of that jurisdiction, if that is the proper terminology. Maybe the Henderson City Council ought to be grappling with appointing that committee as opposed to the commissioners. I have talked to my commissioners, and they will go any way you want, but they are not really interested in getting involved.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
And Mr. Mortenson, you would be willing to take a look at something like that that allows for the governing body within that population cap being the one that has the jurisdiction?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Yes, absolutely, Madam Chairman. We discussed this, and we are totally in agreement.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Mr. Burk.
Dan Burk, Registrar of Voters for Washoe County:
[Introduced himself] I pretty much support what Mr. Lomax has been saying. We just want to bring to the floor the fact that, as in the case of Washoe County in 2002, we had 9 separate issues on the ballot placed there by the county, 21 or 22 in all. For those 9, we had to appoint 54 people to serve on committees, which was a difficult task in itself. We had to write 18 arguments for and against, and another 18 rebuttals for and against. The process has gotten itself to the point where we spend an inordinate amount of time working on these committees when we are in the middle of administering an election. And by that, I do not mean to say that we do not support the idea of informing the voters in this manner. We do very much. We support this bill, but along with the idea that the local jurisdiction would be responsible. It would fall into the category, whatever the minimum number is. In our case, I believe we only have the school district that would be covered, because we already have our two incorporated cities covering, and of course the county. We would very much support it, but we would like to see the local jurisdiction be responsible for appointing and overseeing the operation of the committee. They certainly know the players better than we do.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Could we say, “local jurisdiction initiating” that, because sometimes they actually come directly from those jurisdictions. Okay, we will take a look at playing with that language. And you are okay with the 60,000 in population, not registered voters? [Mr. Burk said he was.]
Assemblywoman McClain:
That was the question I was going to ask. I know we have trouble getting people to serve on these committees sometimes. How bad is it, normally?
Larry Lomax:
It depends upon the question. That is the only time so far I have been able to keep my name up on the front page of the newspaper. I have been accused of biasing the committee or not working hard enough to get enough people on the committee. We run advertisements for two weeks in the RJ [Las Vegas Review-Journal]. We run through all the contacts we have of people and agencies that might be interested in writing these arguments. It still is difficult. As Dan [Burk] pointed out, this takes up more of my time every election than anything else we do.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I had to help him find somebody last time. What is the number that has to be on the committee?
Larry Lomax:
What we try to do is get three to write the argument for, three against. The last allows us to only have one, but if you only have one, you are going to get hammered in the newspaper that you only have one. We have had individuals, such as Carol Vilardo, who have volunteered to write either side of the question just as a community service. I got crucified for that. Realistically, you have to find three for and three against. It has worked. I think it is a lot better than it was before. We will make it work. I am not sure we always get the quality of argument we might get if we could get better volunteers. If there is a way all of you could help us get volunteers, that would be great.
Assemblywoman McClain:
Maybe something we could look at is streamlining that process somehow. Maybe you need people that have the knowledge and can write the for and against on a whole set of ballot questions or something.
Dan Burk:
That is the way it is done in many jurisdictions in the United States, California in particular. Many counties use a system whereby they hire individuals who serve in the capacity of writing the questions for and against. Ours was set up, basically, on the model of having arguments for and against that appear on our sample ballots. It would not be a bad idea. As the law now exists, it specifically says that the individuals are known to hold a particular position. That is where Larry [Lomax] and I get in trouble. As to Ms. McClain’s question, right now we have a question coming up for the Sparks municipal general election in June, an important question having to do with a bond for our fire department support, and they have been unable to find anybody to write against it. I have seen [this situation] in 2000 as far as our parks and library bonds, and it is a very difficult thing. It is hard to find people who want to serve and are willing to do it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I guess we could always say no one volunteered to write an argument against. I think the attempt should be made. Maybe it is those who make themselves known to you, rather than you have to go and find out who might be interested in an area, but then maybe allow for you to create a pool of individuals who are activists or interested in varieties of areas. I do not see that language in the bill currently. Maybe we should just think about that before we move this forward for work session.
Assemblywoman McClain:
Maybe you could establish a pool of people that were nonpartisan or nonbiased, like our LCB staff.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We would welcome any ideas on how to make it easier, because you are right. Some issues just are not that jazzy, and you probably have difficulty getting people. And other people just believe in it, and you do not have any opposition, and you are kind of stuck in that case then, too. Maybe we could come up with some fallback ideas. Thank you, gentlemen.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. Since you have heard essentially the same issue before, I know that you will not need a lengthy dissertation. I am Lucille Lusk with Nevada Concerned Citizens. I do just want to express our strong support for A.B. 293. What it does is assure that the real arguments on both sides of an issue will be heard. Even though there may be no ill intent, when the same person or the same body writes both sides of an argument, it may be that they are genuinely unable to see the point of view of the other side.
Having people who have an opinion write these is very important. I would argue that it is better to find those individuals than to utilize a pool of so-called experts, because they too will have their own opinions, but they may not be on one or the other side of that issue. In listening to the discussion, it did occur to me that perhaps you could consider a requirement that a certain amount of due diligence be done to find individuals. When certain actions have been taken, if no one has come forward, have a fallback position that the body could go ahead and write those arguments. There would need to be some careful requirements so that that due diligence was done.
I would indicate, too, that I believe as time passes and people become more aware of these committees, that people will readily step forward and make themselves available for it. Once someone has come forward to write a position, perhaps their name could be kept on a list to contact for future issues to see if there was an interest there. Maybe send them a postcard saying they were setting committees up and asking them if there were any questions they would be interested in. Of course, the concern as more ballot questions are put on the ballots—as was mentioned that there were nine—does create a burdensome task for the voter registrars and the county clerks. At the same time, the more ballot questions there are, the more the people need the arguments laid out before them in as clear a fashion as possible. I suppose like everything else, there are the arguments on both sides of that issue.
It was not entirely clear to me from reading the bill what entities were covered. If I have understood the discussion up to this point correctly, there may be some amendments needed to make clear just what is covered and who is responsible for finding those committees. We would be very supportive of whatever it takes to streamline that a little bit. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Lucille, I know we discussed this earlier in the session. Do you recall which bill we were actually looking at that had some conversation about this? Or were we just talking in anticipation?
Lucille Lusk:
In anticipation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay. Thank you.
Lucille Lusk:
But there are a couple of others coming.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Okay. Thank you very much. Janine, I think you are the last person I had signed in on this.
Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Janine Hansen. I am the state President of Nevada Eagle Forum, and we are enthusiastically in support of Mr. Mortenson’s bill. I had the opportunity this last election period to serve on one of these committees, and it was quite an experience. I really appreciated the opportunity. The local government in Washoe County was in favor of the issue on the ballot, and so it was one of the only opportunities with few resources to be able to present the other side. We did win in that particular issue, about 58 percent on the ballot, and felt that a lot of that was due to the fact that we had good arguments on the ballot, which we were able to provide.
This is a particularly sensitive issue to me, because years ago there was an issue on the ballot that the Secretary of State placed there. The issue on the ballot was so construed. Both the “for” argument and the “against” argument were both for it. We had to sue and go to the Supreme Court in the state of Nevada and get that changed. It is important to have balanced points of view, have true people being for and against on a particular ballot issue. School district issues are very important to be on there, so I am glad that that is being placed into this. I do think, as Lucille [Lusk] said, as more people become aware of these—for instance, I heard them talking. They did not have anybody. Had they called me up on the phone and asked me if I knew anybody, I could probably have told them someone. I only found out about the other committee because somebody called me. I was so busy with other things, I would not have applied, and I just made the opportunity. I think if we could increase awareness, more people will be interested in serving on these committees. I do hope ultimately we will be able to extend these committees to ballot issues on the statewide ballot as well. I think that would be a very positive thing to do. I want to thank Mr. Mortenson for doggedly pursuing this for so many sessions, and I am very happy with the results that we have experienced. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It is nice to know when you did something right. Thank you for your comments. I have Richard Wilkie and Kimberly McDonald. Did you just want us to note for the record that you are in support? Okay. From Henderson and North Las Vegas. I had no one else signed in. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on this bill? Seeing none, we will close the hearing on A.B. 293 and open the hearing on A.B. 410. Thank you, Assemblyman Mortenson.
Assembly Bill 410: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-945)
Assemblyman Rod Sherer, District No. 36, Churchill, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye Counties:
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I am Rod Sherer, representing Assembly District 36, which is Churchill Park, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye. A.B. 410 is submitted to help the Nye County Clerk in taking care of quite a few different issues, like problems with P.O. boxes. What an open thing. When you look at it, in rural areas, we do not have a lot of them that have addresses. You are looking at an address that is on their deed as “two lots down from the bar,” or just says “Crystal, Nevada.” So it is not an address. We have a problem with that. We also have a situation with the “snowbirds.” We have quite a few snowbirds that come in, and we have mail forwarding businesses that actually forward that mail. So there is another issue that A.B. 410 is going to take care of.
I would like to totally get rid of Section 3. I was unable to have some amendments, and it did not come out of drafting exactly how we wanted it. In Section 5, [subsection] 4(e), (f), (g), and (h) deals with the application on registering to vote if you state on the application that you forfeit your rights to vote in the previous state. That way, as the snowbirds come in to register, they realize—I do not want to say this on the record, but basically some of them have been voting in two states. They can vote in the state they were in and here, so we need to correct that issue.
I had a conversation with the Secretary of State on statewide voter registration, due to Congress mandating what they call the HAVA act (Help America Vote Act). This will help us fix the problems in voting in rural areas, being able to register to vote correctly. Hopefully, that will take care of that, and we will not have to put in A.B. 410. If that does not come out correctly, I would like to be able to keep A.B. 410 and use it to fix our situation so that it is taken care of. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Are there questions from the Committee? There are P.O. boxes all over the place. It was actually Eileen Brookman who put in the first law that said you could not register to vote at a P.O. box. As a candidate, you cannot have a P.O. box as your address, so at least your public knows how to contact you. There can be abuses, and we all followed the news in Nye County with that situation. Unfortunately, it has probably existed in a variety of situations, so they should not be singled out as far as that is concerned.
Assemblyman Sherer:
I just hope that this will clear up so that we do not have to get the FBI again. Sandra [Merlino] does a great job up there. What an issue. It is challenged all the time.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Have they issued any kind of a report yet from the FBI on the investigation to your knowledge?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Not that I know of. I know they finally gave us back voting [reports] from two years ago, but they still have this year’s.
Assemblyman Beers:
For the Committee’s information, my parents, upon their retirement, got an RV and started making some extended trips. They exposed me to the rather large community of what they call “full-timers.” These are people who do not really have a home except for their RVs. In fact, I see some bit of economic development available for Nye County if we can come up with a way to let these people vote. They are from 50 states, aching for some place to be registered at, so much so that some of them, in fact, have registered P.O. boxes in Nye County. And we have to find some way to capture them. They are good folk. They need a place to vote from.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Mr. Sherer and I talked about this. I do not think that was his intent. We need to wrap our arms somehow against abuses, but not put a chilling effect. I think that the forfeiting of residency is a taxation issue in some places. If you give up that residency, you impair that part of it, too. So we have to be careful on the balance part. I know that the Secretary of State’s bill that we just got, HAVA, refers a little bit to some of it, but not as in depth. I asked him to continue to at least keep this bill out here. If we are not able to land on some language, at least we can do something within the Committee, or we still have some options there.
Are there any further questions or comments from the Committee? Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it.
Larry Lomax:
I will be brief. If they are going to delete Section 3, that was most of my issue there. So if that is gone, then I do not need to address that. In Section 4, I do not know if you can legislate intent. I have talked to my district attorney. If you are not going to prosecute anybody because they say they “intend” to live here, then do not. That has to be based on fact, so I do not know if that change is really going to amount to much.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I know. I took me three sessions to define “your residency.” We finally adopted the Black’s Law, which states it is a place you choose to lay your head. You cannot restrict how many places a person may own, but they have to choose one. I understand that debate.
Larry Lomax:
I would ask only that all those additional paragraphs that were supposed to be added on to the voter registration form that we really consider this carefully if we ever get to this point. That form is vague, and it is as full of stuff as it can possibly be right now, and we are going to have to turn it into a small book to add all of this on there. It already says it is a felony to register in more than one place, so I do not know if we need all of this stuff. Those are my only comments.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Larry. I do not see anyone having any question other than some comments.
Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union, Nevada:
[Introduced self] I came basically to address Section 4, which I guess is still open. We are very concerned about the addition of the idea of an intent to remain, and we are also concerned about the “actually resided in the state.” The “actually resided in the state” suggested to me that we were going to use a kind of divorce test where somebody would testify that you have not; at least, that is the way we used to do it in Nevada. When I first came to Reno, somebody would have to testify in a divorce case that you have actually resided every single day. I guess Nevada wanted the economic benefit of people having come here and stayed here. The “actually resided” language, if it were interpreted literally, would suggest that we are using that kind of test. I do understand that if we are going to say 30 days we mean 30 days. But it should not mean that somebody could not go out of the state, which is what divorce used to mean, or what you had to do to get a divorce in Nevada. You could not go out of the state for the period of time that it would be.
We also are concerned with “intent to remain.” We do not see that as something that should be a restraint on this most important of all constitutional rights. One of my colleagues said, “Well, somebody is living in the state of Nevada.” They might have been living here five years, and at the time that they register to vote, or they do vote, they may be looking for a job, and they may really want to get a job in California or Arizona. They may not have a real intent to stay in Nevada, but if they could get a job where they want to get, but they are in Nevada. That, to us, says, as I think the Chairman suggested, “where you put your head at night.” You choose one place and that is it, whether you have that intent or not. We hope that you would strike Section 4, number 1, altogether. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Did you mean Section 3, number 1, if a new residence, the 30-day issue?
Richard Siegel:
I am looking at Section 4, where it says, “with an intent to remain as continually and actually resided in the state.”
Assemblyman Anderson:
Dr. Siegel, then would we be concerned about college or high school students who will be registering, who do not plan on staying in the state, or planning on going out of state for college? They would not be eligible if they would be joining the military if we left that language in?
Richard Siegel:
That might be one of the concerns.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Military personnel?
Richard Siegel:
Yes. “I do not intend to return because I might be going into the military.” This has been a pretty amorphous thing. My mother, I know, has changed her voting residence between Florida and New York many times. People do it for various kinds of reasons. But yes, there could be many reasons why the intent to remain is something that could become problematic. I will just say that.
Assemblyman Anderson:
That is kind of strange to me. Any idea of why it was included? Okay.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Ms. Hansen.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
Many of my concerns were in Section 3, which have been removed, although I have a couple of other questions to pose for the Committee. I am wondering, if Section 3 is deleted, if that means that the portion of the bill that is supposed to be repealed is not being repealed. I am assuming that Section 3 was taking the place of the portion that is repealed, so I just wanted to draw that to your attention.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It looks like it.
Janine Hansen:
I just have a question that I do not know the answer to. Section 4 talks about a person who resided in the state in the county for 30 days. That does not comply with the constitutional requirement in Article II of the Nevada Constitution, Section 1. I am wondering if there is a court case or something else that changes that, because the Nevada Constitution requires that someone live in the state six months, and in the district or county for 30 days preceding an election. So I am wondering why the state law does not conform to the Constitution if there has been a court case or something else, which I do not know about.
I wanted to mention in Article II, Section 2, of the Nevada Constitution—Mr. Anderson might be interested in this—that you do not lose your residence if, for instance, you are in the United States military. And one of the other things is while you are a student. So that protects students from not losing their residence in the Nevada Constitution right there in Article II, Section 2, to answer that question.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We will double-check that. It seems to me there was a Supreme Court case that struck this down once.
Janine Hansen:
It seems to me that that was what it was, and I am just wondering if we should not put our Constitution in conformance or leave it as it is. I guess we could just leave it that way, but when we were talking the other day about the qualifications for an elector, we looked at the electors as identified here, and that might be an issue.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
There is no footnote; you are correct. So if nothing else, it ought to reflect a case or something along those lines. We will look into that. Thanks, Janine.
Larry Lomax:
I do not know the name of a court case. There was a court case that did say that the 6 months is illegal, so they went to 30 days. Then the people in Nevada put that on the ballot to vote on it to change the Constitution, but they voted it down. So the Constitution still says 6 months, but the law says 30 days.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
And we will check why we do not have a footnote or something in there so that if someone picks up the Constitution—like we do with our AG opinions and our statutes. That might make some good sense. Ms. Parker, did you have any comments? Okay, you are just here to observe.
Do we have anyone else who wished to testify on A.B. 410? Seeing none, we will close the hearing. You did well. I could have booked another bill. We have, I think, three bills for Thursday as well. Hopefully, we will move along. I have scheduled bills through April 8. If we can forward that way and handle work sessions as we go along, that just gives us one extra day as backup in case anything else gets bogged down. Hopefully, I will not overwork you, but I think with our Committee we will be lucky even though we picked up about 20‑some-odd bills in the last couple of days.
Assemblyman Parks has made a request. He had had a request for a bill draft for a homeless awareness day, and it dropped in the drafting and therefore missed the deadlines. I have been asked to see if the Committee would indulge us to make a motion to request that as a resolution.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO REQUEST A RESOLUTION FOR A HOMELESS AWARENESS DAY.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kelly Fisher
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: